Jump to content
웃

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

16 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Isle of Man
Timeline
Posted

  • Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
  • There has been no global warming since 1995
  • Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

Enlarge article-1250872-0847D53D000005DC-535_468x295.jpg

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...l#ixzz0fa3x4kPw

India, gun buyback and steamroll.

qVVjt.jpg?3qVHRo.jpg?1

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Isle of Man
Timeline
Posted

Is it global warming or cooling now, I forget. If today it's global cooling then it sure does seem dangerous, at least to Florida wildlife. I think around May it switches back to global warming, hurricane season it's climate change, and then around December through May global cooling, :lol::P

------------

------------

Cold weather kills off Florida wildlife

Iguanas, pythons and other non-native species are freezing to death as temperatures plummet in the Sunshine State

* Suzanne Goldenberg

* guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 February 2010 17.39 GMT

* Article history

Dead iguana, Florida

Dead-iguana-Florida-001.jpg

Cold-blooded ... an iguana lies dead after falling out of a tree in Davie, Florida. Photograph: Hans Deryk/Reuters

Comatose iguanas have been dropping from the trees and pythons have frozen to death in their tracks in Florida's unusually harsh winter, wildlife officials said today.

Parts of the Sunshine State saw their second snowfall of the season this weekend, with the extended cold spells killing off a host of tropical intruders, including iguanas, Burmese and African pythons and invasive fish.

State wildlife officials said more than half of the green iguanas, which are native to South America, could have been killed off. "The iguanas up in the trees just got so cold, they kind of went very, very sluggish, and just fell down," said Jenny Tinnell, a biologist with Florida's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Residents of south Florida, who have discovered the animals on their patios, have tried to warm them back to life.

Local newspapers, meanwhile, have been warning homeowners not to let their dogs gnaw on iguana corpses, which may be poisonous.

In the Everglades, trackers licensed by the state have discovered the decaying corpses of three African rock pythons, which can reach over 20ft and can kill people. State officials believe up to half of the Burmese pythons have also died, along with large numbers of invasive fish.

The python die-off could be helpful to wildlife officials. The alien constrictors, many of them abandoned pets, have been taking over portions of the Everglades, threatening native species.

Last month, the Obama administration said it was considering a ban on nine species of giant snake.

"The fish and wildlife commission has no problem with nature naturally knocking back those populations," said Tinnell.

But the harsh winter is also harming natives such as the manatee, which is an endangered species. Long periods of cold weaken their immune systems. Officials said about 200 manatee carcasses have washed up on shore since the beginning of the year. Dozens of crocodiles have also died.

The extreme temperatures also prompted a rescue effort last month for endangered sea turtles. Officials plucked more than 4,000 from chilly waters, bathing them in warm salt water to revive them.

India, gun buyback and steamroll.

qVVjt.jpg?3qVHRo.jpg?1

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Isle of Man
Timeline
Posted

Donald Trump Wants Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize Stripped

Mon, 02/15/2010 - 09:32 ET

Billionaire real estate tycoon Donald Trump wants Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize stripped from the Global Warmingist-in-Chief.

"With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back, " Trump recently told members of his Westchester, New York, country club according to the New York Post.

The Post continued (h/t Polijam):

"Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn't care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America's stupidity."

According to the Post, the crowd of 500 stood and applauded.

I guess there weren't any liberal media members there.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...d#ixzz0fdPt2zNf

India, gun buyback and steamroll.

qVVjt.jpg?3qVHRo.jpg?1

Country: Vietnam
Timeline
Posted

Al Gore: Environmental Hero or Monumental Fraud?

Posted 01/25/10

Read all 3 comments

+2 raves

RECOMMEND THIS

Gore's Grave New WorldBy Marc Sheppard

Imagine, if you can, a modern society in which scientists positing theories contrary to those accepted by agents of the government are declared heretics and swiftly punished. Ray Bradbury imagined one in his novel Fahrenheit 451, as did Pierre Boulle in Planet of the Apes. Unfortunately, Al Gore has also envisioned such a culture — ours.

Gore first introduced us to his one—time Harvard professor, Dr. Roger Revelle in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, and refers to him again in his new film, An Inconvenient Truth. He credits the professor with being the man who originally influenced his views regarding the dangers of global warming. The implication is, therefore, made that his mentor also blames everything but nature for shifting global weather patterns.

It is true that Dr. Revelle's early research papers exploring the relationship between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures are considered by many to be the opening salvo in the global warming debate.

And yet, based on his new movie, Gore would appear to have suffered convenient selective amnesia when telling the story of his guru and erstwhile college professor. You see, when Dr. Revelle co—authored an article entitled 'What to Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before you Leap,' which appeared in the April 1991 issue of Cosmos magazine, the student's treatment of the teacher was anything but reverent.

Regrettably, Dr. Revelle died three months after the article was published. It concluded that

'The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time,'

Its contrarian message was that Earth is, in fact, not in the balance. As luck would have it for Gore, the reaction to the original article and its conclusions was quite lukewarm. This was likely due to the limited readership of the magazine at that time.

However, when the piece was cited over a year later in a New Republic article by Gregg Easterbrook, the climate got decidedly warmer. You see, the piece also suggested that Gore,

"the bright light of political environmentalism, seems increasingly to believe that the only correct stance is to press the panic button on every issue."

As described by one of Revelle's coauthors, Dr. S. Fred Singer in his personal account, 'The Revelle—Gore Story:'

'The contradiction between what Senator Gore wrote about what he learned from Dr. Revelle and what Dr. Revelle had written in the Cosmos article embarrassed Senator Gore, who had become the leading candidate for the vice presidential slot of the Democratic Party.'

Dr. Singer recalls a phone call he received from Dr. Justin Lancaster, one of Dr. Revelle's former associates, on July 20, 1992. During that conversation, Lancaster first requested, then demanded that Singer remove Revelle's name from a forthcoming inclusion of their article in a global warming anthology to be edited by Dr. Richard Geyer. Said Dr. Singer:

'When I refused his request, Dr. Lancaster stepped up the pressure on me. First at a memorial symposium for Dr. Revelle at Harvard in the fall of 1992 and in a lengthy footnote to his written remarks at that event, he suggested that Dr. Revelle had not really been a coauthor and made the ludicrous claim that I had put his name on the paper as a coauthor 'over his objections.'

'Subsequently, Dr. Anthony D. Socci, a member of Senator Gore's staff, made similar outrageous accusations in a lengthy letter to the publishers of the Geyer volume, requesting that the Cosmos article be dropped.'

A libel suit was filed in April of 1993, prompted by Lancaster's words, which also included suggestions that Singer's purpose in listing Revelle as a co—author was "to undermine the pro—Revelle stance of [then] Sen. Gore." It was revealed during the suit's discovery period that Gore had called Lancaster shortly after learning of the New Republic article. Numerous links between Gore, Gore's staff, and the actions of Lancaster were also discovered, as were the latter's myriad mistruths, misdeeds, and material misstatements.

But Gore's was not a single—front assault plan. As Jonathan Adler wrote in the Washington Times on July 27, 1994:

'Concurrent with Mr. Lancaster's attack on Mr. Singer, Mr. Gore himself led a similar effort to discredit the respected scientist. Mr. Gore reportedly contacted 60 Minutes and Nightline to do stories on Mr. Singer and other opponents of Mr. Gore's environmental policies. The stories were designed to undermine the opposition by suggesting that only raving ideologues and corporate mouthpieces could challenge Mr. Gore's green gospel. The strategy backfired. When Nightline did the story, it exposed the vice president's machinations and compared his activities to Lysenkoism: The Stalinist politicization of science in the former Soviet Union.'

In fact, the 2/24/94 Nightline edition which Adler refers to included a segment—end wherein the host, Ted Koppel, said (jaw—agape emphasis mine):

'There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century, [Highly questionable given Gore's grades of a C and D in his basic science courses!] that he is resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis.'

Yet, even in the face of Gore's blatant abuse of public office, the suit was, ultimately, settled. On 4/29/1994, Dr. Lancaster issued a statement in which he "fully and unequivocally" retracted his claims against Dr. Singer. Gore's dystopian attempts aside, the Geyer volume did, indeed, include the Revelle, Singer, and Starr piece — with all attributions present and accounted for.

But this was neither the first nor the last time that Gore would flex his political muscle in order to salvage both his sham science agenda and his similarly questionable credibility.

Shortly after the 1992 release of his book, then—Senator Gore ran hearings reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. Before his committee, scientists who disagreed with his questionable science beliefs were put to the rack and urged to recant. One scientist forced to face Interrogator Al was Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.

Dr. Lindzen was and is a well known vocal critic of the seriousness of a human—induced global warming threat. That, and his reputation for questioning the motivations of his easily swayed brother scientists, made him a prime candidate for the spectacle of public conversion.

In an interview with Mike Miliard of The Phoenix, he recalled:

'Gore would run star—chamber hearings and invite the heads of funding agencies while he would try to get scientists [who doubted climate change's severity] to recant. . . . Everyone in the field knows [that] when the funding went up to $2 billion a year under Bush the elder, that money didn't come because people thought climate was a wonderful thing. It came because of alarm.'

In a piece appearing in the Seattle Times on 10/4/1992 headlined "The Science of Distortion —— Good, Evil and Sen. Albert Gore —— Show Trials Used Against Scientists Who Aren't Sure the Apocalypse Is Near," Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia, reported:

'Lindzen recently told one of Gore's hearings that the data didn't support one of his many proposed ideas to explain the already obvious failure of the forecasts of climate gloom and doom. 'Lindzen has recanted,' one of Gore's staffers crowed.'

Of course, there had been no such recantation and, Lindzen, reportedly, is still quite angry about the incident, calling the episode "bizarrely dishonest.' In fact, 14 years later, he is still an outspoken critic of those who would stifle scientific knowledge through tools of intimidation. Additionally, as a minority dissenter on the various scientific panels he sits on, he is regularly misrepresented as having 'recanted.' This vote—rigging trick of Gore's MSM accomplices is well examined in Robert W. Tracinski's 'The Scientist Trap.'

Lindzen himself explains how 'global—warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence' in his 4/12/06 article, 'Climate of Fear':

'Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.'

So, effectively, Gore's intimidation tactics over the course of the last decade and a half have achieved his desired goal through a menacing combination of politics, words and financial control. At a glance, it would certainly appear that a significant number of American scientists have been molded into obedient, PC puppets. Unfortunately, as Dr. Lindzen states in his article, 'this is only the tip of a non—melting iceberg.'

'In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn—Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate—research funding for raising questions.'

If Dr. Lindzen is correct in his contentions, and there certainly exists every reason to believe that he is, then, how can we possibly hope to ever learn the truth about Earth's climatology? Or, for that matter, any other science which has been hijacked by the PC police? What are the real dangers of AIDS? What are the long term health risks of abortion for the mother? What do we really know about the evils of DDT? What other junk might our scientists be feeding us as a byproduct of the struggle to remain funded and unbridled?

In his brilliant 1977 essay, 'Asimov's Corollary,' the great author and biochemist Isaac Asimov wrote:

"If a scientific heresy is ignored or denounced by the general public, there is a chance it may be right. If a scientific heresy is emotionally supported by the general public, it is almost certainly wrong."

How many times has that statement proven itself to be correct? Consider Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin when evaluating the first sentence; then UFOs, ghosts, Astrology, ESP and other psychic phenomena for the second.

Fortunately, it has been the customary burden of true men of science to maintain stewardship over these truths. Asimov continues:

"It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong....It is those who support ideas for emotional reasons only who can't change.'

What will become of us in the Orwellian world fashioned by Gore and his PC mercenaries when compromised scientists represent the majority? I shudder to think.......

link: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/al-g...ud/blog-245941/

Country: Vietnam
Timeline
Posted

We Should Discredit Global Warming Gov't-Funded Scientists

Monday, 07 Dec 2009 09:45 AM Article Font Size

By: Lowell Ponte

In 2000, the same year that a majority of citizens in his home state and elsewhere rejected Al Gore's bid to become president, the then-vice president had his apparatchiks concoct a first U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.

This study suggested that by the year 2100 Earth's average temperature would soar, with potentially disastrous consequences.

What made Gore's study especially odd was that it relied on data from the two most extreme climate research centers on the planet, one being the now-notorious Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia, whose computer models projected a dangerous average global warming of 5.4 degrees F (Fahrenheit).

But Gore's study deliberately omitted America's own National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) projection, which predicted a potential temperature rise of only 1.8 degrees F.

Such a less-than-doomsday warming, as Marc Morano and I wrote in a July 2006 Newsmax magazine cover story, “might scarcely be noticed — except by Siberians and Canadians enjoying a longer growing season.”

We should have learned several things from Mr. Gore's 2000 deception:

Gore and his fellow doomsayers are always ready and willing to cook the books to fatten their pocketbooks and political power by conjuring fears of global warming.

Like those warming scientists in recently disclosed secret e-mails who boasted of altering data or throwing out measurements of global cooling, Gore was eager to discard any information that contradicted the scare propaganda he was promoting.

Scientists who presumably had similar temperature measurements processed them into wildly different scenarios — with NCAR projecting an excessive 1.8 degrees F but the Canadian government predicting a global temperature rise of 14.4 degrees F, nearly 10 times bigger.

Such huge disparity in predictions suggests that vast uncertainties exist in what scientists know about the forces shaping Earth's climate.

These scientists produce computer model climate projections that can be changed drastically by even tiny adjustments in their assumptions — whether well-intended or manipulated with sinister motives. These models also fail to predict yesterday's climate when run “backwards.”

Recently leaked e-mails between global warming scientists make clear that these mostly government-linked scientists have been manipulating data precisely to produce politically desired conclusions.

Dec. 7 this week merges with the anniversary of 1941's Pearl Harbor attack to make this even more of a day that will live in infamy.

In Copenhagen, Denmark, politicized scientists are joining the politicians who fund them to commence 12 days of deceptive global warming propaganda designed to bash capitalism and to promote more regulation, higher taxes, global governance, and global redistribution of wealth.

The very researchers caught secretly e-mailing one another about how they rigged global temperature records are among the most prominent scientists framing what has come out of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on which all the Copenhagen doomsaying is based.

The Copenhagen gathering ought to be canceled, at least until a whole new set of uncontaminated, honest data can be compiled and evaluated — which could take 10 years.

The warming scientist e-mails reveal that they have been throwing out temperature data (acquired at great taxpayer expense) whenever measurements did not advance their agenda. None of their surviving data — cherry-picked or reprocessed to bolster their point of view — is now trustworthy. All should be discarded, and research should begin again with honest researchers.

As this science scandal grows, President Obama days ago announced that he will now attend only the final day or so of the Copenhagen gathering.

Al Gore canceled his appearance at a festivity there where 3,000 Danes had anted up $1,200 apiece for the privilege of shaking his hand and being photographed with him.

In Hollywood and elsewhere, a drumbeat has begun for Mr. Gore and the IPCC to be stripped of the Nobel Prize they shared for their work on the issue of global warming — work that evidence now inconveniently suggests is hopelessly contaminated with potentially fraudulent science.

In a just world Mr. Gore would be stripped of the hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth he has made through this global warming fraud and redistributed to his victims, forced to pay higher fuel and energy bills and more for almost everything else they buy because of new climate policies and regulations.

Those who have carefully followed the global warming issue knew long ago that we were being lied to when a prominent climate scientist urged colleagues to “offer up scary scenarios” and make public statements without mentioning the doubts and uncertainties they had about global warming.

We knew it when a left-liberal democratic U.S. senator close to Hillary Clinton said: “We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy,” i.e., moving toward socialism.

And we will continue to be lied to this week by other socialist politicians in Copenhagen, by scientists they bankroll, and by the liberal media that has told you little or nothing about the e-mails that suggest global warming is a manipulated pseudoscientific fraud that should lead to the firing of every scientist even tangentially involved in it.

These scientists have preached for years that all skeptical research funded by energy companies should be discredited because of the profit-seeking agenda of its sponsors.

By that same logic, with global warming being used to promote bigger government and higher taxes, we should automatically discredit all scientists directly and indirectly funded by government money and institutions, including state universities and NASA, which has stonewalled freedom-of-information requests for its raw climate data.

Fully 59 percent of respondents in a recent poll said they believed that scientific data that shows global warming is being rigged.

By distorting science to promote a political and ideological agenda, Mr. Gore has undermined the authority and credibility that scientists used to possess.

The global scientific community urgently needs to purge and distance itself from politicized scientists, starting in Copenhagen.

Link: http://www.newsmax.com/LowellPonte/global-...12/07/id/337650

Country: Vietnam
Timeline
Posted

How will Al Gore pay the green back?

For Al Gore, Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word.

How will Al Gore pay the green back ?

Since the early 1980’s, first the USA and then the rest of the world has had to endure an environmental diatribe, from former Vice President, Al Gore Jr. about Global warming. In 1997 the ,Kyoto Conference took place and advocates for Global Warming reinvented the wording to Climate Change. This was done in order to further the implication of crisis to the easily led,layman or bill paying segment of the International population. The Term Global Warming was loosing traction and lacked the threatening horsepower to force intimidation within the great unwashed masses. As 400 of the most respected Scientists, from around the World, have, at great risk to themselves and their reputations, come out and clearly stated their concerns as to the legitimacy of these Climate claims, Al Gore is in the unenviable position of having to apologize for his actions. For Mr. Gore, sorry seems to be the hardest word. How will al gore pay the green back?

For Al Gore, Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word.

The entire motive for the Global Warming or Climate Change hype has been dollar based. Of course, the dollars translate, at some level, to control which always has been the overriding thrust behind the carefully manufactured hysteria. Eventually, the design of the Climate project was to have an International Body assess and collect funds equating to the environmental damage done by Countries or Corporations. While Nobel Peace Prize winning Al Gore has personally pocketed the lion’s share of the funding, there have been many other are recipients of Global Warming finances. IE; Canadians were forced to purchase $1.3 Billion dollars worth of emissions credits from Russia or face violations scrutiny. Countless programs and tightened EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) restrictions have cost Americans Billions of dollars in unnecessary compliance due to building codes, purchases or unnecessary alterations to their businesses. How will Al Gore pay the green back? or who is going to compensate these people for the damage done to them? How will they be restored after complying with the legal requirements set in place due to an exaggerated, well packaged and presented fabrication?

For Al Gore, Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word.

Scientists, not Politicians, have, with a virtually unified voice, told the World the facts behind the Global Warming or Climate Change scandal. A brief listing of contributing Agencies, Countries or Institutions that take an adversarial position to the Climate Change or Global Warming claims reads like the who’s who of Climatic Science. Harvard University, University of Notre Dame, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), The International Arctic Research Centre, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The UN IPCC, The Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy, Princeton University, The University of Helsinki, University of Pennsylvania, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The University of London The Pasteur Institute in Paris, The Belgian Weather Institute, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Stockholm University, University of Melbourne, University of Columbia, The World Federation of Scientists, as well as The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S The Environmental Protection Agency,. With a team like this denouncing the claims of the Global Warming or Climate Change, Mr. Gore, a man of integrity to be sure, will have to issue some kind of statement and provide compensation for the Wild Goose chase the World has taken perusing his claims. Saying “I’m sorry” will not even scratch the surface of the expense, inconvenience or loss that the World has suffered due to this Climate Change hypothesis.

To date, Scientists who recognized the Climatic inaccuracies were reluctant to publicly speak out about it. Should they dare to come against the rising tide of Politically funded Global Warming or Climate Change organizations, they were immediately cast as “Flat Earthers” or ignorant, unprofessional non team players by those in a capacity to fund or cut funding to their work. Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla asks a profound question when he explains why so many Well Respected Scientists are so concerned about telling what they know; “Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. At some point, Mr. Gore is going to have to take responsibility for his actions and admit that he has tried to foist this hysteria on the world for personal gain. Sorry will indeed be the hardest word for him.

To date, a handful of Scientists, specifically Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy and others, (possibly a dozen in all) have, for whatever reason, confirmed, perpetuated or instigated the data behind Climate Change. To date, no suggestion has been made that their motivation for perpetuating facts they knew to be questionable was political or financial. However, as the data becomes challenged, implications may also ensue. Their efforts have been applauded and furthered by representatives from UN who has made no secret of its desire to become an International taxing organization. The great tumult surrounding Global Warming or Climate Change has not been due to new information or data; it has been due to rewording or recycling of the same overused original information from these respected Scientists.

Had the most recent Environmental Conference not taken place in Bali Indonesia, much of the information from the international Climatic Community may never have become exposed. That Conference was an attempt to build momentum in order to allow Third World Countries to force the World’s biggest polluters to conform to Environmental standards. Cheers and accolades were plentiful when Al Gore denounced America as the main obstacle to such a Treaty. It was as if these Countries had finally leveled the playing

field between the USA and themselves. Scientist had seen this exaggeration of the facts go far enough and began to speak out as the Politicization of the event exceeded anything remotely in keeping with reality. For a man who has used his position as the second highest ranking Political Leader of the Free World to abuse his privilege in this most egresses way, is without parallel. Mr. Gore should start finding ways to pay the green back and compensate the International Community immediately. A good start would be for him to begin by saying he’s sorry. However, unfortunately for Mr. Gore, sorry will be the hardest word.

Link: http://www.rara.us/how-will-al-gore-pay-the-green-back

Filed: Timeline
Posted

BYRD 2002: We need a climate change strategy badly. Look at the kind of winter we've had here in Washington. One snow, three inches? What can we expect for the spring and summer seasons? What's going to happen to our crops, our livestock, our economy? This is serious. I've lived a long time, 84 years. Something's going wrong out there. I don't need a scientist to tell me that. We had better do something about it.

BOXER 2007: He also remarked that the most optimistic climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 70% of the snow pack will disappear. Now, no wonder we have people visiting our offices who are just already hurting from the recreation industry in this nation. They see what's happening. They see the handwriting on the wall. We have to act.

KLOBUCHAR 2008: I heard it from the head of our snowmobile association who testified at a forum that I had with our governor on climate change in January because they've seen decreasing snow levels. I hear about it from ice fishermen because they have seen that it takes longer for the ice to freeze and they can't put their fish house out.

BOXER 2009: Looking at the United States of America, the IPCC clearly warned that unchecked global warming will lead to reduced snow pack in the western mountains, critically reducing access to water, which is our lifeblood.

FEINSTEIN 2005: The Sierra Nevada snow pack is the largest source of water. The snow pack equals about half the storage capacity of all of California's man-made reservoirs. By the end of the century, the shrinking of the snow pack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people.

BOXER 2007: The potential consequences will be devastating for our families in the future and for the world. Now we're seeing the early warning signs. People can come down to this floor and say whatever they want. We've seen melting of snow, we have seen melting of permafrost, increased temperatures, warming of lakes, rivers, oceans, changes in the seasons.

INSLEE 2005: The ski industry in the Cascade Mountains in Washington essentially was shut down this year. My son's on ski patrol and he worked for three days this year, there was no snow. And having no snow is consistent with what the models will predict will become a significant problem for us in the future.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5107.guest.html

Country: Vietnam
Timeline
Posted
BYRD 2002: We need a climate change strategy badly. Look at the kind of winter we've had here in Washington. One snow, three inches? What can we expect for the spring and summer seasons? What's going to happen to our crops, our livestock, our economy? This is serious. I've lived a long time, 84 years. Something's going wrong out there. I don't need a scientist to tell me that. We had better do something about it.

BOXER 2007: He also remarked that the most optimistic climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 70% of the snow pack will disappear. Now, no wonder we have people visiting our offices who are just already hurting from the recreation industry in this nation. They see what's happening. They see the handwriting on the wall. We have to act.

KLOBUCHAR 2008: I heard it from the head of our snowmobile association who testified at a forum that I had with our governor on climate change in January because they've seen decreasing snow levels. I hear about it from ice fishermen because they have seen that it takes longer for the ice to freeze and they can't put their fish house out.

BOXER 2009: Looking at the United States of America, the IPCC clearly warned that unchecked global warming will lead to reduced snow pack in the western mountains, critically reducing access to water, which is our lifeblood.

FEINSTEIN 2005: The Sierra Nevada snow pack is the largest source of water. The snow pack equals about half the storage capacity of all of California's man-made reservoirs. By the end of the century, the shrinking of the snow pack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people.

BOXER 2007: The potential consequences will be devastating for our families in the future and for the world. Now we're seeing the early warning signs. People can come down to this floor and say whatever they want. We've seen melting of snow, we have seen melting of permafrost, increased temperatures, warming of lakes, rivers, oceans, changes in the seasons.

INSLEE 2005: The ski industry in the Cascade Mountains in Washington essentially was shut down this year. My son's on ski patrol and he worked for three days this year, there was no snow. And having no snow is consistent with what the models will predict will become a significant problem for us in the future.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5107.guest.html

Maybe we can transfer the record snowfalls from omne place to another? :wacko:

Country: Vietnam
Timeline
Posted
Some people are never happy. :(

I am not happy about what has so far been called the coldest month since records have been kept. Making my regular going out golfing when I go home harder. Still go play but having to wear a jacket is not fun when swinging a club. Hopefully this Global warming ####### will come back soon.

Posted
global_warming_the_religion_of_the_stupid_bumper_sticker-p128816875095858202trl0_400.jpg

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006



barack-cowboy-hat.jpg
90f.JPG

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...