|
Environmentalist - Their goal is to de-industrialize and de-construct capitalism in the U.S.A. The Green Economy = Hunting and Gathering. |
|
"Feelgood coalitions try to save mankind from something that doesn't exist"
"They call themselves green because they are too yellow to admit they are red . " http://greenwatchamerica.net/Subscribe.aspx
http://greenwatchamerica.net/
http://deweesereport.com/ epa lite bulb doc CO2 = Natures Fertilizer
|
Top scientist resigns from post – admits Global Warming is a scam
As reported by the Gateway Pundit: Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post
at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.
From the Telegraph (because for some reason the Liberal Media here in the U.S don't like this stuff getting out).
The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the
public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower
warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect
of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there
were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation
at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud
of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the
report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison
d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at
being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming
scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful
pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.
(Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of
the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…
Short URL: http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7670 |
|
CO2 Science: Seeing Is Believing! + The Great Global Warming Swindle
* Posted by Jared Law on April 27, 2010 at 12:42pm in News, Issues, & Politics
http://www.the912project.us/forum/topic/show?id=2881797%3ATopic%3A749319&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic |
Cold Winter huh?
Interested in Global Warming?..it does not exist.
John Coleman is co-founder of the Weather Channel. Worth the time to view. About 8 minutes long.
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul - very long video. He destroys Al Gore and the global warming myth - 1:35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=related
|
|
Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2
Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf |
|
Another Domino Falls: UK's Leading Scientific Body Retreats on Climate Change
By 21st Century Wire
http://21stcenturywire.com/2010/09/30/another-domino-falls-uk%E2%80%99s-leading-scientific-body-retreats-on-climate-change-agenda/
By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
Sept 30, 2010
It's the latest in a series
of high-profile set-backs suffered by global warming theorists- the UK's leading scientific body has decided to rewrite its own definitive guide on climate change, now admitting that it is "not
known" how much warmer the planet will become.
The Royal Society has released a new guide which outlines a retreat from its former vanguard stance on the threat of climate change and
man-made global warming. The decision to update their scientific guide came after 43 of its members complained that the previous versions failed to take into account the opinion of climate change
sceptics.
The new guide, entitled 'Climate change: a summary of the science', concedes that there are now major 'uncertainties' regarding the once sacred 'scientific consensus' behind
man-made global warming theory, admitting that not only is it impossible to know for sure how the Earth's climate will change in the future but it cannot possibly know what the effects may be.
The 19-page guide states clearly, 'It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential
changes and associated uncertainties have been made".
The guide continues stating, "There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on
Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase".
In a Sept 20,
2010 article published on the UK Daily Mail, Professor Anthony Kelly, academic advisor to Britain's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) explains, "The previous guidance was discouraging
debate rather than encouraging it among knowledgeable people. The new guidance is clearer and a very much better document".
The decision to revise and tone down its alarmist position on
climate change demonstrates a clear u-turn on its previous 2007 climate pamphlet, one which is said to have caused an internal rebellion by the 43 fellows of the Society, triggering a review and
subsequent revision. The 2007 publication, which parroted the IPCC's popular, but misleading impression that the 'science is settled' – made way for the new guide which accepts that important
questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved. "The Royal Society now also agrees(with us) that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years," said Dr Benny
Peiser, the Director of GWPF.
Economic realities and a marked shift in public opinion since last year's Climategate scandal and failure of the much-hyped UN Copenhagen Summit have
triggered a series of falling dominos within the climate change and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) orthodoxy. The Royal Society's shift also follows last week's blow to the radical climatist
agenda within Britain, where the new Coalition Government announced it will be slashing its Climate Change Department's budget and folding the former free-standing bureaucracy into the Treasury
department.
Some analysts also believe that the Society's new guide does not go far enough. Dr David Whitehouse, the science editor of the GWPF said: "The biggest failing of the new guide
is that it dismisses temperature data prior to 1850 as limited and leaves it at that. It would cast a whole new light on today's warming if the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the
Bronze Age Warm Period were as warm as today, possibility even warmer than today. A thorough discussion of the growing empirical evidence for the global existence of the Medieval Warm Period and
its implications would have been a valuable addition to the new report."
In addition, this retreat by the Royal Society signals a very real trend in climate science circles where political
activism is slowly being replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.
The Political Fallout
To date, the political activist engine
powering climate change has been anchored by an elite circle of scientists, foundations, green journalists, carbon financiers- and politicians looking for a good cause. The fuel for this engine
has been supplied by short-term economic opportunities, most of which has been in the form of massive research grants, subsidies and feed-in tariffs(triggering a rise in energy costs to the
consumer) by the State and confederate bodies like the UN and the European Union. In the US, problems with climate change inspired instruments like Cap and Trade are more chronic, where North
America's sole carbon trading market, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), has recently been scaled down following a decline in investment and the near complete collapse in carbon emission prices.
As formerly obedient IPCC scientists and insiders gradually break ranks and defect over to the common sense camp, and foundations like the Royal Society reverse their policies on the
nature of the climate threat, politicians may lose the once reliable traction they enjoyed when promoting their various green agendas.
This is followed, of course, by the economic reality
of any democracy whereby taxpayers cannot really back departments, much less policies, that do not deliver a measured benefit to the public welfare. If the IPCC's elite chamber of scientists
cannot be trusted to objectively measure past global temperatures (actual UN data sets show that there has been no temperature increase since circa 1998), then it goes without saying that
politicians cannot build real-world policy catering for a crisis that is not actually happening. The rising tide of scepticism and the reemergence of real scientific analysis will surely spell an
end to the innumerable faith-based policies and guesswork forecasting that has plagued the climate change movement to date.
As science gradually makes its way back into line with reality
and real world observation, it follows that many of the climate bureaucracies erected since 2000 will stumble as a result. The reason for this phenomenon is spelled out in the basic laws of
'political physics'; a collapse of the so-called "scientific consensus" comes into direct conflict with one of the main tenets of politics- plausible deniability. When politicians can no longer
use scientists as scapegoats, as in "it's not our fault, they told us CO2 was heating up the planet…", then the political agenda is all but dead.
The reality curve is certainly catching up to climate change now. |
| |
CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642
A damming report has highlighted questions over the credibility of a leading climate change body
Tuesday August 31,2010
By Donna Bowater
THE world's leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.
A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was "little evidence" for its claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made "substantive findings" based on little proof.
The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was
launched after the IPCC's hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
*** DEBATE: IS CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING JUST A CON?...***
The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The
report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were "speculation" and not backed by research.
Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor
said last night: "The IPCC's credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can't just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the
consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science."
Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: "The panel is definitely not fit
for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made."
The IAC, which comprises the world's top science academies including the UK's Royal Society, made
recommendations to the IPCC to "enhance its credibility and independence" after the Himalayan glaciers report, which severely damaged the reputation of climate science.
It condemned the
panel – set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best scientific advice on climate change – for its "slow and inadequate response" after the damaging errors emerged.
Among the blunders in the 2007 report were claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent.
It also claimed that water supplies for between 75
million and 250 million people in Africa will be at risk by 2020 due to climate change, but the real range is between 90 and 220 million.
The claim that glaciers would melt by 2035 was also rejected.
Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: "The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year
would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic."
In yesterday's report, the IAC said: "The IPCC needs to reform its
management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling
with how to respond to climate change."
The review also cast doubt on the future of IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri.
Earlier this year, the Daily Express reported how he had no
climate science qualifications but held a PhD in economics and was a former railway engineer.
Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest, which he denies, after it emerged that
he has business interests attracting millions of pounds in funding. One, the Energy Research Institute, is set to receive up to £10million in grants from taxpayers over the next five years.
Speaking after the review was released yesterday, Dr Pachauri said: "We have the highest confidence in the science behind our assessments.
"The scientific community agrees that climate
change is real. Greenhouse gases have increased as a result of human activities and now far exceed pre-industrial values."
|
|
Going Green Doesn't Work
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/09/going-green-doesn%E2%80%99t-work/
Posted By Tait Trussell On July 9, 2010 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage | 52 Comments
Going "green" is not going well. The U.S. Energy Information Administration's 2010 forecast predicts fossil
fuels will "continue to provide most of the energy consumed in the United States…" Only 6 percent [1] of the "energy consumed by 2035 will be replaced by renewable fuel sources." They will be
principally wind and solar, for electricity and home heating, respectively, but with oil as our energy mainstay. Today,
nearly half of voters favor continued [2] deepwater drilling in
spite of the oil rig disaster that brought such serious environmental damage to Gulf of Mexico shorelines. "Some 80 percent of voters nationwide support offshore oil drilling…closer to shore," a
June 30 Rasmussen Poll reported.
President Obama's ideologically-based decision to substitute alternative, green energy for oil is a romantic political choice which America will not see
fulfilled for a more than a generation, if ever. But the President's determination to drive toward other energy sources is seen in his decision to appeal Federal District Court [3] of New
Orleans' ruling against the Administration's six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf. As columnist Charles Krauthammer [4] noted: "We haven't run out of easily accessible sources
of oil. We've been run off them by environmentalists. They prefer to dream green instead."
Wind power has been hoisted up by Obama Administration wishful thinking as a major alternative
power source despite its anemic potential. Take General Electric Company's plan to build wind turbines on Lake Erie. "Projects like this would never get off the ground [5] if it weren't for
massive tax breaks and government subsidies," said a Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial blog. "But even then, wind power would be so costly that [the electric power company] wouldn't touch it if it
weren't for the legal requirement that Ohio utilities buy 12.5 percent of their energy from 'renewable resources,' like wind, by 2025. The main argument for wind is that it is 'green.' It is not.
Because wind blows irregularly, turbines run only about 30 percent of the time…. windpower will make money for companies like General Electric on the backs of taxpayers and ratepayers."
Government subsidies for windmills and for GE come naturally to Obama. He and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt are buddies. Immelt is a presidential adviser. His company was likely the beneficiary of
billions in green [6] projectsas a major wind turbine maker. Immelt wrote his stockholders in 2009, the Obama Administration will be a profitable "financier" and "key partner." According to the
Washington Examiner in March 4, 2009, an item in Obama's budget for fiscal 2010 labeled 'climate revenues' and totaling $646 billion, inspired confidence in Immelt. On page 115 of Obama's fiscal
2010 budget a chart showed forecasts, beginning in 2012, of billions of dollars a year in "climate revenues….by forcing companies to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases (and GE could
benefit as possibly the only 'secondary market trader of the credits). It would all be in the workings of "Cap and Trade" legislation passed by the House [7] June 26, 2009. The legislation would
place limits on greenhouse gases and require a massive switch to cleaner energy. The bill appears dead in the Senate. But, like ObamaCare–pronounced dead early this year–it, too, could rise from
its political grave, and quite possibly will in a new form.
GE and Vestas Wind Systems are the world's two largest suppliers of wind turbines [8], according to the American Wind Energy
Association (AWEA). There are hundreds off thousands of turbines throughout the country, serving electricity to millions of homes Wind power in the U.S. nearly doubled between 2006 nd 2008,
mainly because of huge subsidies. Still, in 2008, wind generated only 1.3 percent [9] of total electricity production. Besides being an unreliable source, windmills can be bad for one's health
[10]. Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., conducted lengthy research on what she terms "wind turbine syndrome" for a "constellation of symptoms experienced by many" living near industrial wind
turbines. Health problems range from headaches to anxiety, insomnia, and nausea. While the nightly news rarely fails to show a dying pelican completely coated in oil from British Petroleum's evil
spill in the Gulf, migratory birds and eagles [11], purportedly protected by the law, are killed by the thousands by environmentalists' favorite green energy source—politically correct wind farms.
The American Wind Energy Association optimistically predicts 20 percent of electricity [12] will be produced by wind by 2030 with most of the increase coming in the decade between 2020 an
2030. Wind project developers were offered a 30 percent tax credit from the approximately $800 billion stimulus package. That 2009 law also gave the Department of Energy (DOE) $118 million for
wind research and development. And the President's 2010 budget provided 75 million for the DOE wind program. As for jobs, the AWEA website claims only 150,000 jobs will be created for those
working directly on the windmills.
It says 85,000 people are presently employed. AWEA is currently making a big push for a "Renewable Electricity Standard (RES)." Under RES, AWEA says, if
all our states adopted it, 25 percent of electricity would come from renewable sources, including solar, biomass, geothermal, and, of course, wind. An "aggressive near-term target, such as 10
percent by 2012 is called for. By no coincidence, this is the "Obama-Biden New Energy for America plan. [13]"
This was an ambitious scheme put forth just before Obama and Joe Biden took
office. It called for spending $150 billion to "build a clean energy future, put one million Hybrid cars on the road by 2015, ensure that 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable
sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025," and, surprise, of all things, "promote responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas."
|
|
CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life —
and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched
for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and
diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."
Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier
times, when levels of CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher. In the age of the dinosaur, for example, CO2 levels may have been five to 10 times higher than today, spurring a luxuriantly
fertile planet whose plant life sated the immense animals of that era.
|
|
