Begin by reading the original post of May 15, 2008 about James Lovelock and his influence on the global warming movement, and his devotion to the pagan religion, Gaia. There’s a lot to learn there and it’s never mentioned by the main stream media. Too many people know nothing of this. If they did, they’d be much more skeptical of the green/global warming/climate change movement.
After you have the important background knowledge, read today’s surprising news coming from the ninety-two year-old James Lovelock whose latest comments are shocking AND will be completely ignored by the people in the movement whose beliefs are the direct result of this man’s influence.
Lovelock believes in the Gaia religion, as you will see in both articles. The Gaia religion “no longer sees man as the measure of all things or the center of the universe. He has been measured and found to be an undistinguished bit of matter, different in no essential way from bacteria, stones and trees. Gaians also believe that over-population is a root cause of an imbalance in the Earth’s ecology. Therefore, they believe in man-made global warming/climate change. (Could this be a reason behind the fight for abortion “rights”?
Lovelock, having formulated the Gaia Hypothesis, is the father of the climate change movement. He’s predicted complete doom on the Earth unless governments force people to adopt severe and costly changes to every thing people do on earth. It’s called “sustainable development”, and has been marketed to the people as “going green.”
But what is he saying today?
“Adapt and survive.” He supports nuclear power, hates wind power, remarking that they are useless and ugly, AND is now encouraging the U.K. to embrace fracking because natural gas is cheap and doesn’t produce as much CO2 as burning coal.
“We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. Fracking buys us some time, and we can learn to adapt.”
“Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.”
What has brought about this major reversal? He’s been hit hard with some hefty home energy bills and he doesn’t like it. He’s realizing that these costs are unsustainable, I suspect. It has changed his economic, political and scientific views on global warming, as he used to call it.
He told MSNBC that “he had been extrapolating too far in reaching such a conclusion and had made a mistake in claiming to know with such certainty what will happen to the climate.”
He says “being allowed to change your mind and follow the evidence is one of the liberating marvels of being an independent scientist.”
Many of us never bought into what has been proven faulty and fake science, but we’ve all paid a high cost for Lovelock’s Gaiantic mistake.
At the International Climate Change Conference in Rio next week, Lovelock’s devotee’s will seek solutions to the devastating climate change disaster that he now says doesn’t exist. They won’t be phased by Lovelock’s latest revelations.
“Whenever the UN puts its finger in, it seems to become a mess.”
“The climate situation is more complex than we at present are capable of handling, or possibly even in the future.”
“It’s so much cheaper to air-condition the cities and let Gaia take care of the world. It’s a much better route to go than so-called ‘sustainable development’, which is meaningless drivel.”
Where’s the proof that he’s really changed his mind and won’t jump back on the “sustainable development” wagon? He’s moving from his home of thirty years amidst acres of trees that he planted himself to a small beach cottage. Unafraid of the horrors of rising seas caused by climate change.
“At worst, I think it will be two feet a century.”
Unfortunately for us, the costs associated with climate change legislation will rise much more rapidly.
As for his political views on the subject now days:
“I’m neither strongly left nor right, but I detest the Liberal Democrats.” “The coalition has behaved disgracefully on environmental and energy policies. It would have been much better if they had been properly right wing.”
Perhaps he was warning us when he said:
“It’s just the way the humans are that if there’s a cause of some sort, a religion starts forming around it. It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air.”
Mr. Lovelock, some have noticed it.
https://marbiesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/a-shocker-installment-6/ The Gaia Ark of Hope, The Earth Charter inside the Ark (to mimic The Ten Commandments), Temenos Books (to be sacred like our Bible), Cosmos is our God
If you read Lovelock’s past writings and statements, you might think he sounds a little spacey. He was an important person at NASA. Just mull over that for a minute. We never pay attention to the kind of people who lead our world. BUT WE SHOULD.
The Kyoto Treaty? Kill it. Get out of all treaties, legislation and programs born out of the global warming/climate change hoax. Get back to basics, back to normal and relieve the people of the world from burdensome expenses and regulations that adversely affect their lives.
PASS IT ON. THE TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE (from tyrannical governments, world governments, and slavery to regulations based on falsehoods and pagan religion.)Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
A SHOCKER! – Installment 10 – May 30, 2008
Re-post. Originially posted on May 29, 2008.
