Global Warming – Exposing the Lies

_{February 13, 2007

Global Warming, Off Topic, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I did a little googling looking for the raw data from satellite temperature measurements and came upon this wonderful, objective web page at NASA with charts all updated in real time as new measurements arrive. I could start quoting all the frank admissions of broken atmospheric models, declining atmospheric temperatures that NASA documents but you never hear about in the mainstream media, and all sorts of fascinating stuff that just plain debunks the global warming bunkum. But I’d rather you all read for yourselves and have fun in the comments sifting through this treasure trove of objectivity about our global climate.

Atmospheric Temperature Data At NASA

Comments

[...] I just love being eventually proven right but vindication usually doesn’t come to me this quickly. As I was trying to tell Mike Dunford, including my now prophetic-appearing conjecture that manmade CFC-caused ozone depletion is a real global warming culprit, unlike the mythical C02 effect… [...]Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions | Uncommon Descent_{May 31, 2007
May
05
May
31
31
2007
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

Wallace Thornhill, of the IEEE, has recently posted an essay here: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7 Excerpt:
Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance "As for the promised control of nature, it is in rout before nature unleashed." -Jacques Barzun, Science: the glorious entertainment "Next we come to a question that everyone, scientist and non-scientist alike, must have asked at some time. What is man's place in the Universe?" -Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe Global warming has been deemed a fact. However, the inconvenient truth is that humans are not causing it. Al Gore has been given poor advice. Like Darwin's theory of evolution and Big Bang cosmology, global warming by greenhouse gas emissions has undergone that curious social process in which a scientific theory is promoted to a secular myth. When in fact, science is ignorant about the source of the heat Ã¢â‚¬â€ the Sun. The really inconvenient truth is that we cannot control Nature. But we can begin to learn our true place in the Universe and figure out how to cope rationally with inevitable change. Clearly, reducing air pollution is an admirable goal in itself. But we must not be deluded into thinking it will affect climate significantly. The connection between warming and atmospheric pollution is more asserted than demonstrated, while the connection with variations in the Sun has been demonstrated. The Sun is undergoing a power surge
J. Parker_{February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank: Your response is fair-minded enough. But if we want to "confidently explain why [temperatures] are increasing overall in the long term", then let's begin by noting that known temperatures have been on the rise since the early 1800's. So, if GW is predominantly "man-made", then why did things start heating up in the early 1800's--what was man-made C02 production then, 1% of what it now is? If you can't explain what started the rise in temperatures back then, then why should anyone take any predictions that are made seriously? And, if you want to make the claim that "whatever the causes were back then, the problem now is that man-made CO2 is making things worse", well, this assertion also runs into the problem that temperature increase has MODERATED since the rise of man-made CO2. The logical conclusion from all of this is that if GW is taking place, it is NOT of man-made origins, nor is it being accelerated by man-made causes--perhaps the reverse. But, of course, if there is "consensus", what need do we have of being 'logical'? Maybe we should be worried about Global Cooling, as they were in the early 70's.PaV_{February 15, 2007
February
02
Feb
15
15
2007
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

For poor little Zach on ATBC. Suggested reading: CO2 Science
Very high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 can produce a state of hypercapnia or an excessive amount of CO2 in the blood (Nahas et al., 1968; Brackett et al., 1969; van Ypersele de Strihou, 1974), which typically results in acidosis, a serious and sometimes fatal condition characterized in humans by headache, nausea and visual disturbances (Poyart and Nahas, 1968; Turino et al., 1974). However, these phenomena do not impact human health until the atmosphere's CO2 concentration reaches approximately 15,000 ppm (Luft et al., 1974; Schaefer, 1982), which is approximately 40 times greater than its current concentration. Hence, we do not have to worry about any direct negative health effects of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.
Lots' more good stuff in the article about the BENEFITS of rising CO2 but I just wanted to point out I was correct that C02 emissions are not a "pollutant". Chlorofluorocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, soot, ash, and a whole boatload of other things that result from the combustion of fossil fuels are pollutants but CO2 is not one of those many things. Sorry Zach. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas too, Zach, but like CO2 it isn't a pollutant. And would somebody PLEASE teach those poor fools something to help them know the difference between absolute humidity, relative humidity, dewpoint, and precipitation? One poor ignorant soul is waving around an absolute humidity chart like it proves that cold air is drier than warm air. Maybe if we ask him what happens when you warm up foggy air - does it get "wetter" or "drier"? When you can explain your answer you'll stop waving that chart around and your ignorant comrades will stop applauding you for it. The saddest thing is there must be people who post on ATBC who know it's wrong but they won't point it out.DaveScot_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Pav The Ã¢â‚¬Å“whatÃ¢â‚¬Â that IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m getting at is this: when Dave Scot pointed out a large incease in temperature during 93-93, your response was that that was an El Nino year. I then asked for the causes of El Nino since it appears that whatever is driving El Nino is a sizable source of global warming. But, as Wikipedia makes clear, we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know the source of El Nino. The conclusion then is that we shouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be so sure we know what is causing GW if we canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even explain El Nino with its sizable heating effect. Bottom line: there is tremendous deficiencies in what climatologists know about GW and about its causesÃ¢â‚¬â€œyet that is not what we read about. Whatever the underlying causes of the El Nino effect they are clearly quite different from anything to do with CO2. The effect is quite distinctive, quite unusual, lasts for one or two years at the most. The fact that we cannot explain how it starts does not mean that we do not understand the longer term sustained effect of CO2. Just as we might not be able to explain why every so often traffic levels shot up for a day or two - but we could still confidently explain why they are increasing overall in the long term. I am going to drop out of this now. There are many sceptics who know a bit about the subject and I respect them - you will find them on Climate Audit.Mark Frank_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

rrf The pollution credits are fine but C02 isn't a pollutant. It isn't harmful to health unless it becomes such a large percentage of what you're breathing there's not enough oxygen left which is something that doesn't happen from manmade emissions. For carbon monoxide and sulfates it's an excellent idea. Why am I so convinced that C02 isn't a problem? Because without knowing enough about the climate the odds are equal that manmade CO2 emission is beneficial. The earth is overdue for an ice age. As far as I know C02 is helping keep the glaciers at bay. Equal likelyhood of harm and good cancels out and you end up with a non-issue where the only way to change that is less hand-waving jumps to conclusions and more cool headed analysis. Furthermore, who says warming is a problem? I've got plenty of friends in upstate New York where I grew up that would be pleased as punch if they saw snow only as often as they see snow in Georgia. I bet Canadians would really enjoy having much of their country turn into lush farmland with a long growing season. The "harm" from global warming is subjective. In the past the earth exploded with life during the warmest epochs and conversely life was muted in cold epochs. As far as I'm concerned warming is net beneficial compared to cooling. Even further, a well known benefit of C02 is increased crop production. Given sufficient light, water, and fertile soil, C02 becomes the limiting factor in plant growth rates. What a fine kettle of fish if manmade CO2 emission is both putting more fresh water into the ecosphere, extending growing seasons, opening up vast tracts of frozen northern and southern latitudes to farming, and increasing plant growth rates by raising atmospheric C02, helping to feed a growing population, and we then spend inordinate amounts of resources to halt this increasing capacity to grow crops. Talk about boneheaded. The environmentalist whackos could actually be giving out a prescription for mass starvation in the future. And to add insult to injury it's these same people who caused nuclear power plants to be so expensive to build that we didn't and now we have more dirty coal fired plants spewing out pollutants and greenhouse gases. These chuckleheads actually don't know whether they're coming or going. They're driven by fashion and passion and politics not rationality and science. Boneheads all. DaveScot_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Mike Dunford cold air is usually a lot drier than warm air No Mike, it isn't. It's just as close or far from saturation as air of any other temperature. That's why you have deserts in the hottest parts of the world. You have a layman's understanding of what wet and dry air are which is why you are so lost when it comes to understanding climate. I didn't say sea ice was growing thicker. I said it was increasing. I thought you'd infer increasing in extent from the context of using it as a rebuttal to increasing thickness of ice on the land. Antarctic sea ice is increasing in extent. Also, in comment 15 I asked that everyone have a look at the interactive tropospheric temperature anomaly chart and click backwards through time while watching it. If you'd done that you'd have noticed that antarctica is shown more in blue (cooling) than in red (heating) and the ocean surrounding it is even more often colored blue. And guess when the times of exceptional heating occur? Give yourself a gold star if you say any spanish words with male gender like El Nino. Global warming, if any, isn't due to manmade C02. I suspect a real culprit is manmade CFCs. First of all CFCs are powerful greenhouse gases (vs. a weak gas like CO2) and secondly they destroy stratospheric ozone which normally acts to stop a lot of energy (UV wavelengths) from reaching the lower atomosphere. We've already stopped pumping those into the atmosphere and guess what, right around when you'd expect to see some effect by golly there it is. And where would the effect be the greatest? At the poles where those large and growing ozone holes used to be. Near the equator where the ozone layer wasn't so effected you can see by browsing that intractive tropospheric temperature map that it is almost always a lovely shade of blue except when there's an El Nino. Global warming (if it is indeed warming) is regional. Parts of the globe are cooling. I'm unconvinced that the net of all warming and cooling is more heat energy in the atmosphere. This all appears to be just normal fluctuations well within the range of natural phenomena. Until we know more it's STUPID to start throwing money at a problem that may not be a problem at all but could be beneficial. Unlike global warming and CO2, which connection is unestablished, we know for a fact that increased CO2 increases crop yields which is a GOOD thing. Take the blinders off and start acting like a scientist. You've got the credentials but you're still missing the most important element - constantly questioning data and conclusions presented by others.DaveScot_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Dave: "Too cold to snow" is, as I originally said, a cliche with a grain of truth. I did not say that it was true, and I did not say that it was completely accurate. It contains a grain of truth because cold air is usually a lot drier than warm air. I brought that up in the first place because I thought you were talking about the increases in ice volume that have been observed in the contintenal ice volume over Antartica. If you are talking about the increases in sea ice cover in the Southern Ocean, a study published a year and a half ago demonstrated that increased precipitation in the Southern Ocean can cause increased sea ice volume. NASA Earth Observatory
Typically, warming of the climate leads to increased melting rates of sea ice cover and increased precipitation rates. However, in the Southern Ocean, with increased precipitation rates and deeper snow, the additional load of snow becomes so heavy that it pushes the Antarctic sea ice below sea level. This results in even more and even thicker sea ice when the snow refreezes as more ice. Therefore, the paper indicates that some climate processes, like warmer air temperatures increasing the amount of sea ice, may go against what we would normally believe would occur.
Mike Dunford_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: "But I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand the what you are getting at." The "what" that I'm getting at is this: when Dave Scot pointed out a large incease in temperature during 93-93, your response was that that was an El Nino year. I then asked for the causes of El Nino since it appears that whatever is driving El Nino is a sizable source of global warming. But, as Wikipedia makes clear, we don't know the source of El Nino. The conclusion then is that we shouldn't be so sure we know what is causing GW if we can't even explain El Nino with its sizable heating effect. Bottom line: there is tremendous deficiencies in what climatologists know about GW and about its causes--yet that is not what we read about.PaV_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Dave, From someone who has spent a few months in Antarctica, I never saw it snow very much there though it was frequently overcast with some high winds. I was only there during the height of the austral summer. There was book written about it called "Desert without Sand." We were told it was the dryest place on earth and that the average snowfall for the entire continent was about an inch a year and that the massive ice shelf was the result of this small precipitation never melting over tens of thousands of years. There are valleys not in the path of the main glaciers which are called dry valleys which did look like desert and with no visible precipitation except for a glacier here and there peaking over the mountain passes. This was several years ago and the science may have advanced so that there are new theories about everything including the precipitation levels and my experience is mostly that of the area around McMurdo on Ross Island. At McMurdo one of the main problems was melting as during the summer it gets slightly above freezing there and much becomes a quagmire.jerry_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank El Nino is kind of complicated but quite well understood. That truly makes me smile every time I read it.butifnot_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

So you must remove those effects from temperature measurements in order to see the effects of other things like solar flux and greenhouse gases such as co2, methane, and water vapor, as well as albido changers like plants, clouds, snow cover (and dirty snow cover), plus things that block solar heat from coming in like sulfate aerosols, soot, and dust. Dave what do you mean "remove"? If you want to predict traffic volumes on a busy road over the next two years do you "remove" the effect of the occasional accident which drives up volumes dramatically? If you mean recognise it is an exception and allow for it - well that is just what climate scientists do with El Nino.Mark Frank_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

Actually, an econ professor of mine suggested a free market approach to pollution reduction. You create tradeable pollution credits, so that (for example) operators of clean power plants can sell their unused credits to those operating older plants that emit alot of pollution. The interesting idea my econ professor suggested was to trade those pollution credits as a commodity on the Chicago Board of Trade. That way, people and organizations interested in environmental protection can buy those credits and take them out of circulation. As the supply of credits goes down, the price goes up and it becomes more economical to install cleaner technologies. Dave, if the "whole crux of the problem is we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have near enough understanding of the contributors to warming and cooling to isolate the net effect (if any) of manmade C02", how are you so assured that it, in fact, isn't?rrf_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank El Nino effects happen every few years and cause a sharp but temporary increase in the global temperature which is not related to CO2. So what? So you must remove those effects from temperature measurements in order to see the effects of other things like solar flux and greenhouse gases such as co2, methane, and water vapor, as well as albido changers like plants, clouds, snow cover (and dirty snow cover), plus things that block solar heat from coming in like sulfate aerosols, soot, and dust. That's "so what". The whole crux of the problem is we don't have near enough understanding of the contributors to warming and cooling to isolate the net effect (if any) of manmade C02. Claims to the contrary are just politicized hot air. Global warming is most vociferously held by control freaks who consider it an opportunity to exert a larger measure of control over the behavior of everyone else. Reducing manmade C02 is hugely expensive and requires an extraordinary additional amount of government control over the operation of free markets. Therefore it's the stuff that socialist and other big government wet dreams are made of. DaveScot_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

Mike Dunford Most people know warm air can hold more moisture than cold air. "Too cold to snow" is just a stupid remark. It can be too dry to snow. It can also be too dry to rain. Duh. If you want to act like your audience is morons I suggest you do it on your own blog where they actually are. Here you'll have to do better. The sea ice around antarctica is also increasing. See if you can explain that in context of warmer air that can hold more moisture. Maybe it used to be too cold for water to freeze, huh? LOL DaveScot_{February 14, 2007
February
02
Feb
14
14
2007
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

Pav You are right the causes of El Nino events are not fully understood. I am sorry I did not read your post more carefully. But I don't understand the what you are getting at. There are lots of things that cause global temperature changes on different scales. The IPCC is not claiming that the level of CO2 is the only or dominant cause. El Nino effects happen every few years and cause a sharp but temporary increase in the global temperature which is not related to CO2. So what?Mark Frank_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

Here's another example of the inconsistency of the science of global warming. Tim Flannery an Australian scientist has written a book "The Weather Makers&quot where he advocates the urgent need to address the global climate crisis. He's also been made Australian of the Year, 2007.
"This book is unimpeachable in its authority, deftly and accessibly written in its vision for what each of us can do to avoid catastrophe."
Describing his current work in an interview he makes this perplexing comment
"What I want to look at is the reason there's so little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the height of ... this current warm period, as compared with previous warm periods. It's a sort of a technical issue, but it's a very important one."
A sort of "technical issue"? Isn't that the issue? Doesn't that "technical issue" undermine the authority of his book?orion_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

The relevance of global warming to ID is the nature of the science community. When a scientific theory has powerful political, economic, or philosophical implications, one must be cautious about the Ã¢â‚¬Å“scientific consensus,Ã¢â‚¬Â Gil, you are dead right!tribune7_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

To Mark Frank: I asked you what "caused" El Nino. Here's what the Wikipedia reference has to say: The mechanisms which might cause an El NiÃƒÂ±o event are still being investigated. It is difficult to find patterns which may show causes or allow forecasts. So, if you want to explain the extreme temperature spike of 92-93 in terms of El Nino, then, to remain consistent, you must, in turn, explain El Nino in terms of GW--or else El Nino becomes the source of GW, something about which we know no causes. But to explain El Nino in terms of GW then becomes an instance of a 'dog chasing its tail' since the effect of El Nino is at once its cause. Do have a way out of this conundrum?PaV_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Pav El Nino is kind of complicated but quite well understood. Look at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_nino RgdsMark Frank_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Gil:
By the way, all that carbon stored in coal, oil, and fossil fuels in general that we are releasing as carbon dioxide: WasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it once in the form of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but was removed by plants and animals and turned into coal and oil? How come all that CO2 didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t destroy the planet back in those days?
The CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere by plants and converted into coal and gas was removed from the atmosphere over a period of millions to tens of millions of years. It is being put back into the atmosphere over a period of decades to centuries.Mike Dunford_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

"Executive Order 11110: On June 4, 1963 President Kennedy signed this virtually unknown Presidential decree, which had the authority to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest, essentially putting the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank out of business. The order returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Johnson reversed the order shortly after taking office in November, 1963. Some conspiracy theorists believe this executive order was the cause of President Kennedy's assassination." - jfklibrary.org What could be a better motive? A scam to print money out of thin air and charging the people interest on it.. put that in your pipe... War is not simply profitable to the miltary industrial complex. But to these same private bank we go in debt to: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=npJGuy_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Pav: I "confess" to being a person that will not overlook theories merely because they are unpopularily conspiracist in nature. If I caved so easily, then I'd be simply succumbing to peer pressure to avoid being labeled as a loon. But I am not naive enough to think people at the highest levels of state or status, somehow are immune to spiritual corruption; and could not contrive as easily as any other organized crime syndicate.. eg. the mafia. In a sense, everyone believe conspiracies, some just have unrationalised artificial limits based on their comfort levels - remind me of the movie the Matrix.. if you could choose obliviousness to reality..which would you choose? If you ask me.. I think there are enough data points to suggest white collared (if not silk sweatered) elites like the international bankers. They would be my prime suspect, for example, on the minds behind the Kennedy assassination. I think any ohrer argument is inferior. Read executive order# 11110. http://www.jfklibrary.org/ Always a good rule for any investigation. Follow the money. ;)JGuy_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

From "Report from Iron Mountain": "It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions." Now ask yourself, "If they seem so rather sure that they can 'invent' this threat, then what is it that makes them so sure that they can do so?" And then think of the role that the press--mainstreetmedia--plays in all of this. And, finally, think of what you would do if you were put to 'invent' such a 'threat'. What would you do? Would you buy a paper or two?. Would you compromise editors and reporters? When you see the completely stilted reporting that's going on, you have to wonder: "Aren't there any reporters out there who want to talk about the truth?" Frankly, I think this whole GW stuff is nothing if it isn't diabolical. And who would know better about 'heat' than the devil himself?PaV_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Dodgingcars:
While IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m interested in the topic of Global Warming, I really rather this blog be only about ID.
The relevance of global warming to ID is the nature of the science community. When a scientific theory has powerful political, economic, or philosophical implications, one must be cautious about the Ã¢â‚¬Å“scientific consensus,Ã¢â‚¬Â because scientists are no different than anyone else. They are just as easily manipulated and/or brainwashed by peer pressure, career incentives and disincentives, and a priori philosophical commitments. This is especially true in academia, where political correctness and materialism represent the unchallengeable gospel. By the way, all that carbon stored in coal, oil, and fossil fuels in general that we are releasing as carbon dioxide: WasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it once in the form of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but was removed by plants and animals and turned into coal and oil? How come all that CO2 didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t destroy the planet back in those days? [Off Topic] What happened to SalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s thread about the NCSE Steve-O-Meter and the dissent from Darwin list? I was going to post this comment:
Remember that those who sign the NCSE Steve-O-Meter get a pat on the back. Those who sign the dissent from Darwin list risk having their lives made a living hell at best, or losing their careers and livelihood at worst. I figure this disincentive is worth at least an order of magnitude in the response rates.
GilDodgen_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

I might add that the war on drugs, or war on terorism et al, seem to fit the aspect of a believable (though unseen) external menace. Thought provoking.JGuy_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Global Warming hysteria, especially pushed by the likes of Al Gore, reminds me of the controversial report (hoax?), "The Report From Iron Mountain". For those unfamiliar, this was a book printed in 1967 that was supposed to be written by a small secret government think tank w/ a broad range of expertise. The think tank discusses & proposes (sans moral restrictions) ways to transition from a war time nation to a peace time nation to maintain stabily on many lelves (industrial/political..etc..)..and whether peace was then even desired. About five years later the author came forward to say it was a hoax. Regardless if it was a haox or not... it's content seems eerily parallel to many of the political, social, global trends and/or events. Think about global warming and who is pushing it... and consider these excerpt form this report(?) written 40 years ago: "It does not follow that a transition to total peace in modern societies would require the use of this model, even in less "barbaric" guise. But the historical analogy serves as a reminder that a viable substitute for war as a social system cannot be a mere symbolic charade...[snip]... The existence of an accepted external menace, then, is essential to social cohesiveness as well as to the acceptance of political authority. The menace must be believable, it must be of a magnitude consistent with the complexity of the society threatened, and it must appear, at least, to affect the entire society." "Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species...[snip]... However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context. Since there is considerable doubt, in our minds, that any viable political surrogate can be devised, we are reluctant to compromise, by premature discussion, any possible option that may eventually lie open to our government." - L.Lewin, "The Report from Iron Mountain" ------------------ There are many other interesting parallels to events/trends in the world form the report since it's publication.JGuy_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Some members think that the Global Warming does not belong in this forum. They don't see how GW relates to Darwinism and evolution. Let me repeat, there are several distinct links or co-relations. 1) GW is a pseudo or quasi science, very much like Darwinism and evolutionism. It is possibly the greatest scientific scam ever second only to Darwinism. There are definite similarities and therefore it would be wise to study it to learn what the characteristics of such "science" are. 2) There are definitely common interests with respect to the origins sciences. For example, the interesting co-relation with significantly increased CO2 levels coinciding with the Cambrian explosion of life. Or the astrophysics connection, the project that shows that greenhouses gases, mainly CO2, may have prevented the Earth from becoming an ice ball like Mars. 3) There are ideological similarities. For example, as TerryL pointed out, there is the Darwinian "nature red in tooth and claw" ideology that pits humans against nature. This is related to the "godless" ideology of dog-eat-dog capitalism, as opposed to proper human (Christian) ecology that sees man as part of nature.rockyr_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Here's something really interesting. Go to interactive java global temperature anamoly chart: http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/ And click backward through the months with the control at the top left of the chart watching *where* the tropospheric warming is taking place and where it's cooling. Note that it's almost always *cooling* in the half of the globe directly above and below the equator and the large warming is taking place mainly over north america, northern europe, and northern asia, and antarctica. It appears that heat is being redistributed from the equator to the poles. How come the media doesn't tell us it's regional warming instead of global warming and that some parts of the globe are cooling? I'll tell you why. Because "Global Warming" is a tangled web of deception.DaveScot_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Actually, if you actually stopped to think for a second or two - you do need to engage your own brain to do this - you'd see the parallel between a massive amount of lake effect snow and the increase in snow in Antarctica. It's the same basic mechanism: 1: Water doesn't get cold as quickly as air does (the specific heat capacity of water is about 4 times that of air). 2: Cold air cannot hold as much water vapor as warm air can. 3: Cold air that blows across large bodies of water can be warmed by the water, and as it is warmed it picks up more moisture (increases in humidity). 4: When the warmer and wetter air from the water hits land, it cools rapidly. As it cools, the air can hold less moisture, and the relative humidity increases. When it cools enough for there to be precipitation, the moisture is dumped out of the air in some form - snow if it's cool enough, rain if it isn't. 5: This effect is increased by greater differences in temperature between land and water. This means that if you get a sudden cold snap after (for example) a long period of greater-than-normal temperatures, you get more snow. 6: (And finally) I would suggest that if you stop and re-read my first comment, you will see that I was suggesting that with increased warming, it might not be "too cold to snow" as often any more.Mike Dunford_{February 13, 2007
February
02
Feb
13
13
2007
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply