noworldsystem.com


Danny Glover Blames Haitian Earthquake on Global Warming

Danny Glover Blames Haitian Earthquake on Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2ft5JkNWJA

 



The Church of Global Warming

The Church of Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QL_HaYgLYA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkLOLFBRXVs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lE81_rWvZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV2Wp3BpDKU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qZvCpWM6uA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0iOvWlR6qE

 



Ocean Absorption Of CO2 Not Shrinking

Ocean Absorption Of CO2 Not Shrinking

Doug L. Hoffman
The Resiliant Earth
December 10, 2009

Recent claims by climate change alarmists have raised the possibility that terrestrial ecosystems and particularly the oceans have started loosing part of their ability to absorb a large proportion of man-made CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because currently only about 40% of anthropogenic emissions stay in the atmosphere, the rest is sequestered by a number of processes on land and sea. The warning that the oceans have reached their fill and their capacity to remove atmospheric CO2 is accompanied by the prediction that this will cause greenhouse warming to accelerate in the future. A new study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data and concludes that the portion of CO2 absorbed by the oceans has remained constant since 1850.

Wolfgang Knorr from the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, has published a study in Geophysical Research Letters entitled “Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?” Knorr combines data from ice cores, direct atmospheric measurements, and emission inventories to show that the fraction of human emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has stayed constant over the past 160 years, at least within the limits of measurement uncertainty. Here is the paper’s abstract:

    Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

This work directly contradicts studies that claim to have shown that the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the ocean has already slowed. Knorr’s work is backed up by a study in Nature by S. Khatiwala et al.: “Reconstruction of the history of anthropogenic CO2 concentrations in the ocean .” Noting that buring fossil fuels has increased the level of to CO2 in the atmosphere, the authors state “the ocean plays a crucial role in mitigating the effects of this perturbation to the climate system, sequestering 20 to 35 per cent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.” They found that sequestration by the oceans had not diminished significantly and that land plants have greatly increased their absorption of the gas. Quoting from the paper:

    Our results indicate that ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has increased sharply since the 1950s, with a small decline in the rate of increase in the last few decades. We estimate the inventory and uptake rate of anthropogenic CO2 in 2008 at 140 ± 25 Pg C and 2.3 ± 0.6 Pg C yr-1, respectively. We find that the Southern Ocean is the primary conduit by which this CO2 enters the ocean (contributing over 40 per cent of the anthropogenic CO2 inventory in the ocean in 2008). Our results also suggest that the terrestrial biosphere was a source of CO2 until the 1940s, subsequently turning into a sink. Taken over the entire industrial period, and accounting for uncertainties, we estimate that the terrestrial biosphere has been anywhere from neutral to a net source of CO2, contributing up to half as much CO2 as has been taken up by the ocean over the same period.

Some have suggested that reducing human CO2 emissions by 50% would bring atmospheric levels into equilibrium. This new report raises the possibility that, if human emissions were lowered, absorption levels by the oceans and land plants might decline as well, maintaining the growth in overall atmospheric CO2 levels. It also seems possible that, if man’s release of carbon dioxide is greatly reduced, the terrestrial biosphere could shift from a net absorber to a producer of greenhouse gas. The change in sources and sinks over time is presented graphically in figure S3 from the paper’s supplementary information, shown below:

    Figure S3: Evolution of anthropogenic CO2 sources and sinks between 1765 and 2005. Sources, shown as positive values, include fossil fuel burning (with a small contribution from cement production) and changes in land use. Sinks are shown as negative values, and include the atmosphere, ocean, and land biosphere. Error envelope, indicated by broken lines and the shaded area, includes estimated uncertainties in the source terms (5% for fossil fuel emissions, and ±0.5 PgC/y for land-use change).

These observations imply that all the hoopla about reining in CO2 levels may be working at odds with nature, that Earth’s environment already has mechanisms in place to regulate changing levels of greenhouse gases. The observation that the terrestrial biosphere was a source of CO2 until the 1940s, and has subsequently become a sink, indicate that the problem is not as simple as shutting down factories and banning SUVs. With nature regulating GHG levels on its own, perhaps we have time to look more closely into the matter before we leap off an economic cliff at the urging of the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore.

Ocean Acidification Reconsidered

Many climate scientists and ecologists seem to seek the dark cloud instead of the silver lining for any new discovery. A case in point is concern over increased ocean acidification due to the absorption of greater amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. While the previous panic over bleached coral reefs seems to have abated (see “Bleached Coral Reefs Bounce Back”), researchers continue to warn that many species of invertebrates will disappear as the oceans acidify. But new observations indicate that the effects of increased CO2 on marine environments will be more complex than previously predicted. In fact, a new study shows that some of these species may benefit from ocean acidification, growing bigger shells or skeletons that provide more protection.

Because different ocean creatures use different forms of calcium carbonate for their shells, marine scientist Justin Ries of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, hypothesized that not all ocean organisms would respond the same way to increased acidity. Ries and two colleagues from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Anne L. Cohen and Daniel C. McCorkle, exposed marine organisms from 18 marine species to four levels of seawater acidity. As described in an article from ScienceNOW, the first environment matched today’s atmospheric CO2 levels. The second and third were set at double and triple the pre-Industrial CO2 levels, conditions the IPCC has predicted to occur over the next century. The fourth CO2 level was 10 times pre-Industrial levels, a level not seen since before the onset of the Pleistocene Ice Age more than 3 million years ago.

    Exposure to today’s atmospheric CO2 levels (400 ppm, left), and 10 times the pre-Industrial level (2850 ppm, right) resulted in American lobster and blue crabs with unexpectedly larger, heavier exoskeletons. Credit: J. Ries.

Blue crabs, lobsters, and shrimp thrived in the highest CO2 level, growing heavier shells, the researchers reporte in Geology. Ries speculates that these bottom dwellers are somehow better able to manipulate CO2 ions to build their shells, even though fewer ions are available to them in an acidic environment. Exactly how they accomplish this remains unknown. Meanwhile, American oysters, scallops, temperate corals, and tube worms all fared poorly, growing thinner, weaker shells. Clams and pencil urchins, who’s exoskeletons dissolved at the highest CO2 levels, were the biggest potential losers. In all a thought provoking study, but we don’t need to borrow trouble.

Barring any massive natural outgassing of greenhouse gas, CO2 levels will not rise as high as those in the fourth test environment, at least not in the foreseeable future. The atmosphere did experience similar CO2 levels during the middle of the Cretaceous period about 100 million years ago. “This is an interval in which many of these organisms lived and apparently did okay, despite the extremely elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 that existed at that time,” Ries said. “The take-home message is that the responses to ocean acidification are going to be a lot more nuanced and complex than we thought.” As usual when Earth’s climate changes, there are winners and losers but life carries on.

For Earth to experience such conditions the Pleistocene Ice Age must come to an end, which implies the melting of all significant glaciers, a tremendous rise in sea levels and other climatic changes scientists can only guess at. On the bright side, if Earth is transitioning back to pre-ice age conditions mankind really doesn’t have any say in the matter—at least our conscience will be clear.

That High Temperature Record

As a final note, it has become fashionable to declare current global temperatures as the highest in more than a million years, implying that anthropogenic global warming has resulted in a climate that is out of the norm for interglacials during the Pleistocene Ice Age. An article in the November 19, 2009, edition of Nature by David Noone has revealed that, using temperature estimates derived from isotopes in polar ice cores, interglacial periods were rather warmer than previously thought. How much higher is hard to say exactly given the limits of measurement accuracy for the proxy data but “the last warm period, the Eemian, occurred around 128,000 years ago, and from various proxy measurements it is widely accepted that temperatures then were higher than those during modern pre-industrial times.”

According to the USGS, during the peak of the last interglacial period, around 125 thousand years ago, sea level was about 6 m (20 ft) higher than present. This estimate is based on dating of emergent coral reefs on tectonically stable coastlines distant from plate boundaries. These data indicate that global ice volumes were significantly lower than present, by an amount equivalent to the present volume of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets. This in turn suggests that temperatures were higher for longer than today in order to melt that volume of ice—all without human help. Despite these findings, global warming alarmists continue to issue bombastic statements that are known to be false—what kind of scientists are these people, who purposely mislead the public?

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical

 

Debunking Global Warming in 10 Minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb-1Qfcy0fY

The CO2 Lie

Forest Trees Growing Like Crazy From CO2 Level Increase

Past Temperatures Debunk Global Warming Hysteria

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

 



Forest Trees Growing Like Crazy From CO2 Increase

Forest Trees Growing Like Crazy From CO2 Level Increase

Mike Adams
Natural News
December 21, 2009

Scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Minnesota at Morris have found that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have led to the rapid growth of certain tree species. The quaking aspen, a popular North America deciduous tree, has seen a 50 percent acceleration in growth over the past 50 years due to increased CO2 levels.

Trees are necessary climate regulators since they process carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Humans process oxygen and give off carbon dioxide, working harmoniously with natural plant life to maintain proper atmospheric composition. Since natural forests represent about 30 percent of the earth’s surface, they are highly effective at segregating greenhouse gases.

The quaking aspen is a vibrant, dominant tree found in both Canada and the United States. It is considered to be a “foundation species”, meaning that it helps dictate the dynamics of the plant and animal communities that surround it. Roughly 42 million acres in Canada and 6.5 million acres in Wisconsin and Minnesota are composed of aspen trees.

Elevated levels of CO2 will naturally lead to increased plant growth since CO2 is a precursor to plant food. Tree-ring analyses verified that aspen trees have been growing at an increasingly accelerated pace over the years because of this phenomenon.

Because accelerated growth was not seen in other tree species like oak and pine, scientists admit they will have to further investigate the issue. Similarly, drier regions where the trees were found did not experience the same rapid growth rates as those found in the wetter regions.

Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

An interesting side effect of increased carbon emissions by human activity is that plants will grow more quickly. CO2 is to plants as oxygen is to humans, so the more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more quickly many plants can grow.

Of course, plants produce oxygen as the “waste” product of their respiration, and that’s a poison to other plants, so there’s a natural balancing effect that keeps oxygen and CO2 levels in balance over the long haul.

This is why greenhouse gases are called “greenhouse gases”, by the way — because they turn the planet into a really effective greenhouse where plants grow like crazy. Of course, the clear-cutting of rainforest in the Amazon (and elsewhere) kills any chance of those regions taking part in that accelerated plant growth. Even in a high-CO2 environment, human beings can destroy plant life with bulldozers.

It’s interesting that plants and humans breathe the same air but extract very different chemical elements from it: Humans need oxygen while plants need carbon dioxide. For both species to survive, the air needs to contain both chemicals in balance. Currently, the oxygen content of the air is roughly around 20% (and falling).

 

Carbon Dioxide: The Breath of Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2uKNQJjLn0

 

Dutch aubergine grower yields big after piping CO2 into greenhouses

Telegraph
December 14, 2009

Jan van Duijn, however, walks proudly through his greenhouse, a vast glass and metal structure spread out over five hectares (12.3 acres) where millions of aubergines are doing very nicely thank you.

He’s happy because thanks to a deal with a supplier, he’s getting hot water piped in from the factory, which produces ammonia, to maintain the temperature at a constant 68 degrees F (20C).

The chemical site, five kilometres (three miles away), also supplies carbon dioxide which helps his aubergines grow more abundantly.

“We’re pioneers in a way,” van Duijn said, while admitting that what drove him to try this business model was cost.

The water from the Yara factory, where it is used as a coolant, flows along underground pipes and into his greenhouse at a temperature of 90 degrees C.

There it is circulated in pipes between the rows of aubergines, sharing its heat among the beds of rockwool they grow in, before being pumped back to the factory as coolant again.

Similarly, CO2 released during the manufacture of ammonia is injected into the greenhouse to stimulate growth.

“It’s the basic principle of photosynthesis,” van Duijn said. Combined with water and light, the plants convert the carbon dioxide into organic compounds, releasing oxygen as a side product.

The level of CO2 inside is three times higher than outside, giving a crop yield that according to van Duijn is two to three times greater.

He reckons the project will produce 2.5 million kilogrammes (5.5 million pounds) of aubergines a year, adding to the millions he already cultivates under glass on his land in the southern Netherlands.

Read Full Article Here

EPA Calls CO2 a Deadly Pollutant, Seeks to Regulate Greenhouse Emissions

Destroying the Amazon Rainforest to Fight Global Warming

 



Copenhagen Births World Government Framework

Copenhagen Births World Government Framework Despite Failure to Reach Agreement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fl9fESYVFY

PrisonPlanet – Further, many leaders from Third World nations became angered at the ‘Danish text leak’ revealing plans to burden lesser-developed nations with greater emissions cuts and plans to levy a proposed $100 Billion in ‘green’ debt upon poorer nations, to be paid back at interest, of course. George Soros has proved to be at the center of what has been critiqued as ‘Climate Colonialism’ and would prove deadly to populations at-risk for starvation in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, etc. Already, taking over farmlands for ethanol production in the place of food has been blamed for millions of deaths in the LDCs.

lex also breaks down revelations about the carbon trading and other green schemes. It’s not only players like Al Gore, the Rothschilds and George Soros who stand to make a killing. President Barack Obama– with a great conflict of interest– was a founding investment partner in the Chicago Climate Exchange alongside Maurice Strong, a top Rockefeller agent and leading climate change schemer. Chicago Climate Exchange is written into the architecture of many of the proposals for alternative energy credits, carbon derivatives and other green financial products and stands to provide a worthwhile return on investment.

In the end, the forced-incrementalism towards total world government, with complete dominance over money, debt, food, energy and resources, paid a price in exposure at COP15. Many politicians, journalists and people in general are now well aware that a scam has been forced down upon them– and both their freedom and sovereignty are certainly at stake.

Copenhagen Accord Establishes Global Government Framework

British Peer: Copenhagen Summit Has Established A World Government

 



Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura: Global Warming

Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura: Global Warming
Airs Wednesdays at 10PM on TruTV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svRUcX9Q9yU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0rtJ9CYSdY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhFTgN13weA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuifVNofEtk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmnD-MAifg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObUAAqoSWlo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRuzVbAODHw

 



UN Propaganda Posters Depict Humans as Evil Monsters

UN Propaganda Posters Depict Humans as Evil Monsters
Eugenicists who view people as a plague upon the earth are crafting policies that are killing millions in the third world

Paul Joseph Watson
PrisonPlanet.com
December 16, 2009

A new poster campaign sponsored by the United Nations depicts humans as evil horror movie monsters intent on slaughtering wildlife, another abhorrent example of how eugenicists are following through on the Club of Rome’s 1991 promise to portray Homo sapiens as the enemy in an effort to construct a world government around the pretext of saving the earth.

The three posters reverse the roles of famous horror movies Jaws, King Kong, and Tarantula, characterizing humans as rampaging monsters out to kill defenseless species. They were produced by the Convention on Migratory Species.

The poster campaign is being sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental arm of the global government now being advanced in Copenhagen. Each poster features the UNEP logo at the bottom of the image.

UNEP is the regulatory body that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the politicized organization that has attempted to slam the lid shut on global warming skepticism by claiming it is the supreme authority, despite the fact that scientists used by the IPCC were caught manipulating data and conspiring to “hide the decline” in global warming during the climategate scandal.

The first poster portrays a man as some kind of sub-aquatic killing machine bearing his teeth next to the words “Evil Jaws.”

The next poster reverses the classic King Kong imagery, with the beautiful blonde woman recast as a gnarling murderer waiting to crush a defenseless ape in her hands. The woman is labeled, “The Horrifying Human Being (Homo-sapiens)”.

The third image shows a man’s boot about to squash tarantula spiders below the words, “Giant Terror 6 Feet High”.

Global warming alarmists have ceased to hide their genocidal tendencies behind euphemistic language and have now brazenly announced that humans are the enemy, and that they must be eradicated en masse in the name of mother nature.

From websites that tell children to commit suicide after they have used their allotted amount of CO2, to award-winning cartoons that depict humans as a deadly virus upon the planet, bloodthirsty eugenicists have re-emerged with their sick rhetoric couched in the righteous cause of environmentalism.

The most disturbing aspect of the poster campaign is that it is sponsored by the United Nations. The fact that powerful globalist organizations who view humanity as an evil plague upon the earth are also crafting policies around the fraudulent premise of global warming that are already devastating poorer countries is frightening.

As we highlighted recently, measures introduced in the name of cutting CO2 emissions are already killing millions of people in the third world, with a doubling in food prices as a result of the introduction of biofuels causing mass starvation and death.

The entire climate change takeover is being spearheaded by self-hating psychotics who want to impose a global one child policy in the name of curbing overpopulation. As we have vehemently proven, the overpopulation hype is a debunked myth with no basis in reality. The real reason global eugenicists want to implement such policies, along with taxing the life-giving gas carbon dioxide, is because it would give them absolute control over every single aspect of our lives – a control freak’s utopia.

The propagandistic method of depicting humans as the enemy is perfectly tailored to this agenda, because it elicits the response of making people call for their own kind to be regulated, controlled, and even killed under the contrived pretext of preventing an ecological apocalypse.

The global elite resolved to take this approach back in 1991 when the Club of Rome, a powerful globalist NGO committed to limiting growth and ushering in a post-industrial society, said in their report, The First Global Revolution, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

The decision to make humans the culprit of the manufactured global warming crisis is now manifesting itself on every level, with the EPA declaring the gas that we all exhale as a threat to public health, and the United Nations attempting to ram through an agreement in Copenhagen that would impose taxes on financial transactions and GDP that would go straight into the coffers of the World Bank and the IMF – bankrolling the implementation of what contrived climate fearmongering was always geared towards achieving – a one world government and a new world order.

Pope Speaks on Church’s “Grave Misgivings” about Modern Environmentalism

Gordon Brown: Hurricanes, Floods, Typhoons, Droughts Are All Acts Of Man

The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists

 



Climate Cultists Assault Global Warming Skeptic

Climate Cultists Assault Global Warming Skeptic on Live TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqZRmsYszn4

 

McAleer’s Inconvenient Question to Al Gore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtFsRQ7SCQ

U.N. Kicks-Out Journalist For Asking ClimateGate Question

 



The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists

The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe4A-TvtR4g

 

Wa Post Columnist Decries eugenicist mindset on climate change

Anne Applebaum
Washington Post
December 15, 2009

There is no nihilism like the nihilism of a 9-year-old. “Why should I bother,” one of them recently demanded of me, when he was presented with the usual arguments in favor of doing homework: “By the time I’m grown up, the polar ice caps will have melted and everyone will have drowned.”

Watching the news from Copenhagen last weekend, it wasn’t hard to understand where he got that idea. Among the tens of thousands demonstrating outside the climate change summit, some were carrying giant clocks set at 10 minutes to midnight, indicating the imminent end of the world. Elsewhere, others staged a “resuscitation” of planet Earth, symbolically represented by a large collapsing balloon. Near the conference center, an installation of skeletons standing knee-deep in water made a similar point, as did numerous melting ice sculptures and a melodramatic “die-in” staged by protesters wearing white, ghost-like jumpsuits.

Danish police arrested about a thousand people on Saturday for smashing windows and burning cars, and on Sunday arrested 200 more (they were carrying gas masks and seem to have been planning to shut down the city harbor). Nevertheless, in the long run it is those peaceful demonstrators, the ones who say the end is nigh, who have the capacity to do the most psychological damage.

[…]

Over the years there have been many radical statements of this latter creed. In the infamous words of a National Park Service ecologist, “We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” A former leader of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals once declared that “humans have grown like a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” But it is a mistake to think that this is the language of only a crazy fringe.

Read Full Article Here

Alex Jones to Climate Cultists and Eugenicists: KILL YOURSELF FIRST

 



What does a Greenpeace supporter know?

What does a Greenpeace supporter know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxIjygRPpmk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5DuveDE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZj1T-7GnRw

 



Get Global Warming Out of Our Schools

Get Global Warming Out of Our Schools

American Thinker
December 12, 2009

Because of the recent revelations of “Climategate” (see source materials below) and my experience raising two children in private and public schools in California, I believe we need to start a nationwide campaign to get “global warming” immediately removed from the curriculum of our schools.

We cannot wait for politicians or activists to do any more damage to our future generation. “Global warming” is not just an objectionable and discredited scientific theory. Teachers are grafting the loony climate-change premise onto lifestyle, religion, and politics in “science” classrooms. It cannot stand.

The leaked e-mails and subsequent evaluation of their contents, which inspired the term “Climategate,” sound the alarm that we have been fooled for thirty years. There is good cause to believe that the “global warming” data was contorted to achieve a desired result, that true facts were suppressed or destroyed, and that truth-tellers were censored by climate gurus on a mission.

Even if a local school district does not want to accept that “global warming” has been completely debunked, the argument can be made that the “theory” is so suspect that it will likely be investigated in Congress, if not in a criminal fraud venue. It cannot be passed off to students as “settled science.” Insist on removing “global warming” until there is consensus sometime in the future.

For those who do not have children, or whose children are either young or grown up, let my recent personal experience with public school science instruction provide an insight:

My children were gifted students in accelerated programs as they entered public high school from an excellent, traditional, private K-8 school. The college preparatory classes for talented students in many public high schools are called Advanced Placement (AP) classes. These classes can be applicable as college credits. In short, AP classes are seen as a desirable “elite” fast track to get into a good college.

There was only one AP biology/earth science teacher at our local high school. It was at “back-to-school” night the very first fall, as the teacher stared at the ceiling choking back tears telling us about the dying polar bears, that I learned we had a problem.

My oldest daughter ended up having this teacher for an advanced science course each year. I told my daughter to do what she must to get good grades, but I also provided her with alternate information. Behind the scenes, I spoke to administrators about my concerns. Their response was to infer that I am not very sophisticated and certainly not as wise as they are. My daughter begged me not to agitate the teacher, the principal, or the other parents out of fear that her grades would suffer. I bit my tongue for six years at the request of my children. That was then.

This high school’s most talented science students were required to accept the theory of “anthropogenic global warming” in their advanced classes because they were taught by a very overt climate-change activist. She incorporated “global warming” into some part of her science curriculum every semester in a well-respected school, in a desirable school district, in an affluent suburb of San Francisco. There was always a climate project or a connection made to Earth’s crisis. The kids were encouraged to take part in the teacher’s pet social causes and public protests.

Read Full Article Here

The Scientific Manipulation of Our Reality

Doomsday Climate Cultists Attempt to Convert Kids

 



Climate Advisers Can’t Come to Consensus on Sea Level Rise

Obama’s Top Climate Advisers Can’t Get Doomsday Story Straight While Testifying Before Same Committee on Same Day

CNSNEws.com
December 11, 2009

Which is it–6 feet or 3.5 feet?

Last week, White House science czar John Holdren told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of 6 feet or more in a century.

But Joan Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the same committee on the same day that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of up to 3.5 feet in this century.

Holdren and Lubchenco were the only two witnesses called to testify at the Global Warming committee’s Dec. 2 hearing, which was titled “The State of Climate Science.”

In his written testimony Holdren, whose official title is “Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,” wrote that changes in temperature from global warming could bring about what he called “tipping points” in the climate system–which he defined as “thresholds beyond which a small additional increase in average temperature or some associated climate variable results in major changes to the affected system.”

Read Full Article Here

Ocean Absorption Of CO2 Not Shrinking

 



U.N. Kicks-Out Journalist For Asking ClimateGate Question

U.N. Kicks-Out Journalist For Asking ClimateGate Question

 



Global Warming: Poor Paul McCartney has been duped

Global Warming: Poor Paul McCartney has been duped

 



Doomsday Climate Cultists Attempt to Convert Kids

Doomsday Climate Cultists Attempt to Convert Kids

NoWorldSystem.com
December 11, 2009

These next clips would be funny if it wasn’t so creepy that the internationalist criminal-scum elite are attempting to convert kids into this new “doomsday cult” and to fear the most unimaginable like huge floods, massive hurricanes and suicidal polar bears. They’re asking kids to have faith in the globalists at Copenhagen to ‘save the world’ and to believe all their doom-and-gloom scenarios so they can pass a ‘global treaty’ or ‘global agreement’ to rip-off mommy and daddy.

 



EPA to Regulate All Aspects of American Life

EPA to Regulate All Aspects of American Life

Krauthammer: EPA Move May Bring a ‘Revolution on the Administration’s Hands’

“Look, it’s blackmail, a way of saying to Congress: ‘either you do cap-and-trade or we’re gonna do cap, no trade. We’re gonna regulate every aspect of American life.’ This is – if the EPA now has in its power – perhaps it will when acted over time – to intrude into every aspect of American life.” -Charles Krauthammer

 

The EPA Steps In To Regulate Greenhouse Gases In Case Of Cap And Trade Failure

Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
December 8, 2009

Goldman’s tentacles are smart, and know all about contingency planning. With so much of the firm’s future strategy contingent on Cap And Trade derived profits, the firm is hedging for a downside case scenario. The attached presentation by the Environmental Protection Agency is just the fall back plan. UEA debate notwithstanding, the EPA, after “careful consideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a thorough review of numerous public comments received on the Proposed Findings published April 24, 2009″ has found that “six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Truly an opportune timing for the EPA to come up with this report, seeing how suddenly scientific evidence does not really mean as much as it used to…oh, one month ago. And not to mention that whole Goldman/Cap And Trade backlash of course.

Here are the “definitive” conclusions from the report:

CO2 is dangerous (p.8):

    Pursuant to CAA section 202(a), the Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare. Specifically, the Administrator is defining the “air pollution” referred to in CAA section 202(a) to be the mix of six long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). In this document, these six greenhouse gases are referred to as “well-mixed greenhouse gases” in this document (with more precise meanings of “long lived” and “well mixed” provided in Section IV.A)

Read Full Article Here

 



EPA Says Co2 is Deadly, But Fuel is Good to Drink!

EPA HYPOCRISY

EPA: CO2 is a deadly gas, but uranium, mercury, arsenic, rocket-fuel and drugs in drinking water is perfectly safe.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
December 8, 2009

While the EPA declares the gas that we exhale to be a deadly poison, as protesters at Copenhagen decry the suffering of polar bears as their population figures increase to record levels, and as delegates in the Danish capital warn of the dastardly peril of cows farting, a New York Times report confirming that U.S. drinking water contains dangerous levels of arsenic, uranium and other radioactive substances barely gets noticed.

Furthermore, the new study shows that the Environmental Protection Agency knew that water systems all over the United States were contaminated with dangerous levels of numerous toxic substances, yet failed to punish the vast majority of water authorities involved.

Since the environmental movement was completely hijacked by globalists hell bent on world government and devastating carbon taxes, real environmental problems have been swept aside as the contrived scam of man-made global warming swallows up all the attention.

Our drinking water is contaminated with toxic waste, our food supply is poisoned by genetically modified garbage, and our consumer products are laced with cancer-causing chemicals, but who cares right? Surely all this pales in comparison to the effort to stop the world warming by a percentage of a degree over the next 100 years?

    More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.

    That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

But unlike the mammoth threat posed by the life-giving gas carbon dioxide, which the EPA yesterday classified as a health threat to the same humans that exhale it, the Environmental Protection Agency is noticeably less concerned about the fact that our water is filled with contaminants that are “linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.”

Indeed, records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever punished or fined by the EPA.

“In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show,” according to the article.

The Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about why they allowed water companies to continue such contamination without punishment at a hearing today.

According to the study, not only were water systems contaminated with radioactive substances like uranium as well as arsenic, but they were also found to contain cancer-causing solvents and illegal amounts of bacteria.

“The amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000 percent higher than the legal limit,” adds the report. Radium is described as “extremely radioactive” and has a half-life of 1602 years. People exposed to radium suffer serious health effects including sores, anemia and bone cancer. The use of radium in paints as late as the 1950’s was eventually halted after many deaths were attributed to exposure to the chemical.

True to form, the NY Times chooses to characterize water which contains deadly radioactive chemicals as “dirty” in its headline!

Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show – oh its just a bit of dirt you know! Cancer-causing radioactive toxins and poisonous arsenic – its just a little dirty!

“The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority,” reports the Times, adding that current and former EPA officials who attempted to make the agency enforce the drinking water law were targeted.

“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.”

So there you have it – according to the EPA – breathing is a threat to human health – but drinking water laced with arsenic, cancerous carcinogens, and radioactive chemicals is perfectly nutritious!

So pour a fresh glass of toxic tap water, drink up and say cheers to the fact that the government really cares about our health and the real environmental issues – before you drop dead.

 



UN IPCC Chairman Attacks ClimateGate Scandal

UN IPCC Chairman Attacks ClimateGate Scandal

 



ClimateGate: the UN investigation will be a whitewash

ClimateGate: the UN investigation will be a whitewash
Having the IPCC investigate climategate would be like Ken Lay heading up the Enron enquiry.

London Telegraph
December 5, 2009


Rajendra Pachauri

It is rather ironic that the United Nations, a world body that has done more to push the global warming agenda that any other organization, is now vowing to investigate the leaked Climategate emails. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told BBC Radio 4:

We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it. We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail.

Forgive my scepticism over this, but the United Nations happens to be one of the most inefficient, corruption-riddled, unaccountable and untransparent entities on the face of the earth. It is hard to see how the UN is going to conduct this kind of inquiry with a straight face, let alone an ounce of credibility. I spent several years working on UN issues in Washington, and served as an expert on the Gingrich-Mitchell Congressional mandated Task Force on the United Nations, and nothing I have seen of the UN convinces me that it is capable of carrying out a remotely objective investigation.

And who is the man in charge of the United Nations whitewash/inquiry? Rajendra Pachauri is one of the world’s biggest prophets of climate change doom, which he argues is “the greatest challenge facing humanity.” Last year he shared the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC with Al Gore. Like his colleague Lord Stern, Pachauri ludicrously believes that people should eat less meat to curb carbon emissions.

We don’t need a fake UN panel on Climategate. What is needed is a full Senate investigation as well as Parliamentary inquiry into a massive scandal with major implications for both the US and the UK and their future approach to the global warming issue. And if Congressional hearings are held, who better to have leading the charge on Capitol Hill than the brilliant James Delingpole, who deserves huge credit for almost single-handedly bringing the Climategate débacle to the attention of the American public.

 



ClimateGate CRU Sought Funds From Shell Oil

ClimateGate CRU Sought Funds From Shell Oil

News Busters
December 5, 2009

The Climatic Research Unit at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal sought funds from Shell Oil in the year 2000.

Other e-mail messages obtained from the University of East Anglia’s computers also showed officials at the school’s CRU solicited support from ExxonMobil and BP Amoco, although the nature of this support was not identified.

As climate alarmists and their media minions love to claim that global warming skeptics are all paid shills of Big Oil, it makes one wonder how the press will report these startling revelations discovered by Anthony Watts Friday:

Mick Kelley to Mike Hulme

    Mike
    Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
    agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
    partner and will contribute to a studentship fund
    though under certain
    conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
    after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
    asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
    etc. By email? In person?
    I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim
    who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
    make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
    I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach
    will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off
    Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
    what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
    new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s
    within the remit.
    Regards
    Mick

Earlier that same year, the recipient of this e-mail message, Mike Hulme, sent a message of his own concerning getting “support” from a number of entities (emphasis added):

Mike Hulme to Simon Shackley

    Simon,

    I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

    – Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
    – Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
    – Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
    – ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.
    […]
    >SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
    >sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
    >contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP
    >Amoco
    contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
    >engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
    >
    >We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
    >Does anyone know any investment bankers?
    >
    >Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
    >finalise the list.
    >
    >I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
    >support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
    >used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
    >in brackets).
    >
    >Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
    >Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
    >Jenkins]
    >Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
    >Shepherd]
    >Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
    >[Mike Hulme]
    >Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
    >Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
    >Shackley]
    >Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
    >Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
    >Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
    >
    >
    >Possibles:
    >Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
    >Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
    >Jenkins]
    >Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
    >[Nick Jenkins]
    >Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
    >Cannell]
    >Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
    >
    >With kind regards
    >
    >Simon Shackley

Now who is the shill for Big Oil again? Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.

Read Full Article Here

 



Australian Senate defeats carbon trading bill

Australian Senate defeats carbon trading bill

Guardian
December 2, 2009

The Senate, where the government of the prime minister, Kevin Rudd, does not hold a majority, rejected 41-33 his administration’s proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.

It follows a tumultuous week in Australian politics, which saw the ousting of Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader, after he had pledged to support the government’s plans for the trading scheme.

The defeat further undermines Australia’s already ailing credibility at the upcoming UN climate change talks in Copenhagen.

Read Full Article Here

 



NASA Involved in ClimateGate

NASA Involved in ClimateGate

Gregg Knapp
Big Government
December 3, 2009

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

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

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

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

Right. For two years?!

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

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

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

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

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

 



Climategate Ringleader Phil Jones to Step Down

Climategate Ringleader Phil Jones to Step Down

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
December 1, 2009


Phil Jones

CRU’s Phil Jones will step down from his position as director of the unit that cooked climate change data to hide global cooling. Britain’s East Anglia University says Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review.

The CRU scandal emerged after anonymous persons gained access to 160 MB of emails and source code. It is uncertain if the evidence implicating Jones and the CRU came from hackers or whistle-blowers.

Lord Monckton, the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and adviser to Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit in the 1980s, went on the Alex Jones Show last week and called from criminal prosecution of Jones and his crew of climate change fraudsters.

In a blog entry posted prior to talking with Alex Jones, Monckton noted how Phil Jones and his co-conspirators “have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings.”

Phil Jones and the CRU have stonewalled FOIA requests demanding access to the data. It is alleged he destroyed evidence in an effort to cover-up the fraud.

On Sunday, the Times Online reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. The CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

On Saturday, the University of East Anglia said that 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been made available to the public for “several years” and that all data will be released as soon as they are clear of non-publication agreements.

Phil Jones told the science journal Nature that he was working to make the data publicly available with the agreement of its owners but this was expected to take some months.

Read Full Article Here

 



Climate Change Data Shredded To Cover Tracks

Climate Change Data Shredded To Cover Tracks

Times Online
November 29, 2009

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

 



White House on ClimateGate: The Debate is Over

White House on ClimateGate: The Debate is Over

 



Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

Telegraph
March 28, 2009

If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC’s favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a “corrective factor” of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they “needed to show a trend”.

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an “expert reviewer” on the IPCC’s last two reports, he was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one”. Yet the results of all this “deliberate ignorance” and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.

 



Al Gore Confronted on ClimateGate

Al Gore Confronted on ClimateGate