Soon, the Senate will hold hearings on a “Cap and Trade” bill, an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and prevent further global warming. It will be costly (multiple billions) and have far-reaching consequences (many decades and possibly beyond). Whether Cap and Trade will have any real benefit to the globe is still as unclear as the science of global warmings’ existence or cause. Senate Bill 2191 is offered to the Senate by Barbara Boxer (D – CA), Joe Lieberman (D-CONN) and John Warner (R-VA).
The “Cap” part of the bill places limits or “caps” on how much CO2 a company is allowed by government to emit into the air. This is usually measured in tons. The limit will be determined by the government’s estimate of current total emissions minus the reduction goal which will be a steadily reduced percentage annually. S. 2191 requires that emissions decline to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020, without regard to population increases and rising energy demands. Each unit of emissions allowed is called a carbon credit.
Company A may be allowed to emit 500 tons of CO2 this year, while Company B is allowed 600 tons. What happens if Company A exceeds the goal and only emits 450 tons, a savings of 50 carbon credits? What happens if Company B is unable to reduce emissions enough and exceeds the cap by 50 tons? No problem. Company B purchases the unused 50 carbon credits from Company A and is considered carbon neutral. In reality, Company A has done part of the reduction work for Company B and Company B hasn’t done its share.
How does Co. B absorb the cost of buying the additional carbon credits from Co. A? It doesn’t. It simply adds it to the cost of its goods and services, and you and I, the consumers, pay for it. Does the government give the annual carbon credits to companies for free? Nope. The government sells them and, by some estimates, expects to collect billions in new revenue. Who pays the cost of buying carbon credits from the government? You guessed it. The consumers – you and I. Companies add all of their costs of doing business to the prices of their goods and services and we pay for it. Our lives are getting more and more expensive, especially as the rate of reduction is constantly tightened year after year, making it increasingly more difficult for companies to comply. The harder it is, the more it will cost – US.
Companies will have to become experts in CO2 emission reduction technology, science and engineering. Instead of concentrating their efforts on making their product or providing their service, they will have to spend time and resources on emissions reduction. Most companies will hire someone to figure it out and get it done, passing the cost of the new employee/s on to us, again. Like losing weight, the last 20% of reduction may be very difficult to do, resulting in costly efforts. Just because the government decided to make a company reduce emissions by a number they picked, doesn’t mean it’s possible in reality. Of course, they can always purchase whatever extra carbon credits they need – and pass the cost on to you and me.
How will companies buy and sell carbon credits? Will they need to hire someone to handle that? Maybe not, but if they do, they will pass that cost on to…you guessed it…you and me. The American Chronicle online has a good article explaining carbon credit trading, the “Trade” part of “Cap and Trade”, entitled “‘Carbon Credit Trading’ is the New ‘Derivatives’ Game”, by Ugur Akinci, Ph.D., May 14, 2007 http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/27045
A carbon credit is basically the right to pollute sold by those less-polluting companies to those who do not, for one reason or another, want to curb their carbon dioxide emissions yet. The prices of these credits probably rely more on the laws passed by legislative bodies in respective parliaments than on net corporate worths, or any classical technical ratios or interest rates.
The market to buy and sell such credits is especially hot in Europe where most countries have signed the U.N. Kyoto Protocol to curb CO2 emissions. The United States as of May 2007 still has not signed the Protocol.
To sell these credits as individual companies, you need to register your energy-saving and carbon-suppressing projects with the United Nations and get U.N. certification. Therefore, the U.S. companies cannot do that yet directly. That’s why London is right now the busy hub of the $25 billion carbon credit trading market where 60% of all transactions take place compared to only 10% in the U.S.
(MY NOTE: Al Gore’s company, Generation Investment Management is based in London (where all the money is flowing) with an office in Washington, D.C. (where he can push legislation in his favor.) This is a fund management company that trades “green” companies. Al Gore uses it to offset his own huge use of carbon fuels. He invests his money in these green companies thinking that he is investing enough in someone else’s effort to be eco-friendly and that will balance his “way out of the norm” use of energy in his mansion in Tennessee. He has two other homes around the country and I bet he flies to them. Maybe he drives a Prius between states? He invests his money in GIM, which then pays him a salary and a return on his investments. His “carbon neutral money scheme” keeps his money revolving from one of his pockets to another of his pockets, picking up more profit along the way. Clever guy, this Al Gore.)
However, the U.S. investors already take part in this new exciting market through various hedge funds that deal in the 200-member Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc.
