The Great Global Warming Swindle

[MAC]

The BBC aired a program discussing the lack of evidence behind global warming. Below is a link to the program. I suggest anyone who is not sure what to believe about global warming should watch the program. I don't believe the global warming theory and after watching the program I'm even more convinced it's a bunch of nonsense.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

[BodybyFisher]

Thanks for the link.

I think its sun spot activity, el nino, tilt of axis, and stuff like, desert storm where the wells were burning for 3 years, bombs, etc.

[MAC]

Thanks for the link.

I think its sun spot activity, el nino, tilt of axis, and stuff like, desert storm where the wells were burning for 3 years, bombs, etc.

If you watch the program you'll find your hunch is right on. In fact, unlike the CO2 theory, there is science to back up the theory that the sun is the main influence on our weather, not human-produced CO2. The program shows just how bankrupt and ridiculous the CO2 theory is.

[JimD]

Our sun is THE influence on all life as we know it on this rock. Not just an influence; the dominant variable.

If this rock was just a little farther from the sun, the climate would be too cold for life as we know it. A little closer and it's too hot.

Are temperature variations normal? Of course. Is the climate warmer than it once was? Of course. A quick trip to the Great Lakes will provide all the evidence required to prove "global warming". Without global warming, the Green Bay Packers would be playing on top of 200 feet of ice.

Is human activity responsible for global warming? Was human activity responsible for the demise of dinosaurs? Does human activity cause volcanic eruptions?

At one time in the history of science (and organized religion), planet earth was believed to be the center of our little universe. At one time it was believed human illness was caused by demons occuping the body. Or bad blood.

With all our scientific progress, there remains so much we do not fully understand. One thing that is fairly easily understood is herd mentality.

[Rickster]

One thing that is fairly easily understood is herd mentality.

"Extraorinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" Charles Mackay, LL.D.

Writtin in 1841.

They had it figured out long before us.

[ALBUNDY]

For some reason I get the page cannot be found.

[Rickster]

Here's what were dealing with up here in the great white north.

This is what happens up north here when the dumb *smurf* politicians get scared when the masses start to beleive the crap on TV and in the papers. They are so afraid of being voted out, that they will destroy an entire country's economy with their reactions.

This is not a political post.....I think it falls under humor. LOL.

The fantasy that is Kyoto

Don Martin in Ottawa, National Post

Published: Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Deep in the bowels of government, they're working on Operation Dusty Shelf. OK, so that's not the actual name of this huge bureaucratic undertaking. More like the code word for its future destination.

When a Liberal-ordered bill forces a Conservative government to plan ways to implement the Kyoto protocol, let's just say this is not a motivational exercise for federal bureaucrats. They know their strategy will be stillborn.

Sources say Environment Minister John Baird regrets his initial dismissive bluster against the Kyoto-enforcing private member's bill, which passed through the Commons last week and now awaits a rubber stamp after being debated in the Liberal- dominated Senate.

But it hasn't dimmed his government's disdain for a bill that gives them 60 days to produce an action plan to deliver on the Kyoto target of cranking down Canadian greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels.

"It's not enforceable, not economical and not even constitutional," fumes a senior official in the Environment Ministry. "But we're working on something to deal with it."

This much is certain. The cost and consequences of Kyoto's implementation will not be sugarcoated by this government. The intention is not to deliver warm and fuzzys on ways to meet our international obligations, but to pour cold water and hard realities on the folly of aggressively trying to meet the 2012 target.

Sorting through the possibilities of emission caps, reduced pollution "intensities," technology subsidies and tax inducements is enough to bring on a migraine for a government that vows not to harm a robust economy.

And the bureaucrats know there's no way to deliver on the target without making Canadian consumers recoil in horror at the sacrifices they will have to make -- which is precisely the message the Conservatives aim to deliver before summer.

Canadian greenhouse gas emissions will have soared about 270 megatonnes above the Kyoto target by 2010, about 40% over the limit, leaving us just two years to scale back to the emission discharge of 1990 minus 6%.

That's a big-sounding reduction, but consider what meeting it means to the economy. Canada would have to shut down all the power generation in Canada. Twice over. Or, it would have to eliminate all gasoline-fuelled cars and trucks. Three times over. It could shut down the manufacturing sector. Six times over. Or it might choose to scrub all mining activity. Fourteen times over.

There's just not enough renewable energy, emerging technology or consumer behaviour change to make the target feasible in 15 years, never mind five.

So spare some pity for the Pembina Institute, which appears before a parliamentary committee this morning to reveal its strategy for meeting the Kyoto target without triggering an economic meltdown.

The Alberta-based institute is actually one of those green-deed doers worth monitoring because it tries to research problems and advance solutions without sounding hopelessly radical. These are not ship-ramming, tree-spiking, effigy-burning fanatics.

Still, climate change expert Matthew Bramley will have a tough sell today with his plan, which includes a push to cut oilsands greenhouse gas emissions by 50% per barrel almost immediately.

The way he will explain it, two solutions confront Canada's fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Producers could buy emission reduction credits overseas for $15 a tonne, which would add 50? to a barrel of oil. Or they could spend a buck a barrel by investing the $30 a tonne it takes to capture and bury the carbon dioxide discharge underground.

His math may well add up, although this sort of notion sends shivers down oilpatch spines because it reeks of a carbon tax.

But it does signal the shift in thinking that seems to be engulfing Ottawa in the mad political scramble to find ways of reducing Canada's rather minuscule contribution to the climate change problem, even more quickly than feasibly possible.

If there's a message Prime Minister Stephen Harper should be preparing amid his sudden greening, it's that Kyoto is a fantasy. That Canada will default on the first round of targets for the Kyoto accord is no longer in doubt.

In the months to come, his government will have to roll out a plan to sell the cost of Kyoto as incredible -- and his alternative as credible.

If the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois cannot stomach a Conservative green scheme that doesn't include Kyoto's 2012 targets, they will be dared to force an election.

At that point, Mr. Harper might find Operation Dusty Shelf useful as the paint-by-numbers picture of why it can't be done. The irony, of course, is that it will have been a Liberal MP who forced them to do their homework.

Dmartin@nationalpost.com

© National Post 2007

[MAC]

For some reason I get the page cannot be found.

I just tried the link and it took me to a google search with the term "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Just google this title and it will take you to the BBC's documentary.

[MAC]

Here's what were dealing with up here in the great white north.

The fantasy that is Kyoto

Don Martin in Ottawa, National Post

Published: Tuesday, February 20, 2007

But it does signal the shift in thinking that seems to be engulfing Ottawa in the mad political scramble to find ways of reducing Canada's rather minuscule contribution to the climate change problem, even more quickly than feasibly possible.

Really, Canada is partly to blame for climate change? Notice how this greenhouse gas emissions nonsense is being preached like it's indisputable fact. Where's the science behind it?

[Texas Jim]

Another article AGAINST greenhouse gases causing it.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070...ys_warming.html

[JimD]

And a liitle more from our BBC cousins:

Caution urged on climate 'risks'

By Pallab Ghosh

Science correspondent, BBC News

Two leading UK climate researchers have criticised those among their

peers who they say are "overplaying" the global warming message.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal

Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a

conference in Oxford.

They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts

that cannot be justified by the science.

The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate

scientists.

They think catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and

climate only work to create confusion in the public mind.

They argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the

uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.

As an example, they point to a recent statement from one of the

foremost US science bodies - the American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS).

The association released a strongly worded statement at its last

annual meeting in San Francisco in February which said: "As

expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires,

and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable

ecosystems and societies.

"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating

damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."

According to Professors Hardaker and Collier, this may well turn out

to be true, but convincing evidence to back the claims has not yet

emerged.

"It's certainly a very strong statement," Professor Collier told BBC

News.

"I suspect it refers to evidence that hurricanes have increased as a

result of global warming; but to make the blanket assumption that

all extreme events are increasing is a bit too early yet."

A former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, Professor

Collier is concerned that the serious message about the real risks

posed by global warming could be undermined by making premature

claims.

"I think there is a good chance of that," he said. "We must guard

against that - it would be very damaging.

"I've no doubt that global warming is occurring, but we don't want

to undermine that case by crying wolf."

This view is shared by Professor Hardaker, the society's chief

executive.

"Organisations have been guilty of overplaying the message," he

says.

"There's no evidence to show we're all due for very short-term

devastating impacts as a result of global warming; so I think these

statements can be dangerous where you mix in the science with

unscientific assumptions."

The AAAS said it would not be commenting directly on the professors'

remarks.

"We feel that the recent consensus statement of the AAAS Board of

Directors speaks for itself and stands on its own," a spokesperson

explained.

"The AAAS Board statement references (at the end), the scientific

basis upon which the conclusions are based, including the joint

National Academies' statement and the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change."

Professor Hardaker also believes that overblown statements play into

the hands of those who say that scientists are wrong on climate

change - that global warming is a myth.

"I think we do have to be careful as scientists not to overstate the

case because it does damage the credibility of the many other things

that we have greater certainty about," he said.

"We have to stick to what the science is telling us; and I don't

think making that sound more sensational, or more sexy, because it

gets us more newspaper columns, is the right thing for us to be

doing.

"We have to let the science argument win out."

The pair have contributed to a pamphlet called Making Sense of the

Weather and Climate, which will be presented on Saturday at the

Garden Quadrangle Auditorium at St John's College, Oxford.

The AAAS position on climate can be read on the organisation's

website.

[WarrenJ]

Now I'm not gonna argue the Earth isn't unnaturally warming, but I'm not quite convinced yet. After all, we're comming out of an ice age; the Earth *should* be warming. We know the Sun *is.*

In addition, we know undersea volcanic activity is on the rise. Might that effect ocean currents? It could happen! Tell it to El Nino.

In my humble opinion however, the current global scare has been brought to us by the very same folk who, in the past, have brought us scares about Global Cooling, then Global Draught, then Global Flooding, then Global Over population, then Global AIDs, then Global Starvation etc. They were wrong in each forecast.

Is it possible a political agenda is at work here?

Pluto, Jupiter and Mars are warming also. No SUVs there (Okay, maybe Mars is an exception. Granted. Why, oh why did we ever send those Rovers?). And there's probably no help for Venus. Let's not even talk about Mercury. Extraterrestrial stuff is like that after all!

And don't you DARE question Global Warming. You'll be labeled a "Global Warming Denier." Kinda puts you in that "Holocost Denier" place, doesn't it?

I'd prefer a rational, polite, scientific discussion, but that will not happen.

You see, something else is afoot here; follow the money.

There are literally BILLIONS of dollars at stake in terms of grant monies etc.

Who will pull the plug on that? Likely, not Al Gore.

For your listening enjoyment:

http://telecosmsongs.blogspot.com/2007/03/...h-2007-and.html

Regards,

Warren