FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Is Climate Change really man-made?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 59, 60, 61  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I heard this too.

So we have one study saying the sun is in decline and another saying that it is at an 8000 year high.

I'd like to know the ins and outs of both to see which is most credible.

Oh,

'Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.'

This is interesting. I wonder who funded this study at his Government administerd research facility.


Anyhow. The Study attacks an alternative theory for climate change. It doesn't attempt to support the IPCC position as many people might wish to believe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh dear - more debunkers ignoring data which doesn't fit their pre-conceived view.

I have just corresponded with Prof Mike Lockwood and he has sent me a copy of his paper.

Sadly, it contains no refernce to data like this:

http://www.news.wisc.edu/newsphotos/neptune.html

Nor does it include pictures like this:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/uranus_hst.gif

Oops. Looks like another cover-up to suit an agenda.

Also, a quick run of other frequently-ignored data:

Olympus Mons, 27km high volcano on Mars - latitude 19 deg
Solar Maximum - most sunspots occur at latitudes of 19.5 degress
Red Spot on Jupiter 19.5 degrees.
Big Island of Hawaii - latitude 19 degrees
Dark spot on Neptune - latitude 19 degrees
Alpha & Beta Regio - venusian volcanoes - latitude? You guessed it! 19.5 degrees.
Strongest El Nino currents occur on latitude - 19 degrees.

But lets just ignore all that, ay stick with the reductionist model of "unexplained effects" or "seasonal change".


Am about to respond to him with some of this data, and the ignornace of chemtrail data, which also affects climate, at the very least in a local sense, as I videod on Feb 4th 2007:


Link


CAA and Dept of Transport have so far failed to respond to my requests for any flight data which shows 42 aircraft travelling over derby in 2.5 hours (all time-stamped video, folks)

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
utopiated
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands

PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The CAA have responded to my sending them a letter with images showing Nottingham being plastered by aerosols from aircraft.

They even phoned me up which was good. Show's my vast tax payments are going somewhere.

I think they claim not to be in charge of the actual flight logs. They gave me another organisation for that.

I'd print the letter I got but I've asked their permission and am still waiting to hear back.

If we all sent a letter a day they'd soon have to launch an investigation into illegal spraying of the atmosphere.

Andrew - did you notice I found your press release on rense's site?? Rense gets 1,000,000 hits a day or something remarkable.

_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
--
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the response I sent to Prof Mike Lockwood following his sending a copy of his paper to me. If anyone wants a copy of his paper (which is quite techie), PM or e-mail me. For a copy of my report, referred to below, click the link.
====================
Dear Prof Lockwood,

Many thanks for replying to my message of 06 July. I have spent a little time working through your interesting paper and realise that it does not even mention (in the main body) CO2 or "Greenhouse Gases". This is very interesting to me.

My own view is that there are a number of factors at work here - and CO2 and industrialisation is likely the least significant of them. One question which arose in my mind is... what about the industrialisation previous to the last 20 years? For example, we had more sooty factory outputs and less efficient burning of fuels (though also less in amount) in the 1850's-1950's (at a guess).

Also, may I offer the following comments: in section 4 "Recent solar trends and their implications", regarding the Cosmic Ray influence you say "We here do not discuss these mechanisms in any detail.". I think this sort of area holds the key (see below). In what I think could turn out to be related, you mention in the Conclusions: "there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism which is, as yet, unknown." Again, see below.

Whilst the data in your paper supports the idea that the Sun itself does not seem to have significantly affected the climate on Earth in the last 20 years, data from the rest of the Solar System suggests that something IS influencing the climate on several, if not ALL, of the other planets. Have a look:

Venus:

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/1999/65.html

(More on other Earth factors below)

Mars:

http://www.xtec.es/recursos/astronom/hst/hst2/9715b.htm

Jupiter:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml

Saturn:

http://www.daviddarling.info/archive/2006/archiveMay06_5.html

(Spin time has changed - original new scientist article doesn't seem to be available)

Uranus:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/uranus_hst.gif

Neptune:

http://www.news.wisc.edu/newsphotos/neptune.html

Pluto:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html


I think this could have something to do with the physics which could explain the following facts:

Olympus Mons, 27km high volcano on Mars - latitude 19 deg
Solar Maximum - most sunspots occur at latitudes of 19.5 degrees
Red Spot on Jupiter 19.5 degrees.
Big Island of Hawaii - latitude 19 degrees
Dark spot on Neptune - latitude 19 degrees
Alpha & Beta Regio - Venusian volcanoes - latitude? You guessed it! 19.5 degrees.
Strongest El Nino currents occur on latitude - 19 degrees.

Also, I think the density of the Local Interstellar Medium could be changing (but this is Scientific Heresy, of course...)

http://ae-www.usc.edu/bio/dons/ds_biosk.html

Local Interstellar Medium

Research on the properties of the Local Interstellar medium have been carried out in scattered periods beginning in 1978. The NASA Space Physics Division has shown a persistent pernicious bias against work on the effects of the neutral gas in the LISM in the United States, from the time of the formation of the Division. The dominant role of neutral hydrogen in the formation of the termination shock in the collision of the solar wind with the LISM has only recently been recognized by the particles and fields research community, which has been supported primarily by the Space Science Division. The most important contributions to research in this program are papers (4Cool, which presents a calibration independent method of determining absolute LISM density, and (89), which presents the first evidence for a large increase in the LISM neutral atomic hydrogen density from Voyager measurements of the 50 AU region, suggesting the approach to the termination shock (89). See 19, 20, 21, 48, 64, 82, 89.


Finally, as I mentioned to you in my previous message, there is an unacknowledged aerosol spraying programme very much in use. This is very hard to believe, but if you read my report (see here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/Chemtrails/ - and agreed on by over 20 named signatories), you will find the basic data that proves it is happening. And it isn't just me that thinks so - please see below - and see how baldly the agencies have denied the evidence I have presented.

Over to you.

Many thanks for reading this long message.

Yours Sincerely,

Andrew Johnson
22 Mear Drive
Borrowash
Derbyshire
DE72 3QW

Tel: 01332 674271




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

Replies to 2nd Press Release ( http://www.prleap.com/pr/84474 )


John H:
I have photos from the skies over Bristol, UK that I took in 2004 showing chemtrails. I wrote to my MP asking what they there were but he didn't know!

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

Dear Mr. Johnson,

I would like to express my deep admiration for your efforts in rationalizing the chemtrail phenomenon with the relevant UK authorities. Please do not stop.

My name is KS and live in NE London.Aeresol operations are at times very heavy in this area. They fly virtually straight over my house (IG10). There is most definitely a cover up on the real nature of these emissions. Persistant * from the authorities must be exposed and the phenomenon publicised as widely as possible.

I am interested in following your line of enquiry with the relevant authorities and wondered if you could give me some advice on methods to document and present evidence.

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

Dear Andrew, first of all, let me say that I appreciate your concern, it must feel at times that you are the only one awake in a world of sleepwalkers and outright liars.
I've been CT aware since I read an article in Nexus magazine in about 2002. At the time I wasn't too concerned as it wasn't happening here, but in a few months it was..having been prepped I knew immediately what was happening. My only effort at contacting 'the establishment' was to email the Mayor of London's environmental person, who said she didn't know what the heck I was talking about or why I was contacting her office,and suggested I call my MP. I realised that official blanket denial was the order of the day, top priority.
All the best, Duncan.

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

Hi,

Interested to read your documents on the chemtrails,I also have witnessed this strange cloud formation that seem to appear of the back of these "contrails", I am sure that this never used to happen when seeing planes fly across the sky,you would see the vapour then a few seconds or at tops a minute they would be gone,so there does seem to be something going on! But what! Keep up the good work in finding out information,i am not sure as an individual what I can do,any ideas? if you cant answer this email its ok,just to let you know that there are other people seeing this happen too.

J

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

Hi there,
I`m Keith G, I live on the South Herts border in the UK. Early retired now I often take shots of various sunsets.. clouds or whatever. I remember in the 60`s.. seeing `contrails` where we lived in Ponders End Enfield.. North London.. I think I was told contrails. Well.. for some time its been too obvious.. I`ve even asked those I`ve found email addresses for, including a U.S. airforce commander.. er..

I realise we have high altitude planes monitoring weather, atmosphere, etc.. but.. why the need for at least five planes at one time early evening.. all leaving trails.. often criss cross.. I have many pics of this.. sunset and earlier morning. The answer.. `Your air space guys are very tight over there.. nothing to worry about`.. I wasn't asking about security issues.. I`m asking why the need for five high altitude planes at one time, surely not just to produce pretty patterns for my enjoyment?
I had a very late night last Saturday and was still up at 7.45am Sunday.. tapping outside.. a neighbour decided it was a good time to repair a flat roof edge.. his immediate neighbours must have been very pleased.. then I saw a trail.. ok.. took it.. five minutes later I looked out again and blimey.. there was a corker.. looked lower and was spreading out. I`ve not downsized it yet... was going to go out and see how far it went.. it was long.. and had already thickened. So that was aprox 8am.. and I bedded soon after. I KNOW my neighbours think I must be an idiot taking pics of clouds.. maybe they think I`m looking for ufos.. er no.. I like sunbeams from behind clouds.. and sometimes get some good shots.

SO.. I`m following this `campaign` with interest. I`m not saying its pollution as such.. I do suffer bronchil trouble.. and my childhood was spent in a heavily polluted area.. even the smokeless zone went around a local industrial chimney.. did I laugh? How much did that cost em.. so.. WHY so many at one time.. that's my question. Early morning.. and evening. Er.. seen some by moonlight as well. How long have they been `adjusting` the weather?
Regards, Keith G


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


Hi

I just read your essay on the rense site.

I have been watching chemtrails over the lower mainland of British Columbia and north west Washington state and photographing them since 1995.

I've also observed them traveling in western US and Canada. By the way I spent 3 months in Belize winter 05/06 and didn't see a single trail.

In fact the only clear day which didn't result in sky obscuration was July 4th, 2007. I guess they gave someone in the chain the day off. What evil must lurk in this chain for them to continuously spray poisons on their fellow man.

Being a pilot for 40 years I tend to watch the sky and aircraft movements more than the average person.

One particular incident stands out in my mind more than any of the others.

One July day in 2005 I was walking my runway at about 10:00 am. I did this every day to ensure there was no FOD on the runway in case of visitors.

I was walking back, about 023 degrees, when I saw what appeared to be a white DC-10, L-1011, or MD-11 at about 11-12,000 feet heading southeast and about my 1-2 o'clock and about 7-8 miles.

It was spewing an enormous white trail and since it was just south of Vancouver when I spotted it, it had to be over Vancouver control zone and either in contact with center or with their prior knowledge of it's passage.

All this was going through my mind when it turned left and headed right down my runway heading and passed directly overhead as it went north east.

I could see clearly this was a KC-10 with no markings.

It continued the present heading maintaining the same altitude until it reached the north shore mountains where it turned off the spray and turned right heading to the Seattle area and initiated a climb.

I've seen others including a more recent KC-767 just east of Vancouver where I live now but the KC-10 experience was the closest for me.

I read somewhere the Bush Crime family has ordered 900, yes 900 more KC-767 aircraft from Boeing to add to their spraying fleet. It was mentioned that there was no retirement in store for the planes in inventory now.

I have had a lot of material accumulate in our horse feeders and on my motor home from these recent sprayings so I'm going to collect as much as I can for testing.

Best regards, Wayne


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


Hello Andrew.

I might have sent you a message once before since your address is in my e-mail listing. Thank you so much for launching a true request for investigation into the by-now perennial chemtrail issue. And thank you for acknowledging Clifford Carnicom's work. I distribute his documentary, and in case you don't already have a copy, I would be happy to send you one if you give me your mailing address.

I think that the applications of this program are massive. Nothing less than altering the entire matrix of the earth itself, so that all kinds of modifications of life can be effected. I believe that creating drought and forcing population reduction and migration are part of it, not to mention the mind control associated with electromagnetic intervention. I think we should stop using the word "weather", since that implies something natural and I don't think we have that anymore. We have "managed climate states". I think "management" is the operative word for the entire operation.