(MY NOTE: The name ENRON keeps popping into my head. Carbon Credits bought and sold and they are not based on anything, just thin air. They have no concrete value.)
The pressures on Washington to sign the Kyoto Protocol and to participate more directly in the world-wide carbon credit trade comes from major states like California.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed in September 2006 a law that mandates cutting down the CA carbon emissions by 25% as of 2020. This would of course increase the attention paid to CC trading as well since it is a lucrative way to self-finance many alternative energy projects.
(MY NOTE: Just order companies to lower their emissions by a percentage every year and be done with it. Don’t create this new carbon trading industry, in which the people are fleeced andthe government makes billions, as do the promoters of this pyramid scheme. It’s a mass wealth re-distribution scheme that moves money from yours and my bank accounts to the government treasuries and the promoters bank accounts.)
A major development to spur Washington in that direction would be the launching of a carbon credit exchange soon in Beijing, China. I’m sure we are witnessing only the beginning of a brand new trading sector that will make itself felt strongly in the months and years ahead.”
(MY NOTE: By all means, we must keep up with the Jones’ or China.)
You probably get the picture that just like oil, whose price is affected by speculators and traders bidding up the prices, carbon credits will be traded on an exchange and the prices will be bid up as well. The more scarce and the greater the demand for carbon credits, the higher the price will go. And that expense will be passed down to… YOU AND ME AGAIN.
The bottom line for me is that global warming hasn’t been satisfactorily proven yet. It certainly hasn’t been proven that human activities are causing detrimental global warming. And financing this whole scheme is YOU AND ME. If it turns out that the globe is not warming dangerously, but is only experiencing normal cycles OR that humans can’t and don’t cause warming and cannot prevent it, then you and I have been fleeced again by politicans who pushed this into law. Al Gore opened Generation Investments Management to capitalize on global warming and stands to make millions and perhaps billions. He will never allow anyone or anything to interfere with it, not even scientists who can show evidence contrary to Gore’s theory.
THE SENATE AND CONGRESS SHOULD WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE ACCURATE AND CONCRETE EVIDENCE PROVING THAT THE COMPANIES THAT WOULD BE FORCED TO BUY CARBON CREDITS ARE INDEED THE CAUSE.
CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND TELL THEM NOT TO PASS LEGISLATION UNTIL WE HAVE THE PROOF. Remember, Gore’s professor and mentor, Dr. Roger Revelle said repeatedly that “there is no harm in waiting. It is not an imminent threat.” Another Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore and his buddies that hope to profit from this.
There is no more time to do nothing.
Please read all the previous installments and the future installments of which there will be at least five more, perhap six or seven.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
A SHOCKER! – Installment 8 – May 27, 2008 Re-Post
“Not every scientist is part of Al Gore’s mythical consensus. Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV – THE SUN!” http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175, Investor’s Business Daily, Editorial, February 7, 2008
The Danish Meteorological Institute released a study, using data that covered centuries, showing that global temperatures closely tracked Solar cycles. This was in 1991 – just about the time Al Gore was beginning to get the word out that the earth was going to burn up from gas emissions produced by man. He had created a slideshow in 1988 about the atmosphere and used it to teach on the subject. It was this slideshow that was the basis for An Inconvenient (and inaccurate) Truth (falsehood).
There was convincing data then, and Canadian scientists want more funding to study global cooling NOW. The Sun impacts Earth’s climate more than anything else. Elementary schools teach kids that our seasons are the result of our closeness to or distance from the Sun. In the past, we’ve been warned of solar storms affecting us with power blackouts, satellite failures and even pipeline explosions.
Gore and the Gaia worshipers pound everyone into submission by stating that “scientists agree” and that it is” scientifically proven”. They use the words “science, scientists, evidence and proven” as incontrovertible. What they don’t say is how many scientists disagree with Gore and have science that disproves the Gore truth. Al Gaia Gore never mentions all the evidence to the contrary. The following website presents a great deal of evidence and studies that cover centuries of data proving that solar activity changes Earth’s climate in cycles. An eleven year cycle is one of the main topics discussed, and yes, by scientists with very respected credentials. It also explains the ozone layer and the holes environmentalists claim are caused by gas emissions and blame for global warming.
“The most well-documented connection between solar activity and climate change is the Maunder Minimum. This was a 40-year period when extreme cold weather prevailed in Europe. It also coincided with astronomers watching the sun and not seeing many sunspots! Astronomer Jack Eddy pointed this out in the 1970’s, and since then many other sun-climate connections have been looked for and in some cases uncovered.
The sunspot cycle and Boston Weather…. This study by Dave Henry at NOAA is based on 207 years of daily temperature data from Boston. It shows a 0.8 F drop in the average annual temperature near sunspot maximum, a 3-inch difference in the annual average precipitation near sunspot maximum, and a 7-inch increase in annual average snowfall at sunspot maximum.
The sunspot cycle and Annual Precipitation in Beijing.… This article by Juan Zhao and his colleagues at Beijing Normal University was published in the Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics (2004, vol 4 pg 189) and is based on rainfall records from 1870 to 2002. Their wavelet analysis of the rainfall data identifies four periods of 11, 22, 33 and 72 years. The wavelet analysis of the sunspot data for the same period reveals periods of 11, 22, 33 and 78 years.
The sunspot cycle and Extreme Weather over Portugal…. This 2005 study by P.S. Lucio at the Center for Geophysics in Evorea was published in the Geophysical Research Abstracts (vol. 7 p. 129) and is based on cosmic ray and rainfall data from 1901-2000. A statistically significant correlation was found between rainfall and temperature extremes, and cosmic ray fluxes beginning in 1980.
The sunspot cycle and the Global Stratosphere…This study by H. van Loon and K. Labitzke at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NOAA) shows that the heights and temperatures of the lower stratosphere vary in step with the sunspot cycle. It was published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Research (1999, vol. 61 pg. 53) and is an extension of a Northern Hemisphere study that they completed in 1997. The correlation between the sunspot cycle and the zonally averaged temperatures are highest between the tropopause and the 25-km level of the ozone layer.”
The amount of UV from the sun ( specifically UV-B) changes during the sunspot cycle. At sunspot maximum, there is 0.1 % more UV-B radiation than at minimum. Scientists have detected this sunspot cycle-effect in a 2% change in ozone concentrations. For more details see ” Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate” by Drew Shindell, David Rind, Nambeth Balachandran, Judith Lean, and Patrick Lonergan in journal Science 1999 284: 305-308.
The difference in total ozone between maximum and minimum conditions during the sunspot cycle were estimated using yearly averages of total ozone. For solar cycle 21, 1.16% and 1.26% for solar cycle 22, a larger difference of 3.8% and 4.1% were found. The corresponding variation in UV-B at 3000 Angstroms, using Beer’s law, is 4-10% with maxima occurring during the minimum of the solar cycle. E. Escher, V. Kirchoff, Y. Sahai and N. Paes Leme published in the Advances in Space Research, Volume 27, Issue 12, p. 1983-1986.
“The correlations between the total column ozone observed by TOMS and the 11-yr sunspot cycle are lowest in the equatorial region, where ozone is produced, and in the subpolar regions, where the largest amounts are found. In the annual mean the highest, statistically significant, correlations lie between the 5° and 30° parallels of latitude in either hemisphere — between the area of production and the areas of plenty. This position of the largest correlations suggests that the association between the Sun and the ozone is not a direct, radiative one, but that it is due to solar induced changes in the transport of ozone, that is, to changes in the atmospheric circulation. The highest tropical-subtropical correlations move with the Sun from summer hemisphere to summer hemisphere. The subtropical geopotential heights in the ozone layer are higher in the peaks than in the valleys of the 11-yr sunspot cycle. It is probable that the higher subtropical geopotentials in solar maxima depress the poleward transport of ozone through the subtropics and therefore create an abundance of ozone in the tropics relative to the solar minima. These results are based on a 15-yr series of ozone observations and may thus not necessarily be representative of a longer period. “ K. Labitzke and H. van Loon published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics V. 59, p. 9-19, 1997
Cosmic rays stream down into Earth’s atmosphere from the sun and elsewhere beyond the solar system. Recent studies show that these particles penetrate into the troposphere and alter the way that droplets condense to form clouds, rain and snow with important weather and climate consequences. Changes in the sun’s ultraviolet light affects the ozone layer and the energy input into the upper atmosphere. As the upper atmosphere is heated, it expands into space causing increased friction for satellites.
There is enough opposing science to bring Gore’s hypothesis into question. It is far too soon in this debate to pass laws changing a free people’s way of life and bringing down the economies of developing nations, not to mention our own here in America.
There is no more time to do nothing.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries