Archive for January, 2010

CLIMATE-GATE EMAIL SCOUNDRELS WON’T BE PROSECUTED

Posted on January 29, 2010. Filed under: Al Gore, ALERT!, atmosphere, bioscience, Cap and Trade, Copenhagen, Darwin, Dawkins, Democrats, environmentalism, environmentalists, evolution, Freedom, Gaia, Gaia hypothesis, Gaia matrix, global governance, Global Warming/Cimate Change, globalization, goddess, Greek mythology, Hillary, idol, junk science, Liberty, Lindsey Graham, Marxism, Maurice Strong, McCain, Mikhail Gorbachav, Mother Earth, News Media, Obama, planet, Political, politics, science, SEIU, Socialism, sovereignty, sustainability, sustainable, U.S. Government, Uncategorized, uniformitarianism, United Nations | Tags: , , |

Phil Jones:

“The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! 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 !”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

The scientists (and I use that term loosely) who hid climate data which refuted the “global warming” theory broke the law, expressly the Freedom of Information Act.  However, they will escape prosecution simply because the crime was committed more than six months ago.  The crime is part of a conspiracy which will cost citizens of the world billions of dollars and more importantly, their basic freedoms, to satisfy the requirements of climate change laws.  The crime of withholding critical information used as a basis for climate change legislation and propaganda truly has an adverse and damaging effect upon all of us.  It amounts to a swindle and, to some degree, enslavement.   This is no small matter and should not be overlooked.  Prosecution must take place and an example must be made of these biased scientists.

It’s important to show others who may be engaging in this practice that they too will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  There’s too much at stake to let this continue.   They are lying to the governments of the world, providing false testimony, and benefiting monetarily by receiving research grants to continue what they know to be false.

Americans and citizens of those countries whose leaders are signing on to climate change legislation are victims of  a scheme designed to convey power and money to those who have positioned themselves advantageously.   The internet is a gold mine of information for those who are willing to  look for evidence of this charge.  A thorough investigation of the big players, their backgrounds and their business connections will shed light on the scheme. Do your own homework, familiarize yourself with the big players and contact your representatives in Washington, D.C. as well as locally.

THERE IS NO MORE TIME TO DO NOTHING!

Mick Kelly:

“Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

VISIT:

http://www.nocapandtrade.com/climategate/

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE SCIENTISTS INVOLVED, THEIR TITLES AND THE CONTENTS OF THE EMAILS.

 

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

A SHOCKER! – Installment 7 Global Warming/Climate Change

Posted on January 27, 2010. Filed under: Al Gore, atmosphere, bioscience, Cap and Trade, Copenhagen, Darwin, Darwin, Dawkins, environmentalism, environmentalists, evolution, Gaia, Gaia hypothesis, Gaia matrix, Global Warming/Cimate Change, globalization, goddess, Greek mythology, idol, James Lovelock, junk science, Liberty, Lynn margulis, Marguli, Mars, Marxism, Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachav, Mother Earth, Obama, pantheism, planet, Political, politics, science, Socialism, sovereignty, sustainability, sustainable, U.S. Government, uniformitarianism, United Nations | Tags: , , |

A SHOCKER! – Installment 7 – May 25, 2008 A Re-Post

From the website: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Comments in red are mine.

Newsweek, The Cooling World, April 28, 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

Where have we heard this before? in only 10 years. Al Gore says that we have only 10 years to save the planet, to avoid catastrophy, to save the oceans, to avoid passing the point of no return, to save our lives.

The terms used in the 1975 article are “ominous, dramatically, drastic, serious, every nation.” We’re hearing the same urgency in today’s warnings of global warming as was trumpeted in 1975 about global cooling.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

Like Gore and his crowd today, the voices in ’75 claimed to have piles of evidence to prove their predictions. Yet, no calamaties befell Earth. No ice age. No cooling disasters occurred. Still using urgent words, such as “massively, drought, desolation, devastating.” Scientists were among the incorrect crowd, like today. The claim was made that a very small climate change caused death and destruction, and yet, it didn’t.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

The revered National Academy of Sciences was wrong. We know that now. They are wrong again about global warming.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult they will find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports

Thank goodness the government was unwilling to take drastic actions to prevent global cooling. The harm they would have caused would have been unnecessary and difficult to recover from. Today, the governments of the world are already taking steps to “prevent global warming.” The harm they will do may take decades to recover from, if then.

Plans to change our sovereignty, national borders, business practices, individual freedoms, laws and enforcement, transportation, even our religious beliefs, are already being crafted and eased into our daily lives. Some truly scary ideas have been put on the table for altering Earth’s atmosphere to head off the perceived warming trend. If they are successful, climate change will occurr by the hands of people who don’t know what they’re doing.

There is no more time to do nothing!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Scott Brown for President? Not So Fast.

Posted on January 20, 2010. Filed under: 2010 election, Health Care | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

After last night’s election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the throne held by Teddy Kennedy for decades, thoughts turned immediately to Scott Brown’s potential to win the presidency.  That’s not a well-thought-out reaction.  Scott Brown was the one who took on the challenge and won, but not necessarily because he is a great Republican or even a great moral man.  Most of us in the U.S. know nothing about him. 

In the past, people got excited about Colin Powell and begged him to run for president as the Republican candidate before they knew much about his political beliefs or even his party affiliation.  He was a handsome, well-educated, well-spoken four-star general who became very popular.  As it turned out, he affiliated with the Republican Party, but was very left-leaning and moderate, opposing some of the Party’s platform, which is not helpful to achieving those goals.  Eventually, he publicly endorsed the Democrat candidate for president over his own long-time friend and fellow veteran, Sen. John McCain.

In a “morning-after” interview aired on Fox News, Brown was asked if he favored the “big tent” theory for the Republican Party and he made it clear that he does.   Others who have advocated this position are; Colin Powell, who voted for the Democrat in the presidential election, abandoning his own Republican party; John McCain, who lost the election because of Republicans like Colin Powell who voted against his own party; former Congressman Christopher Shays, who was defeated by the Democrat he wanted to compromise with, perhaps because there was no clear difference between the candidates; and former Sen. Jim Jeffords, who eventually left the Republican party and caucused with the Democrats.  There are many others; some who are still in the Grand Old Party.  Watch those still in the GOP and see if they lose their elections, leave the Party and/or vote with the Democrats.

The moral is, either you’re a Republican or you’re not.  The Party has a platform – goals they are working to achieve.  If you’re advocating “not” achieving those goals, why are you a Republican?  Join the Party because you share their beliefs, not for the purpose of weakening their ability to accomplish their stated (and voted on) platform goals.  If you don’t share those beliefs, you’re in the wrong party.

Some have championed the virtue of “compromise”.  You should compromise when you’re out with friends and some want to eat Mexican food, while others want Italian food.  You should never compromise on your core values, your moral values, your principles.  You should never sell your values for some benefit, which politicians seem to do often.  The consequences of compromising your core beliefs are, more often than not, very damaging to people and to the country. 

Let’s take a wait and see attitude towards today’s winner, Scott Brown.  I’m glad he won because he wants to stop the current health care debacle bill and he was our last chance for that.  But President?  Not so fast,

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...