Citizen
12-16-2009, 03:25 AM
http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=205
The great secret to the “Global Warming Debate,” the underlying current that no one in the mainstream seems willing to discuss openly, is the fact it is not really a debate about the environment; it is actually a catalyst, a symbolic fight over a mountain of social conflicts that have existed for generations. The battle over Global Warming is a mechanism by which our culture is divided into mostly superficial and contrived political and social stances. Republican vs. Democrat, Science vs. Religion, Anti-Corporate vs. Free Market, Hippie vs. Redneck, Vegetarian vs. Carnivore; Global Warming is a great farce comprised of many smaller farces.
The actual scientific debate over the legitimacy of “man-made” Global Warming has for the most part already ended. Man’s influence over the climate is negligible at best, and this has been proven by scientific fundamentals that advocates of the Global Warming theory seem to either ignore completely, or attack blindly and violently without regard for reason. Scientists working with the IPCC have even been caught red handed manipulating source data in order to give the general public the false impression that man-made Global Warming is real.
First, let’s examine the science behind Global Warming, and why the perspective forced by UN supported scientists is false…
The Science Does Not Support The Theory:
First off, let’s be clear… man-made Global Warming is a theory. It is not proven to exist, nor is it likely to be. The MSM treats Anthropogenic Global Warming as a fact of life mathematically proven and socially accepted but this is far from the truth. The idea that man, through “carbon pollution,” is causing the earth to get warmer, is completely unsupported. Let’s look at the facts:
There Is No Consensus On Global Warming:
The claim that there is any kind of consensus among scientists or the general public is laughable. The U.N.’s purported “consensus” comes from a group of 600 scientists across the world, less than one percent of the scientific population, and most of which are not even involved in core research. Some of these scientists are no longer supporting the IPCC’s findings, and some had no idea they were being labeled as supporters in the first place. The rest of them draw all their conclusions from data handed to them by the IPCC and the Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which we will discuss later.
In 2008, over 31,000 scientists signed a petition in opposition to the IPCC and their findings on Global Warming:
http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-si...lobal-warming/
Even more importantly, over 650 scientists who are former and current members of the IPCC have also spoken out against the Global Warming hoax:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...0-274616DB87E6
Many of the IPCC’s own people don’t even buy the hype!
According to recent polls, 57% of Americans believe the Earth is actually warming, and only 36% believe that warming is caused by human activity:
http://news.aol.com/article/pew-poll...-global/731614
This is a sharp drop from only a couple of years ago. More honest information is now available to the public, and with it, the supposed “consensus” over Global Warming has waned.
The Earth Is Cooling, Not Warming:
Global Warming scientists are well aware that the Earth has been cooling over the past decade at least, which is why they recently changed the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” in order to cover their tracks. Data shows that the Earth is currently in a cooling cycle and the polar ice caps have actually been expanding:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article...g30_cover.html
http://newsmax.com/Headline/global-w...4/24/id/323514
If an increase in carbon output by man causes warming, then why is the earth getting cooler? Globalist funded environmental groups like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have attempted to flank this point by claiming that carbon also causes dramatic cooling trends, quite an interesting switch. It seems CO2 is so insidious that it is capable of causing almost any climate shift at any time:
http://news.smh.com.au/national/big-...0901-46yx.html
The Earth Has Been Warmer In The Past Than It Is Today:
During the Medieval Warming Period, which lasted from 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D., overall Earth temperatures were as warm as or even warmer than they are today, even though the carbon content of the atmosphere was 25% less than it is now. Even the NOAA, an often biased government agency, admits to the existence of the Medieval Warming Period:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html
Below is the warming trend graph from the NOAA.
The IPCC’s response to this? First, they attempted to shrug off the event as an “anomaly” and claimed it was only limited to Northern Europe, but five centuries of warming without a major carbon increase is a fact that they could not ignore without extensive data proving that the warming period was some kind of “blip” in the overall trend. The source data for this theory has yet to be produced.
Instead of conducting honest experiments open to the public to understand how the Medieval Warming Period occurred, they instead adopted a graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts. This graph ERASED the existence of the Medieval Warming Period altogether, and is now infamously known as “The Hockey Stick”:
The Hockey Stick Graph is a perfect example of how scientific data can be manipulated to produce any conclusion the scientist wishes given that the public is not allowed to view the exact source data he used to achieve his result. Mann used tree ring samples for assessing past temperatures, then grafted the surface temperature record for the 20th century, ending in 1998, over the tree ring record, to produce the highly dramatic hockey stick effect for his graph.
Below is an interesting email conversation between scientists working with the CRU on the suspicious nature of tree ring data. It was stolen from the CRU database and posted to the web:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/...sation-at.html
The method is absurd for many reasons, and is a blatant rewriting of history. The two data series used; tree rings and surface temperature, have entirely different variables and should never have been grafted together into a single information string.
Regardless of this very serious problem, Mann’s hockey stick graph was adopted as undeniable fact in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. The Global Warming community accepted the graph without question, and didn’t even bother to critique the source data. You can read more about the numerous failings of the Hockey Stick theory here:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
The Medieval Warming Period shows that the Earth warms in cycles, indicating that carbon is not a major factor in global temperature fluctuations, and thus, neither are human beings.
Warming And Cooling Trends Are Caused By The Sun, Not CO2:
Numerous scientists across the globe have found a direct relationship between solar flare activity and radiance to the fluctuations in the Earth’s temperature:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/army-vs-global/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...radiation.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...cientists.html
The IPCC has attempted to derail the findings of these scientists with a very clever trick; Solar activity has been slowly waning they say, since at least the 1970’s, so then why is the Earth still getting warmer instead of cooler?
It’s a straw-man argument based on the same old assumption; the assumption that the Earth is, in fact, getting warmer and their data is viable. Science is not supposed to draw conclusions based on assumptions, and neither should the general public when it comes to Global Warming.
If the IPCC’s data is correct, and the Earth is in fact on a massive warming trend due to carbon, then why have other scientists recently measured a cooling trend? If CO2 is responsible for warming and cooling, then why do the ice caps on Mars melt and refreeze in tandem with the Earth’s?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html
http://www.livescience.com/environme...s_warming.html
Interestingly, Mars and Earth ice caps seem to melt and refreeze as solar flare activity increases and decreases.
The Global Warming Scientists’ response to the Mars issue? “Ice cap melt on mars is caused by dust clouds.”
They give little to no explanation as to how it is possible that many planets, such as Pluto, Mars, and the Earth, somehow all warm and cool at the same time. Such a coincidence occurring is statistically astronomical! Any normal scientist would question whether or not there is a common factor in this equation (the sun), but not those that work for the IPCC. Their drive to ignore all other evidence in favor of the anthropogenic theory is uncanny.
Carbon is not a major component of Mars’ atmosphere, nor actually, is it a major component of the Earth’s atmosphere. CO2 comprises only about 0.28% of all Greenhouse Gases. 95% of greenhouse gases are pure water vapor! The IPCC has attempted to ignore the fact that water vapor has a far greater effect on the warmth of the Earth than CO2, but the numbers speak for themselves:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small– perhaps undetectable– effect on global climate.
Conclusion: man’s carbon “footprint” is minimal, so much so that he could barely begin to imagine warping a climate already driven by the overpowering forces of nature and the sun.
All of this information and more is laid out in the excellent documentary film “The Man-Made Global Warming Hoax.” You can watch it in its entirety here:
http://neithercorp.us/media
Global Warming scientists continue to state that there is no validity whatsoever to these arguments, but wait a minute… what evidence does the IPCC have that makes them so sure of themselves?
Without Source Data, Climate Research Is Meaningless
All Global Warming advocates draw their information from the same very small pool of sources. Only three groups produce the main body of this data; the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), the NOAA, and NASA. These three groups also tend to draw on and share each others data to produce conclusions on climate change theory, which the IPCC then adopts as fact. Only a handful of scientists therefore determine what you see and hear when it comes to scientific study on Global Warming, thus, only a handful of scientists determine the mainstream “truth” of global warming.
This would not be so terrible if those same scientists made their source data available for public scrutiny and review by other scientists. However, all three organizations have avoided releasing any source data to the public. NASA and the CRU especially, have done everything in their power to deny FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests, and refuse to disclose how their scientific results are achieved.
What this means is, the CRU conducts experiments to determine if anthropogenic Global Warming exists, then, they release the results of those experiments without showing how they came to their conclusions (something that my high school Trigonometry teacher would never let me get away with). Thus, no one outside the CRU can check to see if their conclusions are correct. Essentially, the CRU expects you to have faith that they are telling you the truth. This is NOT how science works.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...e-data//print/
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/
If the CRU claims they have a rainbow-colored crocodile in their Jacuzzi, do you take their word for it as an infallible natural fact, or do you ask to see the scaly beast?
Without the source data for their experiments, nothing climate scientists say about global warming is viable, or even relevant. Without the source data, all conclusions are simply CRU opinions, and why would we care at all to hear that nonsense? Show me the source data!
But where is the source data? Apparently, NASA refuses to reveal it, while the CRU claims they “accidentally” threw it all away!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece
So, what this means is, all climate legislation, all carbon taxes, all greenhouse emissions limits, all of it, will be based on conclusions by a small group of scientists who threw away all the data they say proves the existence of Global Warming. How is this possible? The answers have been revealed by the Climate-Gate emails.
Climate-Gate; CRU Fraud Exposed
Last month, hackers (now suspected to be inside whistle-blowers) stole and posted onto the internet thousands of emails and other documents from the CRU of East Anglia. You can download all of these documents here:
http://neithercorp.us/documents/FOI2009.zip
And, you can see an extensive list of choice quotes taken from the emails here:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/...mmaries-4.html
CRU scientists, including Climate Research Director, Phil Jones, have admitted these documents are legitimate. *Note: Phil Jones was recently forced to step down as the director of the CRU because of these emails.*
Here are some choice quotations from the personal emails of CRU scientists on FOIA requests and deliberate data deletion:
Mike, … Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two [climate skeptics] MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
…
Phil
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
…
Cheers
Phil
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either.
…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person [DAVID HOLLAND – Willis] who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.
Subject: Re: WMO non respondo … Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.… Cheers Phil
“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”
If he [Steven McIntyre] pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.
Thomas R Karl
I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I fee very strongly about these issues.
Here’s a question: why are Phil Jones and other climate scientists so afraid to release their source data? So much so that they would rather destroy it than let other people read it! What are they so frightened of? What would people discover if they were to see the data? If a scientist is so completely sure of his conclusions, why should he be worried about other scientists and the public reviewing how he came to those conclusions? Why isn’t the Media asking these questions, instead of trying to downplay the importance of Climate-Gate? Clearly, the CRU is desperately trying to hide something.
Even more disturbing is the computer model source code found in the Climate-Gate emails, which reveal blatant attempts by CRU scientists to manipulate and falsify data in order to show Global Warming is occurring regardless of what the original data truly says:
[YOUTUBE]sYxk7pnmMFw[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]Gp4sMasX-_8[/YOUTUBE]
The MSM and most Global Warming proponents have completely avoided an in-depth discussion on the CRU’s climate model source code which shows clear manipulation.
A very common argument I hear from climate scientists and others is that regardless of Climate Gate, the “overwhelming data” shows that Global Warming is real and human beings are the cause. Here’s a quote from Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS):
We expect a high degree of scientific integrity by scientists, whether they be in university labs or federal offices. But what may or may not have happened does not change the science - ice sheets are melting, sea level is rising and the top ten hottest years since 1880 include 2001 through 2008.
What Francesca seems to be ignoring is the fact that ALL her conclusions on ice sheets, sea levels, and temperatures, are primarily taken from the information released by the CRU! Climate Gate shows that CRU documentation is highly questionable, not to mention the fact that they deliberately throw out their source data so no one can see it! Does Francesca Grifo or anyone else have information on Global Warming that is backed by legitimate source data? The answer is obviously no, so, how can they so easily disregard Climate-Gate?
The CRU has been caught with their pants down, but some environmentalists and climate scientists seem completely un-phased. How is it that they could be confronted with such overwhelming evidence of fraud yet still roll on as if nothing they think is true could possibly be in question? Let us, for a moment, peer into the mind of a Global Warming “believer”…
Global Warming As Religion
Every human being in the world wants to feel a connection to something greater, to a higher calling. For some, this feeling is fulfilled by religion, for others, it is fulfilled by an opposition to religion. Some people become ensconced in politics, believing they can make a difference through government, while others (like myself) write their insights down for the public to read in the hope that we can somehow bring clarity where there was little before. Environmentalism also provides an outlet for this very deep and gripping desire to “crusade” for a better future, or a wiser species. Environmentalism is far more than just a fight for the protection of ecosystems and air purity; it is an elaborate methodology with its own ceremonies, taboos, and dogma. Environmentalism is a life path, not just a social concern.
Nothing influences this adaptation of environmentalism as a spiritual system more than the Global Warming issue. Global Warming completes the environmentalist religion by concluding the narrative with their own “Doomsday” scenario. Much like the Christian idea of “Armageddon” and the “Rapture,” Global Warming provides environmentalists with a philosophy of “total catastrophe,” a wrath of god scenario without including a god in the mix.
End-time mythologies also tap into man’s collectivist tendencies, making us feel as if the individual must be sacrificed to make the group stronger. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…” We must “become one if we are to divert this horrible fate and save the planet,” etc. However, “groups” rarely achieve anything of promise. It is always those who strive for individuality and freedom from the confines of the group mentality that produce ideas and imaginings that stun the world and progress the whole towards greater understanding. Collectivity has its place, but not at the expense of individualism, only as an underlying component, creating a “Collective of Individuals.” By sacrificing our free spirit for the sake of some imaginary “greater good,” we only sabotage the rest of humanity.
In the mind of a Global Warming believer, they are on a sacred mission, part of a pure accordance to defend the integrity of the Earth itself. They are on a holy war. Whether or not this war is just or even meaningful is immaterial to them. They have unquestioning faith, and they refuse to be swayed.
Of course, faith in one’s self, one’s conscience, and one’s heart, can bring about great and powerful change. But faith in the CRU? That is just laziness and stupidity. Climate scientists are not priests, and they aren’t Gods. Their word is not their bond. They should be required to support their statements and conclusions with verifiable facts and transparent source data, which they have not done.
What many environmentalists must understand is that there are numerous planetary issues that need and deserve sincere attention. There are real environmental problems in the world, Global Warming just isn’t one of them. Adopting the environmentalist life path does not necessarily mean you must accept all of its tenets without question. Far more important than any belief system, any political cause, or any personal desire, is the pursuit of the truth. The truth, no matter where it leads us, takes precedence over all things. It is our greatest gift to have the ability to search out the truth, as well as our most painful task. This mission requires us to question everything, always, until honest discernment can be found. The Global Warming issue is no exception.
The great secret to the “Global Warming Debate,” the underlying current that no one in the mainstream seems willing to discuss openly, is the fact it is not really a debate about the environment; it is actually a catalyst, a symbolic fight over a mountain of social conflicts that have existed for generations. The battle over Global Warming is a mechanism by which our culture is divided into mostly superficial and contrived political and social stances. Republican vs. Democrat, Science vs. Religion, Anti-Corporate vs. Free Market, Hippie vs. Redneck, Vegetarian vs. Carnivore; Global Warming is a great farce comprised of many smaller farces.
The actual scientific debate over the legitimacy of “man-made” Global Warming has for the most part already ended. Man’s influence over the climate is negligible at best, and this has been proven by scientific fundamentals that advocates of the Global Warming theory seem to either ignore completely, or attack blindly and violently without regard for reason. Scientists working with the IPCC have even been caught red handed manipulating source data in order to give the general public the false impression that man-made Global Warming is real.
First, let’s examine the science behind Global Warming, and why the perspective forced by UN supported scientists is false…
The Science Does Not Support The Theory:
First off, let’s be clear… man-made Global Warming is a theory. It is not proven to exist, nor is it likely to be. The MSM treats Anthropogenic Global Warming as a fact of life mathematically proven and socially accepted but this is far from the truth. The idea that man, through “carbon pollution,” is causing the earth to get warmer, is completely unsupported. Let’s look at the facts:
There Is No Consensus On Global Warming:
The claim that there is any kind of consensus among scientists or the general public is laughable. The U.N.’s purported “consensus” comes from a group of 600 scientists across the world, less than one percent of the scientific population, and most of which are not even involved in core research. Some of these scientists are no longer supporting the IPCC’s findings, and some had no idea they were being labeled as supporters in the first place. The rest of them draw all their conclusions from data handed to them by the IPCC and the Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which we will discuss later.
In 2008, over 31,000 scientists signed a petition in opposition to the IPCC and their findings on Global Warming:
http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-si...lobal-warming/
Even more importantly, over 650 scientists who are former and current members of the IPCC have also spoken out against the Global Warming hoax:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...0-274616DB87E6
Many of the IPCC’s own people don’t even buy the hype!
According to recent polls, 57% of Americans believe the Earth is actually warming, and only 36% believe that warming is caused by human activity:
http://news.aol.com/article/pew-poll...-global/731614
This is a sharp drop from only a couple of years ago. More honest information is now available to the public, and with it, the supposed “consensus” over Global Warming has waned.
The Earth Is Cooling, Not Warming:
Global Warming scientists are well aware that the Earth has been cooling over the past decade at least, which is why they recently changed the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” in order to cover their tracks. Data shows that the Earth is currently in a cooling cycle and the polar ice caps have actually been expanding:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article...g30_cover.html
http://newsmax.com/Headline/global-w...4/24/id/323514
If an increase in carbon output by man causes warming, then why is the earth getting cooler? Globalist funded environmental groups like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have attempted to flank this point by claiming that carbon also causes dramatic cooling trends, quite an interesting switch. It seems CO2 is so insidious that it is capable of causing almost any climate shift at any time:
http://news.smh.com.au/national/big-...0901-46yx.html
The Earth Has Been Warmer In The Past Than It Is Today:
During the Medieval Warming Period, which lasted from 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D., overall Earth temperatures were as warm as or even warmer than they are today, even though the carbon content of the atmosphere was 25% less than it is now. Even the NOAA, an often biased government agency, admits to the existence of the Medieval Warming Period:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html
Below is the warming trend graph from the NOAA.
The IPCC’s response to this? First, they attempted to shrug off the event as an “anomaly” and claimed it was only limited to Northern Europe, but five centuries of warming without a major carbon increase is a fact that they could not ignore without extensive data proving that the warming period was some kind of “blip” in the overall trend. The source data for this theory has yet to be produced.
Instead of conducting honest experiments open to the public to understand how the Medieval Warming Period occurred, they instead adopted a graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts. This graph ERASED the existence of the Medieval Warming Period altogether, and is now infamously known as “The Hockey Stick”:
The Hockey Stick Graph is a perfect example of how scientific data can be manipulated to produce any conclusion the scientist wishes given that the public is not allowed to view the exact source data he used to achieve his result. Mann used tree ring samples for assessing past temperatures, then grafted the surface temperature record for the 20th century, ending in 1998, over the tree ring record, to produce the highly dramatic hockey stick effect for his graph.
Below is an interesting email conversation between scientists working with the CRU on the suspicious nature of tree ring data. It was stolen from the CRU database and posted to the web:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/...sation-at.html
The method is absurd for many reasons, and is a blatant rewriting of history. The two data series used; tree rings and surface temperature, have entirely different variables and should never have been grafted together into a single information string.
Regardless of this very serious problem, Mann’s hockey stick graph was adopted as undeniable fact in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. The Global Warming community accepted the graph without question, and didn’t even bother to critique the source data. You can read more about the numerous failings of the Hockey Stick theory here:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
The Medieval Warming Period shows that the Earth warms in cycles, indicating that carbon is not a major factor in global temperature fluctuations, and thus, neither are human beings.
Warming And Cooling Trends Are Caused By The Sun, Not CO2:
Numerous scientists across the globe have found a direct relationship between solar flare activity and radiance to the fluctuations in the Earth’s temperature:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/army-vs-global/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...radiation.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...cientists.html
The IPCC has attempted to derail the findings of these scientists with a very clever trick; Solar activity has been slowly waning they say, since at least the 1970’s, so then why is the Earth still getting warmer instead of cooler?
It’s a straw-man argument based on the same old assumption; the assumption that the Earth is, in fact, getting warmer and their data is viable. Science is not supposed to draw conclusions based on assumptions, and neither should the general public when it comes to Global Warming.
If the IPCC’s data is correct, and the Earth is in fact on a massive warming trend due to carbon, then why have other scientists recently measured a cooling trend? If CO2 is responsible for warming and cooling, then why do the ice caps on Mars melt and refreeze in tandem with the Earth’s?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html
http://www.livescience.com/environme...s_warming.html
Interestingly, Mars and Earth ice caps seem to melt and refreeze as solar flare activity increases and decreases.
The Global Warming Scientists’ response to the Mars issue? “Ice cap melt on mars is caused by dust clouds.”
They give little to no explanation as to how it is possible that many planets, such as Pluto, Mars, and the Earth, somehow all warm and cool at the same time. Such a coincidence occurring is statistically astronomical! Any normal scientist would question whether or not there is a common factor in this equation (the sun), but not those that work for the IPCC. Their drive to ignore all other evidence in favor of the anthropogenic theory is uncanny.
Carbon is not a major component of Mars’ atmosphere, nor actually, is it a major component of the Earth’s atmosphere. CO2 comprises only about 0.28% of all Greenhouse Gases. 95% of greenhouse gases are pure water vapor! The IPCC has attempted to ignore the fact that water vapor has a far greater effect on the warmth of the Earth than CO2, but the numbers speak for themselves:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small– perhaps undetectable– effect on global climate.
Conclusion: man’s carbon “footprint” is minimal, so much so that he could barely begin to imagine warping a climate already driven by the overpowering forces of nature and the sun.
All of this information and more is laid out in the excellent documentary film “The Man-Made Global Warming Hoax.” You can watch it in its entirety here:
http://neithercorp.us/media
Global Warming scientists continue to state that there is no validity whatsoever to these arguments, but wait a minute… what evidence does the IPCC have that makes them so sure of themselves?
Without Source Data, Climate Research Is Meaningless
All Global Warming advocates draw their information from the same very small pool of sources. Only three groups produce the main body of this data; the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), the NOAA, and NASA. These three groups also tend to draw on and share each others data to produce conclusions on climate change theory, which the IPCC then adopts as fact. Only a handful of scientists therefore determine what you see and hear when it comes to scientific study on Global Warming, thus, only a handful of scientists determine the mainstream “truth” of global warming.
This would not be so terrible if those same scientists made their source data available for public scrutiny and review by other scientists. However, all three organizations have avoided releasing any source data to the public. NASA and the CRU especially, have done everything in their power to deny FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests, and refuse to disclose how their scientific results are achieved.
What this means is, the CRU conducts experiments to determine if anthropogenic Global Warming exists, then, they release the results of those experiments without showing how they came to their conclusions (something that my high school Trigonometry teacher would never let me get away with). Thus, no one outside the CRU can check to see if their conclusions are correct. Essentially, the CRU expects you to have faith that they are telling you the truth. This is NOT how science works.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...e-data//print/
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/
If the CRU claims they have a rainbow-colored crocodile in their Jacuzzi, do you take their word for it as an infallible natural fact, or do you ask to see the scaly beast?
Without the source data for their experiments, nothing climate scientists say about global warming is viable, or even relevant. Without the source data, all conclusions are simply CRU opinions, and why would we care at all to hear that nonsense? Show me the source data!
But where is the source data? Apparently, NASA refuses to reveal it, while the CRU claims they “accidentally” threw it all away!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece
So, what this means is, all climate legislation, all carbon taxes, all greenhouse emissions limits, all of it, will be based on conclusions by a small group of scientists who threw away all the data they say proves the existence of Global Warming. How is this possible? The answers have been revealed by the Climate-Gate emails.
Climate-Gate; CRU Fraud Exposed
Last month, hackers (now suspected to be inside whistle-blowers) stole and posted onto the internet thousands of emails and other documents from the CRU of East Anglia. You can download all of these documents here:
http://neithercorp.us/documents/FOI2009.zip
And, you can see an extensive list of choice quotes taken from the emails here:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/...mmaries-4.html
CRU scientists, including Climate Research Director, Phil Jones, have admitted these documents are legitimate. *Note: Phil Jones was recently forced to step down as the director of the CRU because of these emails.*
Here are some choice quotations from the personal emails of CRU scientists on FOIA requests and deliberate data deletion:
Mike, … Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two [climate skeptics] MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
…
Phil
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
…
Cheers
Phil
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either.
…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person [DAVID HOLLAND – Willis] who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.
Subject: Re: WMO non respondo … Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.… Cheers Phil
“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”
If he [Steven McIntyre] pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.
Thomas R Karl
I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I fee very strongly about these issues.
Here’s a question: why are Phil Jones and other climate scientists so afraid to release their source data? So much so that they would rather destroy it than let other people read it! What are they so frightened of? What would people discover if they were to see the data? If a scientist is so completely sure of his conclusions, why should he be worried about other scientists and the public reviewing how he came to those conclusions? Why isn’t the Media asking these questions, instead of trying to downplay the importance of Climate-Gate? Clearly, the CRU is desperately trying to hide something.
Even more disturbing is the computer model source code found in the Climate-Gate emails, which reveal blatant attempts by CRU scientists to manipulate and falsify data in order to show Global Warming is occurring regardless of what the original data truly says:
[YOUTUBE]sYxk7pnmMFw[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]Gp4sMasX-_8[/YOUTUBE]
The MSM and most Global Warming proponents have completely avoided an in-depth discussion on the CRU’s climate model source code which shows clear manipulation.
A very common argument I hear from climate scientists and others is that regardless of Climate Gate, the “overwhelming data” shows that Global Warming is real and human beings are the cause. Here’s a quote from Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS):
We expect a high degree of scientific integrity by scientists, whether they be in university labs or federal offices. But what may or may not have happened does not change the science - ice sheets are melting, sea level is rising and the top ten hottest years since 1880 include 2001 through 2008.
What Francesca seems to be ignoring is the fact that ALL her conclusions on ice sheets, sea levels, and temperatures, are primarily taken from the information released by the CRU! Climate Gate shows that CRU documentation is highly questionable, not to mention the fact that they deliberately throw out their source data so no one can see it! Does Francesca Grifo or anyone else have information on Global Warming that is backed by legitimate source data? The answer is obviously no, so, how can they so easily disregard Climate-Gate?
The CRU has been caught with their pants down, but some environmentalists and climate scientists seem completely un-phased. How is it that they could be confronted with such overwhelming evidence of fraud yet still roll on as if nothing they think is true could possibly be in question? Let us, for a moment, peer into the mind of a Global Warming “believer”…
Global Warming As Religion
Every human being in the world wants to feel a connection to something greater, to a higher calling. For some, this feeling is fulfilled by religion, for others, it is fulfilled by an opposition to religion. Some people become ensconced in politics, believing they can make a difference through government, while others (like myself) write their insights down for the public to read in the hope that we can somehow bring clarity where there was little before. Environmentalism also provides an outlet for this very deep and gripping desire to “crusade” for a better future, or a wiser species. Environmentalism is far more than just a fight for the protection of ecosystems and air purity; it is an elaborate methodology with its own ceremonies, taboos, and dogma. Environmentalism is a life path, not just a social concern.
Nothing influences this adaptation of environmentalism as a spiritual system more than the Global Warming issue. Global Warming completes the environmentalist religion by concluding the narrative with their own “Doomsday” scenario. Much like the Christian idea of “Armageddon” and the “Rapture,” Global Warming provides environmentalists with a philosophy of “total catastrophe,” a wrath of god scenario without including a god in the mix.
End-time mythologies also tap into man’s collectivist tendencies, making us feel as if the individual must be sacrificed to make the group stronger. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…” We must “become one if we are to divert this horrible fate and save the planet,” etc. However, “groups” rarely achieve anything of promise. It is always those who strive for individuality and freedom from the confines of the group mentality that produce ideas and imaginings that stun the world and progress the whole towards greater understanding. Collectivity has its place, but not at the expense of individualism, only as an underlying component, creating a “Collective of Individuals.” By sacrificing our free spirit for the sake of some imaginary “greater good,” we only sabotage the rest of humanity.
In the mind of a Global Warming believer, they are on a sacred mission, part of a pure accordance to defend the integrity of the Earth itself. They are on a holy war. Whether or not this war is just or even meaningful is immaterial to them. They have unquestioning faith, and they refuse to be swayed.
Of course, faith in one’s self, one’s conscience, and one’s heart, can bring about great and powerful change. But faith in the CRU? That is just laziness and stupidity. Climate scientists are not priests, and they aren’t Gods. Their word is not their bond. They should be required to support their statements and conclusions with verifiable facts and transparent source data, which they have not done.
What many environmentalists must understand is that there are numerous planetary issues that need and deserve sincere attention. There are real environmental problems in the world, Global Warming just isn’t one of them. Adopting the environmentalist life path does not necessarily mean you must accept all of its tenets without question. Far more important than any belief system, any political cause, or any personal desire, is the pursuit of the truth. The truth, no matter where it leads us, takes precedence over all things. It is our greatest gift to have the ability to search out the truth, as well as our most painful task. This mission requires us to question everything, always, until honest discernment can be found. The Global Warming issue is no exception.