Scams
CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food
Carbon-free energy sources,
are not pollution free energy sources
There is also no proof that man can alter the climate by scientific means or through the politically motivated redistribution of wealth proposed by the IPCC.
The scandal of Climategate is that the CRU scientists lost sight of the need to stick with science, to debate the Lindzens of their profession in exclusively scientific terms, with open and accessible data and modelling code and all the other normal protocols of scientific debate. Their emails make it quite obvious that they decided to take a different path, and will now pay the price of being dismissed as political hucksters!
http://usafirst.info/videos/JohnStewartJokesAboutGlobalWarmingFraud.avi
Scams that are designed to promote the elite at the expense of the citizens.
Such as CAP and TRADE.
The proponents of the Carbon Tax Scheme intend to tax “carbon dioxide polluters” according to the social costs of carbon dioxide emissions. By taxing carbon dioxide emissions according to the cost of their externalities, mainly their contribution to the soon proven fabricated anthropogenic global warming, the Carbon Tax Scheme aims to internalize the externalities of emissions into the price of products, services and overwhelming ENERGY. This will make goods, services and energy that depend on carbon dioxide emissions more expensive compared to those whose production methods are less depend on carbon dioxide emissions (erroneously thought to be more environmentally friendly). As a result, a Carbon Tax Scheme will encourage a transition towards a low carbon economy, while having near zero reduction in other pollutants, all at the cost of trillions of dollars of mankind’s productivity. Follow the money. When these trillions of dollars leave our hands, where do they go?
You’ll Understand The Bigger Picture Better If You Also Understand How this fraudulent Carbon Tax Scheme will promote The Collapse Of America’s Economic System Which Is Crucial For The New World Order To Manifest Itself Into ‘Global Enslavement’…
Zeitgeist, The Movie – Remastered / Final Edition
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Al Gore, the leading advocate of the theory of “man-made global warming” is also one of the people who would likely benefit the most financially from the implementation of a “cap and trade” carbon credit trading scheme.
“I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it.”
But is Al Gore ready to back real environmental solutions which would not make him money?
Apparently those kinds of solutions don’t appeal to him as much. Just consider the following passage from a recent Newsweek article…..
“If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit,” says Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, who presented at two summits. The political clash is this: if you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions—as one of Gore’s assistants told LaSalle in asking him to dial down his estimate. (He didn’t.)”
October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN on the subject of global warming.
Full presentation of Lord Christopher Monckton
I think it’s important to remember that until places like the CRU begin to release their RAW TEMP DATA and RAW PROXY DATA (all raw proxy data and all direct thermometer readings for ALL worldwide stations — BEFORE ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE) then we’ll never be able to have confidence in the IPCC projections.
According to Al Gore “the interior of the earth is extremely hot – several million degrees” when in fact the temperature at the core maybe only as high as 7000 degrees Celsius (The Worldbook Encyclopedia. Chicago: Worldbook, 1999: 20-21).
Note:
Do you really think this science is the only bad science that “Ow Gore!” is dispensing???
The 20% increase in CO2 over the last 200 years amounts to an overall increase of 0.006% to a total CO2 concentration of 0.036%. Even with a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry it’s apparent that there is no way in hell that such trace amounts of ANY greenhouse gas can affect world-wide climate to the extent we’re led to believe. But Scientific American has pushed this idea to rediculous extremes. It’s sensationalized and very poor science at its worst.
Shameful!
A.Lipkin, Ph.D.
neoguru@aol.com
Then and now – a personal view of bias and censorship
Back in the early pre-historical dawn of experimental science, i.e. 1959, I began a PhD project on the electrical breakdown of liquid insulants. An abstruse topic, you might well think, but a small improvement could have saved billions of dollars and put all those overhead power lines that now so excite the epidemiologists underground.
The received wisdom in those days was that there was such a thing as intrinsic breakdown strength. That is to say that the voltage at which the sample breaks down (sparks) depends only on the properties of the liquid and not upon the apparatus and test method. A consequence of this theory was that the higher average breakdown voltage you got (for a given thickness of sample) and the lower the scatter of the normally distributed results, the greater your skill as an experimentalist. Lo and behold, published averages got higher and higher while scatter got lower and lower. I made a few preliminary measurements and got result nowhere near the published ones. I was about to give up and go on to some other topic before it was too late, when I attended a research seminar by one Andreas Sletten. He had demonstrated that high breakdown strengths could be caused by an impurity (oxygen), which blew the reigning theory out of the water. This gave me courage to carry on and I was able to show that the way the voltage was applied by the traditional manual control methods also contributed to high averages and low scatters. When I attended my first scientific conference at Durham University the following year, I discovered in the course of conversation with various people that at least a dozen pieces of research had gone unreported because the results obtained were not considered high enough. If all the unpublished results had been included the average publicly acknowledged value for breakdown strength would have been halved. Some research careers were killed at the outset because they failed to conform to the theory.
This was made all the more poignant by my research supervisor, a classical absent-minded professor who used to get the generations of students mixed up, and often referred to poor John Brignell, who never got his PhD because of low results, yet was probably right.
I have never said it publicly before, but the proponents are all probably now dead and gone, most of the senior academics in this field were lying in their teeth. Many of the published results were, in my view, impossible to achieve. I introduced computer-controlled methods of measurement that eliminated the “human skill” factor (much to the horror of senior colleagues of the “precision measurement” school) and demonstrated that wide statistical variation was intrinsic to the breakdown phenomenon, as the concept of the weakest link and extreme value statistics would demand. Conduction and breakdown properties of the materials had been “shown” to vary with such abstruse phenomena as molecular chain length, when the variations concerned were less than I was getting between nominally identical samples prepared by almost absurdly careful methods (such as multi-stage distillation in a system that had been baked under high vacuum).
The millions of man-hours that went into all that worldwide research have proved worthless in the pursuit of human progress. The main reason for this failure was the formulation of an establishment orthodoxy that prevented the publication of alternatives. In fact, when the intrinsic strength theory collapsed, it was immediately replaced by an equal and opposite, and equally banal, theory that all the phenomena were caused by sub-microscopic solid particle impurities. It again became difficult to publish results that disagreed with the new orthodoxy. The theorists felt secure in the knowledge that no one could make the measurements necessary to undermine their claims. It took me years of work to dispose of that one, and involved an elaborate computer aided experiment that measured the actual charges carried by randomly moving particles (femto-coulombs) and showed that they were many orders of magnitude too small to accommodate the theory. I spent a few more years knocking down theories, which in my Popperian view was the very stuff of science, but gradually moved over to the development of sensors that measured what needed to be measured, rather than relying of indirect deductions. Nevertheless, the general unease about the state of measurement science never left me and, in fact, grew. Most ominous was that fact that a new form of politics was emerging. Radicals of both the New Left and the New Right saw science not as an entity with its own integrity, but rather as a tool that they could bend to their own purposes.
Perhaps this background will go to explain the fact that I became something of a single-issue fanatic on the subject of “the abuse of measurement” and half a century later took early retirement to write a book with that as the sub-title. It is also the reason for the dismay with which I view the current scene. In one very important respect it is now even worse. Governments and the media now form part of the establishment that is trying to maintain particular theories against all the scientific evidence. Statistical fraud is openly practised by state sponsored bodies, such as the EPA. Worst of all, precious primary data, such as the historic temperature records, are being altered with Orwellian casualness to conform to the official theory rather than reality.
As detailed in Sorry, wrong number!, in 1989 Gordon Stewart wrote a paper challenging the official view that AIDs cases in the UK would reach tens of thousands by 1992. His paper remained unpublished during a four-year correspondence in which referees wrote comments such as “Why should I read a paper by someone who believes the earth is flat?”
Stewart’s paper, which was rejected by Nature, Science, the New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal, was proved to be correct to within a remarkable 10%. The “experts” were out by several orders of magnitude. The establishment ignored their shame and simply moved on. The same process is now taking place with the Global Warming Myth. The reward for conforming is millions of dollars worth of grants. The penalty for dissenting is being relegated to a remote corner of the World Wide Web (among the cranks and pornographers), which is the last home of scholarship, as practised by such lone battlers as John Daly.
O tempora, O Mores!
John Brignell, July 2003
(March 31, 1943 – January 29, 2004)
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/then_and_now.htm
31,486 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, have signed a petition stating: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. ”
Wake up Americans! The “science” is not settled, and the “debate” is not over.