Thanks for your initiative in this huge huge issue.

Harriett F



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

Dear Mr. Johnson,

My family has been watching the ever increasing aerosol spraying from aircraft.
We first became aware of this daily operation in November 1998.

Please understand we are not radicals, we are retired professionals who have a good frame of reference of what normal clouds look like.

We have opposed the 'covert-like' legislation titled "weather modification".

We hope that you will be willing to help uncover The Real Truth.

Sincerely,
BC
Arizona


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

There is a massive cover up - no question.

Today, as usual, I notice a thousand glinting minute metallic particles all over my car windscreen - and ask myself - where on earth this could have possible come from ??!!- knowing full well where.

Well done you for sending that report but it needs to go to people that will listen not the agencies that are bent on covering it up.

I have been tracking these since 2003.

Louise, London


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

Hello Andrew,

I picked up on your work from the Jeff Rense website.

Briefly, I got interested in what's really going on in the world after my son became inexplicably ill in august 2004.1 have to say that at times I wished that this hadn't happened, because as the saying goes 'Ignorance is Bliss'.

One of my 'gut feelings' was that my son had been exposed to some sort of agent, perhaps a Mycoplasma of some sort.

When I saw the BBC news report on aerosol trials in the Sixties I thought it would be worth following up. I enclose the correspondence which I hope you will find informative.

The protective hoods produced by Avon cost less than 100 each. I rang them to enquire whether I could purchase one. The nice lady who spoke to me said that since the report had been made public (in the Telegraph originally) that she had been given a statement to work from when approached by a member of the public. Although the company website (www.avon-protection.com) doesn't directly state that the hoods can't be purchased by individuals, in reality they can only be obtained by the military and essential services.

Feel free to contact me on this matter, or anything else that I might be able to help with.

Best regards,

John


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

Responses to 1st Press Release ( http://www.prweb.com//releases/2007/5/prweb527358.htm )

Hello Andrew

Just received your PR web release and am reading the report.

I have been following this issue for some time and have been videoing our local skies for 3months.

Thank you so much and I have sent it everywhere.

I think the Greens really need to look at this but so far here it has fallen on deaf ears and the other parties deny it.

If I can Help let me know

John, Australia
Dear Mr. Johnson,

A friend sent me your report about chemtrails in the U.K. I have tracked them here in northern Arizona for the past two years, where skies are normally a bright, clear blue (or at least they used to be) for most days of the year.

The chemtrails have increased and become far worse over the past several years, along with extreme changes in local climate and environment. Respiratory problems are virtually epidemic and long-lasting.

Earlier this week, after a barrage of heavy spraying, I decided to e-mail NOAA through their website (unfortunately their form does not allow the addition of pictures) and received the response as indicated below.

Susan, Arizona
Dear Andrew Johnson,

Have just read your excellent article on chemtrails, and agree 100% with your views and conclusions. I live near Exeter in the South-west, and have been concerned for some time about these aircraft sprayings, having a huge amount of air traffic here at times, and as you say, the sky ends up completely milky white. I have taken digital camera pictures of these unmarked aircraft spraying overhead, sometimes as many as thirty or more aircraft in a very short time, spraying in a grid pattern it seems, and have looked up some mornings to find an X marks the spot in the sky overhead......... looks like a St.Andrews cross. I'm quite interested in astronomy , and have a large pair of binoculars 80 x 20's , but even with these there are no markings on these aircraft. I have seen a couple of aircraft with what look like extra tanks under the fuselage. With these binos I have also seen an aircraft that was spraying from the tailplane, the trails were not coming from anywhere near the engines........ quite offset from the engine positions. So, yes we are being sprayed. Where do these aircraft come from? Surely someone must see this amount of air-traffic taking off and landing! It makes me so angry that these pilots could be doing this to us all........and presumably to their own families. Perhaps these pilots don't have the full story on what they are doing, or are paid huge amounts of money, or maybe they are flown remotely from a base somewhere.

Anyway, if I can help in any way to get to the bottom of this, please let me know, I'm so pleased to see someone in this country voicing the concerns I've had for a while now.

We need a lot of us to make a dent in this thing.........and I don't think the Gov't will have a word of it...... tried that. We need to know where these aircraft are based, who runs them, and who's paying for all this.

James M.
Hi Andrew,
I have just been looking over your chemtrail dossier and I think think it is an excellent peice of work.
Chemtrails first caught my attention after reading an article in nexus magazine around about 1998/99, and to be honest at that time in the UK I was not seeing any, so I just dismissed the idea as something that was happening in the US, if indeed it was happening at all, but still I decided to keep my eyes open just in case.

But then back in 2002 I was leaving my nephews house in North Shields Tyne & Wear to come home to Kelso just over the Scottish border.

From the main road near the tyne tunnel you can just see the cheviot hills that mark the border with Scotland and England, and amongst those hills is Otterburn military training camp.
Now back then and reaching the rise on the main road I could see in the distance the cheviot hills, except this time I could make out a huge X in the sky, so all the way home I kept my eye on this X to try to discover it's exact location and upon reaching wooler I could see that the X was amost above my head but to the left and which would have been directly over otterburn training camp and ever since that day these trails have been persistent over and near my home which is only about 20 miles from the training camp.

Now if you note, I first noticed this at the end of the summer in 2002 just as the case for the war in Iraq was being ramped up, any connection?

I have since taken many photos and videos of this phenomenon and also believe that last years spate of noctilucent clouds here in the UK may also be connected.

Keep up the good work Andrew.

Your's sincerely,

John C
Dear Mr. Johnson:

I am interested in your report and would like to communicate with you about some of the information that two of us have been researching since 1998. We believe, however, that the program here in Northern California and Arizona dates back to 1988 or 1989, when the American taxpayer funding was made available for a wide variety of programs...which include the making of persistent jet contrails. We believe that there may have been experiments prior to this date...however, technology and funding became available on a massive scale in the late 1980s.

If you would like to communicate with me this would be great. I do intend to forward your site on the Internet here and in several places in the next couple of days. I have a variety of government documents which might be of interest to you as well.


Your report is very good.

Sincerely,

Rosalind, California

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
James C
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andrew,

I have to say that I am a bit confused by your post. Having read quite a bit about cosmic ray theory, I cannot dismiss it. As you know, the theory's central concept is that cosmic rays make low level cloud which cool the planet and this happens when the sun is less active. When the sun is more active, the opposite is true and the suns's stronger magentic field deflects the cosmic rays which would otherwise reach earth. Our planet thus warms due to increased sun output and reduction in cloud. It would appear that low level cloud cover variations correlate nicely with global temperature changes according to Svensmark's work (which doesn't equate with what Lockwood is saying).

So how do so-called chemtrails (or persistent contrails) fit in with this and what accusation are you making about them in connection with CC? I ask because they must be helping to cool the planet and yet the planet has shown pronounced warming in the past 30 years or so in line with the general trend witnessed during the 20th century.

Similarly, what proof do you have that other planets will duplicate the same results as planet earth when it comes to global warming? Can you prove that they react in exactly the same way to the sun. Since our planet's atmosphere is unique, just as Venus's atmosphere is unique, I would argue that assuming a direct correlation be very wrong indeed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, hey hey!

It's JamesC!! You often "pop up" to reply, don't you? I still have no idea who you are though... But, anyway, to summarise my thoughts:

1) Climate change is happening - I have no dispute with anyone who says this.

2) CO2 increases from human initiated processes is not the cause of current climate change - it may contribute tiny localised effects.

3) Something is happening in the solar system - some external factor - which seems to be affecting all the planets in some way. It could be a change in the Local Interstellar medium. I do not have enough information to be more specific.

4) Despite your denials, Chemtrails are real. Their long term effect on the climate is unknown as the majority of Scientists do not acknowledge their existence so will not deign to study them. The effect of chemtrails on local climate seems to be sometimes observable (sky blotted out, cooler temperatures and sometimes the weather changes in character). However, more measurements need to be made to establish this.

Therefore, Climate Change is much more complicated than just "carbon footprints" and all people who think it is as simple as that and legistlate on that basis are wrong and misguided in their actions, unsupported as they are by the data listed above.

I will post any response from Prof Lockwood, if possible.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
James C
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Hey, hey hey!

It's JamesC!! You often "pop up" to reply, don't you? I still have no idea who you are though... But, anyway, to summarise my thoughts:

1) Climate change is happening - I have no dispute with anyone who says this.

2) CO2 increases from human initiated processes is not the cause of current climate change - it may contribute tiny localised effects.

3) Something is happening in the solar system - some external factor - which seems to be affecting all the planets in some way. It could be a change in the Local Interstellar medium. I do not have enough information to be more specific.

4) Despite your denials, Chemtrails are real. Their long term effect on the climate is unknown as the majority of Scientists do not acknowledge their existence so will not deign to study them. The effect of chemtrails on local climate seems to be sometimes observable (sky blotted out, cooler temperatures and sometimes the weather changes in character). However, more measurements need to be made to establish this.

Therefore, Climate Change is much more complicated than just "carbon footprints" and all people who think it is as simple as that and legistlate on that basis are wrong and misguided in their actions, unsupported as they are by the data listed above.

I will post any response from Prof Lockwood, if possible.


So in short, you know no more than I about CC and yet claim that AGW is bullsh*t.

As it happens, I remain slightly skeptical about AGW to the point that I think it is being overamplified for uses as a propaganda tool by the government. I believe it is being employed as justification for us to reduce our energy consumption at a time when energy is reaching a real crunch point. Something you prefer to deny or ignore I know.

Still, your answer doesn't satisfy my question which is about the role you are saying persitent contrails are making in all of this. Are you merely trying to connect dots which don't exist? In fact why do you make a connection between contrails and CC and yet dismiss the very direct correlation between rising CO2 levels and fossil fuel use. Isn't this just a case of you wanting to make everything more sinister than it is? As usual.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James C wrote:

So in short, you know no more than I about CC and yet claim that AGW is bullsh*t.


No, I didn't say that. In fact, I don't even know what AGW means, though I assume "GW" means Global Warming.

A common mistake that forum posters seem to make is that they think they know a fellow posters' entire knowledge from a few posts.

All I do is post evidence and my views and interpretation of it and why I think other views are wrong. I don't claim to be an expert. And I write this in the introduction of my chemtrails report, for example.

Quote:

As it happens, I remain slightly skeptical about AGW to the point that I think it is being overamplified for uses as a propaganda tool by the government.


I agree - yes - viz Live Earth etc etc.

Quote:

I believe it is being employed as justification for us to reduce our energy consumption at a time when energy is reaching a real crunch point..
Something you prefer to deny or ignore I know.


I disagree with the idea of an energy crisis (and you have made rude replies to me in the past about this). I have provided evidence to back up my views - both of which people can make their own minds up about. However, as I posted elsewhere, and am also not alone in saying, the links between the energy cover up and 9/11 seem to have become clearer with information published about Steven E Jones (if only I'd read Mallove's book some years ago...)

Quote:

Still, your answer doesn't satisfy my question which is about the role you are saying persitent contrails are making in all of this. Are you merely trying to connect dots which don't exist? In fact why do you make a connection between contrails and CC and yet dismiss the very direct correlation between rising CO2 levels and fossil fuel use. Isn't this just a case of you wanting to make everything more sinister than it is? As usual.


I am sorry it doesn't satisfy your question Mr Anonymous James C - but as (a) I am a volunteer, (b) you are not a student of mine and (c) you have made repeatdedly rude remarks, would anyone who is reasonable think I was being unpleasant by not spending time providing an answer specifically tailored to your particular requirements?

Have fun.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
James C
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
No, I didn't say that. In fact, I don't even know what AGW means, though I assume "GW" means Global Warming.


Hi AJ, its the thorn in your side here.

So, you discuss CC and write to Lockwood to explain your scientific approach and yet do not know what the A means in AGW. I'm gobsmacked! Just shows how little you've read on the subject.

Please, someone tell him what the A stands for.

Oh, and you still haven't answered my question. Which is normal for you.

Ask the tough questions folks....but don't expect an answer from AJ 'cos he doesn't know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James C wrote:

So, you discuss CC and write to Lockwood to explain your scientific approach and yet do not know what the A means in AGW.


Oops right and wrong here. I don't know what the A in AGW means - that's correct.

I did not mention my "scientific approach" to Lockwood. I made comments about his paper, in my report I don't claim to be a scientist - as I said above. I don't think I claim to have a totally rigid scientific approach - I simply present and comment on basic data.

People like you just seem to think that misquoting me will somehow change the nature of the basic data I and many, many others have documented and certain basic interpretations about it.

I told you why I wasn't going to directly answer your question in the way you wanted - I have already answered it to the best of my ability. I don't seek to meet your standards - as I said, you have been rude and have misquoted me - twice on this thread alone. You won't reveal who you are either. As I have said before ALL my cards are on the table.

Quote:

Ask the tough questions folks....but don't expect an answer from AJ 'cos he doesn't know.


No - I don't , ergo I'm rubbish aren't I, which is the key to this whole thread isn't it James. There - happy now are we?

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"very direct correlation between rising CO2 levels and fossil fuel use"

What very direct correlation is that then James C. Would it be the one that shows temperature leading CO2 rises by 800 years over thousands and thousands of years?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
James C
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cruise4 wrote:
"very direct correlation between rising CO2 levels and fossil fuel use"

What very direct correlation is that then James C. Would it be the one that shows temperature leading CO2 rises by 800 years over thousands and thousands of years?


Oh, that would be the very direct increase in CO2 by one third since the beginning of the industrial age. (280ppm - 380pppm). This is the largest increase in CO2 for 800,000 years and for the first time has happened before temperature rise has occured. As you correctly assert, although I doubt whether you understand why, CO2 rise has always followed temperature rise but its affect has always been the same, to raise the temperature even further. Its called a feedback loop.

Are there any more questions I can help you with?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James C wrote:
This is the largest increase in CO2 for 800,000 years and for the first time has happened before temperature rise has occured.


Cool! Were you on Backing Vocals for any of the acts that appeared on Live Earth?

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
James C
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
James C wrote:
This is the largest increase in CO2 for 800,000 years and for the first time has happened before temperature rise has occured.


Cool! Were you on Backing Vocals for any of the acts that appeared on Live Earth?


Andrew,

Is this the best you can come up with? Obviously you find it annoying that my knowledge of CC and Anthropomorphic Global Warming is far superior to yours even though you deem yourself fit enough to dismiss it as an outright scam.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would guess it may have something to do with oceans heating up off the top of my head. I think the ocean can take 1000 years to propogate out. Please tell me what is the cause if you know.

Being as records began a very very short time ago, relative to 650 million years of Ice Core evidence and the Little Ice Age represents a low anyway that we are moving out of, I'd say its a bit early to rely on human CO2 measurements as gospel in terms of history, let alone base Government policy on it. Could be down to all sorts of things like forest fires, rain forest cutting, volcanic activity, military industrial complex activity, aerosols. Its a very small part of atmospheric compostion and a very small increase.

What happened 800 years ago. Was there in fact a temperature rise called the mediaeval period or something?

You suggest a feedback loop... so why isn't it as hot as the sun here by now?

Greenhouse Gas... its a name relating to a suggested model of a greenhouse, which is a closed system so CO2 would build up because there's nowhere for it to go. The earth isn't. Who know the mechanisms the earth has to lose to space.

And is it not true that since about 1998 temperature if anything may have cooled globally? Cold in Aussie land lately I hear.

What about all the proxie evidence? Then there's other planets (not conclusive but suggestive), Sunspots, Flares, gamma ray Bursts?

Then there's many 'real' environmental scientists that also think CO2 led Global warming is garbage as oppose to NWO funded, Grant seeking model makers who admit they don't understand the thing they are trying to model fully. Let alone the many lies these people like Gore have told and been caught out on, the latest being the Polar Bear pictures they used in their mockumentary. Your camp are looking real good!

CO2 led Global warming is an unproven theory that flies in the face of most evidence and I am confident it will be shown up to be fraudulent.

Now if this scum, tackled their wasteful, deceitful and destructive ways causing pollution, amongst other things, I'd be a lot happier but of course this is all about taxing us on anything and everything to fulfill their world government agenda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
item7
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:05 am    Post subject: Is Climate Change really man-made? Reply with quote

Petition Project
Quote:
Global Warming Petition

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.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.



http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Quote:
ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.


The more people that are made aware of this gigantic scam to fleece us the sooner we can put a stop to it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

...and 300 years ago, there were probably similar emotional petitions from reality deniers as to why the last five acres of trees had to go on Easter Island.

But as usual (for the purposes of business as usual) not a single piece of data as to why or how the miracle is supposed to happen. The subtext is always that we're doing just fine, don't upset the applecart.

Maybe some people with an overly heavy investment in the material world just can't conceive that human existence need not necessarily be about making, buying and selling things and that doing so on as crudely and carelessly as we do on a global mega-industrial scales is ultimately nihilistic?

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
item7
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"emotional petition" ?????? This from a supporter of the biggest scam in history which is based on nothing more than a huge emotional appeal to people to save the world from themselves when the alleged danger from their activities is completely invented and based on a proven pack of lies. The entire "Global Man-made Warming Scam" is based on emotion as Al Gore's ridiculous movie shows only too well. He even suggests that the cuddly polar bear is endangered, even though its numbers are expanding, in order to appeal to emotion. Your mention of Easter Island is another example of using emotion rather than fact to support the scam. We are in no way comparable to an Easter Island scenario and all the reasons suggested for "man-made" climate change have been proven false. The "hockey stick" graph (an emotional falsehood!) has been dropped by the IPCC as unrealistic and the correlation between rises in carbon dioxide leading to warming have been fully demonstrated as false, which removes the pillar of the scam deniers argument. Did you notice my use of an emotional term "scam deniers" there? You wouldn't do something so silly as resort to such emotional terms would you Chek?

Quote:
But as usual (for the purposes of business as usual) not a single piece of data as to why or how the miracle is supposed to happen.


You are similar to those of a religious persuasion who refuse to accept than an atheist does not have a religion but demands that Atheism be regarded as a form of belief in itself and hence another religion. You expect the atheist to do the impossible and prove a negative, that there is no God, rather than prove your own assertion. I have no such religion, or belief in the "Man-made Climate Change" scam which you have as your religion. You have the belief so you give the proof and you need to do a lot better than regurgitate Al Gore's lies to continue the scam which is nothing more than an emotional crusade and I suspect you know it.

Here is a fine example of how you Scam Deniers appeal to emotion.


Link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
item7
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://itsascam.co.nz/


Quote:
To start us down the road, we will look first at Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth the prime propaganda tool for Man Made Global Warming. In a recent English court case a lawsuit was brought to stop it being sent to every school in the UK to be shown to students.

Due to the lawsuit, in order for the film to be shown at schools, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

These are the inaccuracies:

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is evidence of global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim


The report on the judgement can be read in a "Times" edition here:-
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/artic le2633838.ece

Scam deniers can regard the Times as a Murdoch rag and ignore it. Smile

Quote:
However the Judge in this case has not gone far enough, a former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher, Christopher Monckton has found 35 lies in the movie.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

If Scam deniers find these inaccuracies uncomfortable just ignore them as they are pointed out by a Thatcherite right wing politician therefore they don't count.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
James C
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:57 pm    Post subject: Re: The "Man-made Climate Change" scam Reply with quote

item7 wrote:
Petition Project
Quote:
Global Warming Petition

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.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.



http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Quote:
ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.


The more people that are made aware of this gigantic scam to fleece us the sooner we can put a stop to it!


In order to be sure that AGW is a scam one must look at all the data and that means being careful not accept this petition hook, line and sinker. This petition is called the Oregon Petition and has little merit in the scientific community if you care to investigate. The number of signatures the website claims to have merely reflects the devious (almost troll like) methods the petition adopted for a few years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
item7
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In order to be sure that AGW is a scam one must look at all the data and that means being careful

not to fall for all the lies and distortions that the scammers are pushing, particularly using junk science such as that massive political brainwashing travesty "An inconvenient Truth". Faced with such an onslaught of lies and the deliberate silencing of dissent by various means as well as having little or no access to mainstream media, there is little left to opponents of the scam but to resort to such methods as petitions. Supporters of the scam repeatedly attack the sceptic messengers personally and fail to respond to the total refutation of the main pillars of the scam such as rising carbon dioxide levels leading to temperature rises in the past, or the exposure of the "hockey stick" graph as nonsense. There are a multitude of other lies peddled by the scammers, from Polar Bears under threat, to an increase of natural disasters such as hurricanes. Lies and more lies to sell a worldwide carbon-based tax system to go with the new monetary system the banksters are about to attempt to force on the world with their engineered global financial meltdown. At least the message is getting out and fewer and fewer people are singing from the scammers hymnsheet. All they need is the relevant true information and a modicum of intelligence and they can and do throw off their brainwashing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 12490
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting theory - have you got some good links/evidence?

item7 wrote:
Lies and more lies to sell a worldwide carbon-based tax system to go with the new monetary system the banksters are about to attempt to force on the world with their engineered global financial meltdown.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
item7
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Interesting theory - have you got some good links/evidence?


One of the best places to start is here:- http://itsascam.co.nz/

It links to a multitude of videos and articles by so called "deniers" and it is astonishing how many very well qualified and experienced scientists are against the scam but who's voices are rarely heard. The evidence that it is connected to a global tax is all around you when you listen to people like Gordon Brown and Barak Obama repeatedly talking of the need for a global reform to the financial system, which they constantly link to the need for a global carbon tax. But if "man-made climate change" is a scam, and they surely know it is, then what other reason is there for Kyoto and the other measures for reduction of carbon output with its associated punitive taxes? Did you know that New Zealand has introduced a tax on farm animal farts? Seriously!!

Visit http://www.antiscia.com/wizardsofmoney/ and listen to "Part21-PlayingRussianRoulettInCarbonMarkets.mp3" which doesn't take sides in the argument but gives lots of information as to what the Kyoto agreement means. At 41mins on there is a speech given to the US senate which is all too rare these days and which totally refutes man made climate change.


Last edited by item7 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

item7 wrote:
http://itsascam.co.nz/

Quote:
To start us down the road, we will look first at Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth the prime propaganda tool for Man Made Global Warming. In a recent English court case a lawsuit was brought to stop it being sent to every school in the UK to be shown to students.

Nowhere does the article mention that Dimmock's case to prevent AIT being shown in schools was roundly rejected and that Justice Burton agreed that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

Yet this abject failure to prevent the film being shown is given spin to appear as a victory to the gullible.
Leaving to one side the aptitude of a judge to rule on scientific subjects, the judge made several mistakes
himself.

Quote:
Due to the lawsuit, in order for the film to be shown at schools, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.


Let's skip the swivel-eyed rhetoric shall we?

Quote:
3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

These are the inaccuracies:

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is evidence of global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.


Globally, including throughout the Tropics, glaciers are in retreat. Well-documented examples include Quelccaya [Thompson, et al. 1993], Huascaran [Byers, 2000; Kaser and Osmaston,2002], Zongo and Chacaltaya [Francou,et al 2003; Wagnon et al. 1999] in S. America; and the Lewis, Rwenzori and Kilimanjaro (more properly, Kibo) glaciers in East Africa [Hastenrath, 1984; Kaser and Osmaston, 2002].

Quote:
2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.


This is a classic strawman argument because Gore does not assert that there is an exact fit, but rather that: "The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside".

"From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores

Quote:
3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.


This is another strawman as AIT does not blame Katrina on global warming. AIT follows the scientific consensus in saying that warming will make hurricanes get stronger, and Katrina is used as an example of the damage that stronger hurricanes could do, and of the consequences of ignoring warnings from scientists. Statistical analysis confirms this:
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes".
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr_webpage.html#section1

Quote:
4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.


At best this is only partially true. "The United Nations Environment Programme says that about half of the lake's decrease is attributable to human water use such as inefficient damming and irrigation methods. The other half of the shrinkage is due to shifting climate patterns. Anada Tiega of the Lake Chad Basin Commission blames climate change for 50 to 75 percent of the water's disappearance.

