Going "Green"

[StopPolloition]

Of course we're to be good stewards of the planet. But this must always be a means to glorify God and not an end. In many ways the banner of Going Green has been the revived rallying cry of Babel. No other effort in history has united so many. Babel had nothing to do with a tower reaching to heaven, (read Genesis- that's a human interpretation that simply isn't there), it had everything to do with men building a tower tall enough so that if God sent another flood, they'd be safe, leaving them beyond the judgment of God and free to live as they please. All of creation groans because of sin, not greenhouse emissions.

Climate control theology criminalizes the normal order of man's dominion that has existed since Eden and removes the focus off one's soul and places it onto hypothesized future generations. Thousands of scriptures place mans' emphasis on HIS soul. There is ONE that mentions leaving an inheritance for your childrens' children. And even that isn't talking about the environment. That's what makes blind eco zealotry so dangerous, such an effort to worship the creature rather than the creator.

When the focus of pulpits stops being about soul winning and changes to conservation, the Spirit has long departed from such congregations. Climate change isn't in the forefront because it's been championed by the best scientists, but by the most vocal. The media only exacerbates this fact.

Humans and animals live everywhere from Siberia to the Sudan and have done so since the continents drifted. To intimate that a fluctuation of a few degrees would alter these dwelling places is obscene; to further suggest that humans could endanger a PLANET (one that I might add is perpetually ravaged by solar radiation and barraged by asteroidal bodies) is so asinine that I lose a few I.Q. points raising the issue.

And let's be clear here, to decry the loss of habitat of polar bears while collateralizing the future of third world nations who cannot sustain insane carbon penalties is execrable and immoral. Only the most depraved individuals wouldn't pause long enough to consider the implications by this quandry. You don't leave your home when summer temperatures replace spring ones....you're seriously going to be displaced because July goes from 94 degrees to 96? Give me a break. Further, icebergs melting DOES NOT change earth's orbit, the movement of it's core and the influence of it's moon. So alot of extra water does not= tidal change and rise in sea levels.

One more thing, these climate clowns have demonized carbon dioxide, a gas that exists naturally in our atmosphere in gargantuan amounts (even though relative to Oxygen and Nitrogen it's dwarfed). They still teach first graders that we exhale carbon dioxide and trees depend on it so I'm missing the issue here. I could see if we were responsible for an increase in chlorine gas....

 

[Boanerges]

global warming is a "hoax" and "bad science."

The founder of the Weather Channel is ridiculing Al Gore over his calls for action on global climate change, saying in a column that global warming is a "hoax" and "bad science."
John Coleman, now a weatherman at San Diego's KUSI, wrote on his station's Web site Wednesday that Gore refuses to acknowledge the faulty research on which the idea of global warming is based.
Coleman's lengthy scolding came as the former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner addressed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and urged lawmakers to pass a bill that would put caps on heat-trapping gases and take the lead on a global climate treaty.
Coleman wrote that the Environmental Protection Agency is "on the verge" of naming CO2 (carbon dioxide) as a pollutant, and that seemingly all of Washington is on board with such CO2 silliness."
"I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it," Coleman wrote, describing the decades-old theory that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere leads to global warming.
"Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history," Coleman wrote.



From the Fox News site

 

[Boanerges]

ClimateGate spreads to NASA

It’s not just the scientists at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University who may have criminally violated the Freedom of Information Act (some profesors in the UK and some in the USA), NASA has been stonewalling a FOIA request as well… for years.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

“I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” Mr. Horner said. “These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.”

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies is saying they’re “working on” the FOIA request.

Right. For two years?!

The public affairs guy at GISS is using the Sgt. Schultz defense (”I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!”)

He said he was unfamiliar with the British controversy and couldn’t say whether NASA was susceptible to the same challenges to its data. The White House has dismissed the British e-mails as irrelevant.

What we are seeing is in total contradiction to the scientific method. Honest scientists don’t delete their data or use tricks to hide data they don’t like. They don’t insist the science is settled and that anyone who questions them is a nut. They gladly release their data to other scientists so their results can be replicated or errors can be corrected.

Once upon a time the “science was settled” that the world was flat. The “science was settled” that the world was the center of the universe. Whoops.

Much of the data used for the “consensus” that manmade global warming is real came from the CRU and NASA’s GISS. If that data is not accurate and/or has been manipulated it undermines everything. When you consider the trillions of dollars at risk here by policy pushed by this “science,” it’s understandable that Christopher Booker is calling it The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation.

From the Big Government website

 

[Boanerges]

If you have to argue your science by using fraud

From the Daily Express UK NEWS
CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD

Wednesday December 2 2009 byJohn Ingham


THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.

Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.

In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.

He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over *billions of years.
ì
If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.
î

Professor Pilmer

Prof Plimer - author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science - told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”

His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place

The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.

Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.

“In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.”

He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.

And he predicted that the next phase would cool the planet.

Climate change is widely blamed on the burning of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere, where they trap the sun’s heat.

The talks at Copenhagen are expected to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.

But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.”

The CRU’s Professor Jones has admitted some of the emails may have had “poorly chosen words” and were sent in the “heat of the moment”. But he has categorically denied manipulating data and said he stood by the science. And yesterday he dismissed suggestions of a conspiracy to alter *evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming as “complete rubbish”.

But mining geology professor Plimer said there was a huge momentum behind the climate-change lobby.

He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.

“The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”

But Vicky Pope, head of Met Office Climate Change Advice, said: “We are seeing changes in climate on a timescale we have not seen before.

“There clearly are natural variations. But the only way we can explain these trends is when we include both man-made and natural changes to the climate.

“We have also seen declines in summer sea ice over the past 30 years, glaciers retreating for 150 years, changing rainfall patterns and increases in subsurface and surface ocean temperatures.”

And as the war of words between the rival camps intensified, leading economist Lord Stern dismissed the sceptics as “muddled”.

Lord Stern, who produced a detailed report on the issue for the Government, said evidence of *climate change was “overwhelming”. He accepted that all views should be heard but said the degree of *scepticism among “real scientists” was very small.

 

[Hekuran]

Forbes Publishes Fiction on Climate Change Debate

Forbes.com has an article up called "The Fiction of Climate Science". Thanks no doubt to a link from Drudge, it's currently one of the website's "top rated," "most popular" and "most emailed" items. "Fiction" is a polite word for what the author, Gary Sutton, does with evidence.

Sutton grinds the already well-worn denialist ax about "global cooling"--scientists were predicting an imminent ice age in the 1970s, the argument goes, so why listen to those eggheads now about global warming?

But wait! Sutton provides a quote:

In 1974, the National Science Board announced:

"During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

First of all, this isn't one quote--this is two quotes from two separate National Science Board documents stapled together. The first comes from a 1974 report titled Science and the Challenges Ahead, and it was accurate at the time.

The report goes on to talk about potential human impacts on the global climate--both in adding dust to the atmosphere for a potential cooling effect, and by "activities of the expanding human population--especially those involved with the burning of fossil fuels--[that] raised the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, which acts as a 'greenhouse' for retaining the heat radiated from the Earth's surface."

The report notes that "the state of knowledge regarding climate and its changes is too limited to predict reliably whether the present, unanticipated cooling trend will continue."

The second half of the quote comes from another report, from 1972, called Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science. Here's the sentence in full:

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now.

The report immediately adds: "However, it is possible, or even likely that human interference has already altered the climate so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."

It goes on to discuss "increased atmospheric opacity" as a possible cooling factor, counterbalanced by the fact that "increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth's surface."

Needless to say, someone who is unable to correctly report what a book says is unlikely to be able to perform the much more complicated task of independently analyzing climate data and pointing out where all those scientists went wrong.

from FAIR

 

[Boanerges]

The deserts in the eastern USA used to be a lake. Florida used to be underwater. The Arctic was once tropical.
Climate change is normal. For it not to change would be abnormal. All these happened without man's influence.
I have already posted a list of over 30,000 scientist who say man made global warming is a scam.

 

[Hekuran]

Empty vessels make the loudest sound

The people you have been quoting have questionable scientific credentials.

Professor Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. He has not published any academic papers on Climate. He is also on the Board of Directors of three large mining companies – gold, copper, uranium.

John Coleman is a weather presenter. His training is as a journalist, not as a scientist.

It’s not too surprising that Christopher Booker is calling it The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation. He also said that white asbestos – Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4 – is chemically identical to talcum powder – H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2. That's not just an mistake, it is a dangerous mistake - the fibres of white asbestos are highly dangerous.

The idea that human induced climate change has been proven false is preposterous. There are a few very outspoken people, most of them tied to industry interests making a lot of noise. It is unfortunate that so much of the mass media is only too happy to play the game.