HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Our present climate problem has rational scientific solutions but they do not appear to be the ones currently pursued by the political leaders of the world. Here’s why.
1. It is undeniable that global temperatures have risen relative to pre-industrial times. It is a big PROBLEM.
2. Is CO2 the main greenhouse gas? No, water vapor is the main contributor to the greenhouse effect.
3. Are the increased CO2 levels due to the human activities in the post-industrial era? Yes, humans have contributed a significant amount but it cannot explain all of the global warming. Even then, it is a good idea to curb the burning of fossil fuels and to use alternative sources of energy for much greater sustainability. Everyone should support this initiative.
4. The existing climate records are too limited to separate definitively the short-term human induced cycles from the other natural longer term cycles of global warming and cooling.
5. Climate scientists are generally unaware of or disinterested with the impact of the changing solar outputs (a major component of the natural cycle) and the movement of the Earth across the galactic plane (a very long cycle). This is where the scientific community disagrees due to personal/institutional biases and agendas. If the reasoning is wrong, then there is no hope to find the correct solution to the problem.
6. Why is the world’s leadership barking up the wrong tree? The developed countries are using carbon footprint as another means to extend their influence over the less developed countries. Carbon credit is just another item created out of thin air and can be TRADED (money talks) and another form of colonial influence. It does NOT solve the fundamental problem.
I am not advocating we do nothing. We should err on the side of caution, but at the same time, we need to continue to determine the facts to guide things along for the correct reasons.
Are you angry about this obvious fraud and the national media’s complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue? Take responsibility and take action. STOP all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. STOP donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The Environmental Defense Fund. They have violated the public trust. KEEP donations local, close to home. MAKE donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people. People that government leaders and employees are sworn to protect. WRITE your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored funding and coordination of this and related propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. WRITE your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. Carbon is the stuff of life. He who controls carbon, especially CO2, controls the world. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984” and the US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near the truth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdneX1djD0
Re: Steve Wu
2) “Is CO2 the main greenhouse gas? No, water vapor is the main contributor to the greenhouse effect.”
Water vapour is a feedback mechanism. The amount of water vapour exists in a equilibrium state. Dump in water vapour and it will precipitate out in a jiffy. Saturation vapour pressure is largely determined by temperature. Raise the temperature slightly using a less major greenhouse gas (e.g. Co2, methane), and this will increase saturation vapour pressure, increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, causing a positive feedback and increasing greenhouse effect greatly.
However, whether the clouds from the water vapour result in a positive or negative feedback, is debatable. So the extent of water vapour feedback is difficult to quantify. Accordingly it is diffiicult to quantify exactly how much the temperature will change, and this is not including all the processes that climate models do not capture, or do not capture well. Take temperature increase pronouncements with a pinch of salt, but that’s not to say they aren’t increasing.
4) “The existing climate records are too limited to separate definitively the short-term human induced cycles from the other natural longer term cycles of global warming and cooling.”
You have answered your own question. When the scale and speed of current temperature changes we see now do not match natural longer term cycles of global warming/cooling, then there is good reason to suspect it is caused by short-term human induced cycles.
It is worth noting here that measurements show the stratosphere (layer of atmosphere above where weather takes place) is cooling. Carbon dioxide causes longwave cooling higher in the atmosphere and shortwave heating lower in the atmosphere, so cooling in the stratosphere is consistent with heating in the troposphere due to increased carbon dioxide. Seems a bit contrived to try to come up with various natural explanations when you measure more carbon dioxide, and measure changes in both lower and middle atmosphere that are consistent with the carbon dioxide scenario.
The situation is simply “given that what we measure do not match these natural cycles that we DO know about and matches the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced warming, we just take it as it’s carbon dioxide”. There is no way to exclude natural cycles that we DON’T know about, because if you don’t know about them, you can’t include them, ya?
And that’s about it unless you’re someone with vested interest to consider the lack of absolute evidence to be proof of the contrary: “Because we can never be sure, we should keep doing what we do”.
“5) Climate scientists are generally unaware of or disinterested with the impact of the changing solar outputs (a major component of the natural cycle) and the movement of the Earth across the galactic plane (a very long cycle).”
On the contrary, climate scientists are VERY interested in the impact of natural earth cycles.