So some of it is due to human use, but it is wrong to say that global warming has been ruled out as a cause".

http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2007/06/climate-ch ange-and-diminishing-desert.html

Quote:
5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.


Burton is absolutely wrong here. "We know short swims up to 15 miles are no problem, and we know that one or two may have swum up to 100 miles. But that is the extent of their ability, and if they are trying to make such a long swim and they encounter rough seas they could get into trouble," said Steven Amstrup, a research wildlife biologist with the USGS.

The new study, carried out in part of the Beaufort Sea, shows that between 1986 and 2005 just 4% of the bears spotted off the north coast of Alaska were swimming in open waters. Not a single drowning had been documented in the area.

However, last September, when the ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of Alaska, 51 bears were spotted, of which 20% were seen in the open sea, swimming as far as 60 miles off shore.

The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days later after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "We estimate that of the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," said the report.

There were storms before 2006, but they didn't drown bears. The bears drowned in the 2006 storm because they had to swim further because of global warming".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

Quote:
6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.


Once again, the judge's opinion does not reflect scientific opinion.
"Climate models suggest that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in a slowdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation. Scientists fear that disruption to this circulation could result in a several degree drop in temperatures in as little as 20 years. The Natural Environment Research Council, NERC, has funded a 20 million climate change research programme called RAPID, which is co-ordinated by scientists at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. A primary goal of RAPID is to continuously monitor the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation".

http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/nocs/news.php?action=display_news&idx=303

"During the month of November 2004, the Gulf Stream stopped for ten days. Scientists were puzzled by this behavior. Scientist Harry Bryden of the National Oceanography Center, declares, "We'd never seen anything like that before and we don't understand it. We didn't know it could happen." Lloyd Keigwin, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution described the event as "the most abrupt change in the whole [climate] record". Kiegwin adds, ""It only lasted 10 days. But suppose it lasted 30 or 60 days? ... How can we rule out a longer one next year?".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/oct/27/science.climatechang e
Quote:
7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.


What Burton actually said was "The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult".
Which is akin to saying that the victim may be dying to a combination of poisoning, gunshot and knife wounds, all inflicted by another party, rather than just the gunshot.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing .php .

Quote:
8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.


We can take these three together as they are only spun to bloat out Burton's 9 points.

The IPCC report does say that the ice sheets will melt if warming is sustained over millennia, but does not rule out it happening sooner:

"Recent satellite and in situ observations of ice streams behind disintegrating ice shelves highlight some rapid reactions of ice sheet systems. This raises new concern about the overall stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the collapse of which would trigger another five to six metres of sea level rise. While these streams appear buttressed by the shelves in front of them, it is currently unknown whether a reduction or failure of this buttressing of relatively limited areas of the ice sheet could actually trigger a widespread discharge of many ice streams and hence a destabilisation of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Ice sheet models are only beginning to capture such small-scale dynamical processes that involve complicated interactions with the glacier bed and the ocean at the perimeter of the ice sheet. Therefore, no quantitative information is available from the current generation of ice sheet models as to the likelihood or timing of such an event".

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf

Quote:
11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim


No, it isn't a false claim. AIT's statement is merely badly worded, since it could be misconstrued to be saying that entire countries have been evacuated rather than some of the residents.
"Seeing themselves as climate refuges some Tuvalans are already leaving their islands, moving their communities to higher ground in a new land. Fala and Suamalie, along with international environmental activists, argue that Tuvaluans and others in a similar predicament should be treated like refugees and given immigration rights and other refugee benefits. This tiny nation was among the first on the globe to sound the alarm, trekking from forum to forum to try to get the world to listen. New Zealand did agree to take 75 Tuvaluans a year as part of its Pacific Access Category, an agreement made in 2001".
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00013&segmentID =6

Item7 wrote:

Quote:
However the Judge in this case has not gone far enough, a former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher, Christopher Monckton has found 35 lies in the movie.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

If Scam deniers find these inaccuracies uncomfortable just ignore them as they are pointed out by a Thatcherite right wing politician therefore they don't count.


You forgot he's also a braggart, dissembler, fantasist and basically thoroughly untrustworthy, except to anyone who doesn't find such traits alarming, such as denier fanatics.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/09/monkton_and_probabilistic_comb .php


One other thing - apart from being publicly shown to not understand the science
see: http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
has the good Viscount ever sourced any of his claims to other than one of his fellow industry goon Institutes/Societies/Front organisations?

Only nobody can seem to find any.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:08 pm    Post subject: Re: The "Man-made Climate Change" scam Reply with quote

James C wrote:
In order to be sure that AGW is a scam one must look at all the data and that means being careful not accept this petition hook, line and sinker. This petition is called the Oregon Petition and has little merit in the scientific community if you care to investigate. The number of signatures the website claims to have merely reflects the devious (almost troll like) methods the petition adopted for a few years.


Furthermore, itsascam.nz is yet another excuse for Item7 to recycle the same old discredited, sourceless, anti-science pap from the likes of Durkin (The Great Global Warming Swindle) and Monckton (the potty peer). The denier's world must be a very small incestuous one.

If you've followed this thread and the neighbouring NI Environment Minister one, you'll see that poor old Item7 keeps reposting the same old thing, but blogged by somebody else. His posts are still blethering on about water vapour for instance(!) which pretty well indicates a level of incomprehension about what he's actually posting.

It should be no surprise by now that the petition organisers, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's and its head, President Arthur Robinson promotes the meme that increased carbon dioxide can be a good thing.

We "know" this to be true as the oil and coal industries have sponsored several organizations to promote the idea that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is "good for earth" because it will encourage greater plant growth, as one such as The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association, has found.

Who'd have thought it - a conglomeration of major CO2 producers spinning the idea that CO2 pollution on a planet f*cking scale is a public service. Whatever next...

The most alarming thing I find is that Item7 chooses not to see the blatant 'conspiracy' that's in his face, but instead the specious one his energy industry sources point out to him.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
James C
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:28 pm    Post subject: Re: The "Man-made Climate Change" scam Reply with quote

chek wrote:
James C wrote:
In order to be sure that AGW is a scam one must look at all the data and that means being careful not accept this petition hook, line and sinker. This petition is called the Oregon Petition and has little merit in the scientific community if you care to investigate. The number of signatures the website claims to have merely reflects the devious (almost troll like) methods the petition adopted for a few years.


Furthermore, itsascam.nz is yet another excuse for Item7 to recycle the same old discredited, sourceless, anti-science pap from the likes of Durkin (The Great Global Warming Swindle) and Monckton (the potty peer). The denier's world must be a very small incestuous one.

If you've followed this thread and the neighbouring NI Environment Minister one, you'll see that poor old Item7 keeps reposting the same old thing, but blogged by somebody else. His posts are still blethering on about water vapour for instance(!) which pretty well indicates a level of incomprehension about what he's actually posting.

It should be no surprise by now that the petition organisers, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's and its head, President Arthur Robinson promotes the meme that increased carbon dioxide can be a good thing.

We "know" this to be true as the oil and coal industries have sponsored several organizations to promote the idea that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is "good for earth" because it will encourage greater plant growth, as one such as The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association, has found.

Who'd have thought it - a conglomeration of major CO2 producers spinning the idea that CO2 pollution on a planet f*cking scale is a public service. Whatever next...

The most alarming thing I find is that Item7 chooses not to see the blatant 'conspiracy' that's in his face, but instead the specious one his energy industry sources point out to him.


Hear, hear, spot on.

I was going to mention the oil and gas industry link in my post yesterday but hoped that Item7 would find the connection himself.

Item7 does raise the interesting point about the spurious carbon trading scheme which is nothing more than a money making scam which allows big business to carry on pumping CO2 and even increasing profits by trading in carbon credits. However, it certainly isn't a form of currency to challenge existing currencies; more a sign of how detached big business and politicians are from reality.


Last edited by James C on Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:50 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
item7
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chek wrote:
The most alarming thing I find is that Item7 chooses not to see the blatant 'conspiracy' that's in his face

Right back at you. Its truly hilarious that people like you can be so gullible. There is no point in trying to reason with a religious zealot but I hope the other side of the argument will be read by lurkers and at least they may become aware there is a another side to this neocon agenda of a one world economy and government run by the banksters. The scam has to be exposed before we are all enslaved by these monsters. At least I had a laugh reading some of your "de-bunking" - particularly the new spin on CO2 being something that kicks in about 800 years after Al Gore's infamous and now discredited "Hockey Stick" said it did. Still if a fact becomes uncomfortable just alter it and if all else fails attack the messenger. Even if its an establishment Judge. He he. The rest of your post was such similar junk I cannot take it seriously. Those poor Polar Bears dying out while their numbers increase steadily. I will keep posting the message that its a scam from wherever and whoever says it including the devil himself if needs be. You have got to be stopped from spreading this alarmist claptrap and just like "9/11 truth" the tables are turning and the truth is spreading.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frank Freedom
Mind Gamer
Mind Gamer


Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Posts: 418
Location: South Essex

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Item7 does raise the interesting point about the spurious carbon trading scheme which is nothing more than a money making scam which allows big business to carry on pumping CO2 and even increasing profits by trading in carbon credits. However, it certainly isn't a form of currency to challenge existing currencies; more a sign of how detached big business and politicians are from reality.


There is the (most likely imo) flip side to this extortion racket that is the proposed personal carbon tax on the individual
and small business's that are left to be carbon taxed out of er business!

If politicians like Paddy Ashdown and Gordon Brown are talking about it
(amoungst all the other repeaters) in the context of Global solutions for Global problems
do people here really believe they have the best intentions for us?

And to read on this forum someone saying "the politicians are detached from reality" is an absurd statement
they do and say what they are briefed to say
the ongoing popular mantra's.
Politics as we see it is a charade now
a fixed debating game for the viewer
clear for all to see
especially so for those on here.


FF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

item7 wrote:
Chek wrote:
The most alarming thing I find is that Item7 chooses not to see the blatant 'conspiracy' that's in his face

Right back at you. Its truly hilarious that people like you can be so gullible. There is no point in trying to reason with a religious zealot but I hope the other side of the argument will be read by lurkers and at least they may become aware there is a another side to this neocon agenda of a one world economy and government run by the banksters. The scam has to be exposed before we are all enslaved by these monsters. At least I had a laugh reading some of your "de-bunking" - particularly the new spin on CO2 being something that kicks in about 800 years after Al Gore's infamous and now discredited "Hockey Stick" said it did. Still if a fact becomes uncomfortable just alter it and if all else fails attack the messenger. Even if its an establishment Judge. He he. The rest of your post was such similar junk I cannot take it seriously. Those poor Polar Bears dying out while their numbers increase steadily. I will keep posting the message that its a scam from wherever and whoever says it including the devil himself if needs be. You have got to be stopped from spreading this alarmist claptrap and just like "9/11 truth" the tables are turning and the truth is spreading.


Item7, I'll add one observation: real science isn't a faith and isn't scared to modify its hypothesis in the light of new and more data. It does this because it is attempting to understand how things work, research bringing new data and better understanding being part of an ongoing process.

Conversely, if your accepted and often quoted "authorities" such as Durkin and Monckton have to operate on a formula of lies, spin, with a serving of uncomprehended and miscalculated math thrown in, you can be pretty damn sure that "truth" isn't their goal or intention. We won't even mention their industry connections or funding because that would be begging too many questions.

Your own apparent misunderstanding of CO2 being a cause rather than exacerbating warming trends also makes me wonder just how much you understand about the subject before you leap off into conspiracy world.

Still despite all that, I'm sure they must think it's nice that you give them the benefit of the doubt and I'm sure they're not thinking there's one born every minute, not at all. Now maybe if they had've been zionists...

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frank Freedom
Mind Gamer
Mind Gamer


Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Posts: 418
Location: South Essex

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do Chek and JamesC really want a personal carbon tax
part of the communist leveling of income?

It certainly looks like it Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 59, 60, 61  Next
Page 2 of 61

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group