“6) Carbon credit is just another item created out of thin air and can be TRADED (money talks) and another form of colonial influence. It does NOT solve the fundamental problem.”
Can’t argue with that.
Regarding the so-called “Climategate”.
It may be that the emails show a few scientists behaving in a selfish or illegal manner in trying to exclude skeptical views or denying requested information, but I find none the *scientific* criticisms I have read in this “Climategate” to be damning to the actual science.
Ultimately science will never give anyone the “absolute truth”, as much as people like it to be one way or the other. Climate science is work in progress, like any other type of science. Absolute truths are for religion and politics.
I encourage anyone who has doubts on the scientific issues of “Climategate” to raise them. Open discussion is more conducive to helping everyone here make up their mind. Finger pointing and vague paranoid pronouncements aren’t.
Oh, and as a Singaporean, I don’t really care about Senator Inhofe or donating to him. Neither can remember the details of Al Gore’s movie which I thought was rather melodrama.
The big problem is that if any real difference is to be made, then both Developed and Developing Countries must both make serious CO2 cuts.
I don’t see either side doing so. Also, the idea of Western Money to aid Developing countries suffering from the effects of Climate Change is also a non-starter. Guarantees must be in place that the money will go to those actually in need – not straight into the pockets of some corrupt leader, especially just as many countries are heavily in debt due to the recent global financial crisis.
Dear Commenter,
I believe we are largely in agreement. But I would like to emphasize several points:
1. It should be clear from my earlier post that I am NOT an advocate of “we don’t know, let’s not do anything”, indeed quite the opposite. However, I have noticed that in some quarters, it may be well a situation like “let’s pretend that we don’t know or that it is not there”. Our sun is very dynamic, NOT constant. The variation in solar outputs produces very significant impact on the Earth’s climate, always has and always will (at least for the next 5 billion years). Our understanding of the sun (as a branch of nuclear physics) is sufficiently precise to predict neutrino oscillation (an effect in high energy physics) well before it was first observed. The climate models cannot ignore the sun’s effects but they mostly do. See also Milankovitch theory for longer galactic cycles. Important terrestrial effects, e.g. deep ocean currents, are also often not taken into account.
2. Presently, the IPCC models are taken up for political action (Copenhagen 2009). They are almost certainly wrong because of their assumptions. For starters, I would like to see more oceanographers, solar physicists and other relevant experts in the IPCC process. It is ridiculous that some IPCC scientists, e.g. Kevin Trenberth, think that only climatologists can or should contribute to IPCC. Other scientists model the universe (cosmologists), the galaxy (galactic dynamicists), the sun (solar physicists) on a regular basis, surely Kevin Trenberth and others can learn a few things from them. I am not looking for work; my background is in high energy physics. :-)
3. As so much emphasis has been pinned on CO2, there is a real danger that the global warming impact may well be more severe but coming from a different direction. As the research grants determine the agendas, insufficient attention is being paid to the other alternatives. Politicians (local and elsewhere) may get away with equating going green with not using plastics bags, scientists can ill-afford to do the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
Check out the Copenhagen Document leaks, this knowledge may save your life! Do what you can with your Government Reps in your country to have these infringements on your life eliminated! You will literally be fighting for your and your family’s existence, Click the videos below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAqqAnUxACY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KH-WMZuw0
Request that PM Harper DOES NOT sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom, email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca
Sign the petition to protest the Inaccurate Science measurements that are being used to base the Copenhagen Treaty off of: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
It seems Mr. Ehrlich ( another of Obama’s Eugenicist Science Czars who works with John Holdren ) will have his way with humanity if the Copenhagen Treaty will have success. There is your global system, with a globally enforceable mandate- at first to impose carbon taxes upon humanity- later on to do what the eugenicists have always called and planned for: the orderly extermination of at least 80 percent of the global population.
If we could just figure out what we did to offset the global warming we expierenced in the mideval era, then we could implement that to help.
(it was much hotter back then…. I guess Sir Alouishes Gorrington stepped in and stopped feeding beans to the Clidesdales (the SUVs of the time) at Ye Olde Feed Shoppe back then.
Well, I’m sure his great great great grandson will heed the call and save us from the deadly PLANT FOOD that is CO2.
Like it or not- The Club of Rome decided in the 70′s that we would need to find a common threat to fight against. They decided they would make US the enemy of the planet.
Don’t believe me?
On page 75 of “The First Global Revolution” you can find the quote:
“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, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
“Oh, that’s just a conspiracy theory” FINE! Read the Club Of Rome’s book “The First Global Revolution.
Another “feel good” quote-
On page 71
“Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer
well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical
nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
I feel all warm and cozy now. -makes me want to vote.
It isn’t ME JoeSign making these quotes up….. under a bare lightbulb next to a picture of Che- These are you elected official’s BOSSES. (look into it!!!!)
(the book is from 1992- the wishes of these folks (eugenics) goes back way further.
Stop clowing around with your hockey sticks and do some reading on this for Pete’s Sake!
The people responsible for this have EVERYTHING TO GAIN!
You will be taxed for EVERYTHING!!!!
The main fighters here are backed by endless money and their goal is to get control, and power…. (and a pile of tax money paid by the dough eyed public, too stupid to realize COLDER DOESN’T MEAN WARMER)
So, they will be out in force to make the opposition look like they are funded by the gas companies, or just plain stupid. Don’t bite that bait!
I assure you…. I am a mid 30′s guy sitting in a family owned sign shop not funded by any large corporations. (much to my bills dismay)
I want clean air and water for my children….just like YOU.
I just don’t want to be bent over “Ye Olde Pickle Barrel” to get it.
Research Gore’s reason to push this agenda….. (I’ll give you a hint- he’s going to make a pile of money…thanks to his oil company, and his carbon trading company- Will it help control the temprature of the planet like you can control the temprature sitting in your living room? HECK NO!)
AGW is a scam!
Please wake up!
Hi Steve Wu,
I’m sorry if it sounded like I was implying that you were one of those with vested interests. I used the word “you” in a general sort of way.
1) I am not conversant with the details of the models used in the IPPC’s assessment and cannot comment on their treatment of variable solar forcing (if at all). Although the nuclear physics behind the sun is well-understood, quantitative understanding of the effects of solar variability is incomplete (as it is a forcing on a highly nonlinear system).
You are correct in pointing out the current models do not take many things into account. Current models are of course incomplete. Some things they take into account they don’t so well in either. Nevertheless the output is an ensemble average of many models, and human impact is substantial. Models will improve over time. After all, if they were perfect then a lot of people will be out of jobs, so that won’t do, haha!
2) & 3) IPCC and Copenhagen are a political processes. The requirements and methods of politics are different from that of science.
I think there are many pressing issues facing humanity other than global warming. But since politics drives grant money, research goes to where there is money. It’s because scientists need to eat, not because an entire field of climate scientists are part of a global conspiracy to “sell” global warming to the public and take over the world, as “Climategate” hysteria is going on about.
“Climategate” itself is a political process. The scientific process will sort out in time. Even if man-made global warming falls at some point it’s hardly the disaster “Climategate” people paint it out to be.
The fact is that global temperatures have trended down since January 1998. That’s when global warming stopped, as discussed in Kevin Trenberth’s Oct 12 2009 email “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
None of their computer models had predicted this.
Science is a labor in search of truth thru proof. Paraphrasing Einstein “it doesn’t matter how may scientists prove me right, rather it only takes one to prove me wrong”
This is where science and the CRU part ways and it is very easy to prove.
The CRU temperature dataset uses surface based temperature thermometers which are easier to manipulate as well as being subject to area “noise” influenced by their specific placement. But there is another dataset which is not influenced by manipulation and interferences and that is the satellite record, which, at great cost, began in December of 1978, (ironically to investigate global cooling at the time).
Unfortunately, the CRU has removed their global temperature dataset, (I wonder why), at: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
So to compare, we are left with their “sister” dataset at NASA, ala James Hansen at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The untainted satellite dataset is available at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
If you were to graph these two datasets from January 1998, you would find that the NASA surface based dataset shows temperatures trending UP while the Satellite dataset shows a DOWNTREND. In fact the difference projects out to be 1/3 C deg difference per decade. Doesn’t seem like much but over a 100 year period it would show a difference of over 3 deg C. These are the facts and anyone with a graph program can check for themselves.
If this isn’t enough “proof” for further science scrutiny, take a look at ancient temperature history at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI&feature=player_embedded
By definition it is a scientist duty to be skeptical. Unfortunately, after reading 100’s of these emails, it’s apparent to me that these “so called” scientists objective was to keep the truth from getting out as well as discrediting the truth seekers. The result of the leak has now changed the “believers into deniers”
Quote:
MAKE donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people.
Never heard of the guy so did a little google.
Here’s what Wikipedia said.
‘Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his positions on various political issues.’
‘Inhofe is one of the most conservative members of either house of Congress.’
‘In 2006, Inhofe was one of only nine senators to vote against the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which prohibits “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of individuals in U.S. Government custody.’ (In other words, he supports the Abu Ghraib prison)
‘Inhofe had previously compared the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo…’
‘During the 109 Congress, Inhofe voted to increase offshore oil drilling, … and to deny funding for both low-income energy assistance and environmental stewardship…’ (a real buddy of George W Bush [comment mine])
‘In a Senate speech, Inhofe said that America should base its Israel policy on the text of the Bible.’
‘In March 2002, Inhofe also made a speech before the U.S. Senate that included the explicit suggestion that the 9/11 attacks were a form of divine retribution against the U.S. for failing to defend Israel.’
‘Inhofe is in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, against adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes, and voted against prohibiting job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.’
And I thought our Aware saga was bad.
To me, people like Inhofe epitomize the worst of what is America today.
Donate to this nut-case? Duh.
Sounds like you have problems with Senator Inhofe’s core beliefs. Tell me, how’s humanistic paganism working for you.
Reply to #1-Steve Wu.
You stole my thunder!!!
“1. It is undeniable that global temperatures have risen relative to pre-industrial times. It is a big PROBLEM.”… NO, it isn’t.
FEAR, Manipulation, lies, corruption, control, profiteering, etc., are BIG PROBLEMS.
We live on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy in a universe… it is a very hostile and ever-changing system and man knows very little. Sure, we can come up with working theories at times, and the numbers work, for what we can observe, but there are factors, I will guarantee you, that mankind has no idea of working upon every theory.
Climate Change just has to be accepted and when, if the planet changes, we make changes. We don’t do it first with the hope that the change we make will offset something that may, might, or could happen according to manipulated data being put in a model–a model that has not produced real world resuts.
Whenever politicians and ex-pols are investors and FEAR is the driving factor…as in “if we don’t act NOW we’ll all die”… well… Further, when the “do as we say, not as we do” crowd is set to make billions and gain more control over our lives… well…
The IPCC is corrupt and was created to further the FEAR factor, not discover if there is a need to fear–which there isn’t.
And, it is as big as CLIMATEGATE makes it out to be. Without their nonsensical BS and fudging, this issue would not be; it would have died many years ago when it was first torn to shreds by many scientists, and some have worked for the IPCC.
KDK,
If we make changes according to what is presented to us at this very moment, we would not have an economy… Oh wait.
Joke aside, other than the annoyance, I’m also fascinated and morbidly amused that the climate change issue is so easily dismissed… Don’t you guys like fresh air and clean water?
Do you believe our daily lives should be constantly pressured (financially) by corporations (see: oil & electricity) when there is increasing information on alternate sources of energy? Outside of the technical terms, why does the idea on the individual level of cutting back, living within our means and only taking what we actually need seem so ridiculous among people?
Did the propaganda messages of:
- the economy failing if we don’t spend money, or
- that only rich kids can afford to go green
work its mojo?
(answer is no and no)
You all do know that plants breathe CO2, and we as human beings exhale CO2. Imagine what will happen if we reduce carbon dioxide emissions. No plants, no human beings, no life, no Earth.
16) mad93
I hope you are kidding.
To Ryvyan-
mad93 isn’t kidding.
The goal here in the ‘greeny’ movement is actually to tax and curb co2 emissions.
If you’ve forgotten, co2 is what plants absorb…and oxygen (look it up) is what we humans use to breathe in-(mixed with other gasses- pure oxygen isn’t what we’re meant to breathe, but it doen’t hurt in the short run…look it up!)
“Where is this deadly co2 gas coming from?” you might ask- (most people take the TV’s word for it and don’t ask, but for arguments sake, let’s say you asked)
The ‘deadly’ gas comes from your mouth, industry, and from the ocean when it’s warm.(and a few other natural sources….volcanoes, cow’s butts, etc.) Since we have no control over the ocean, and the world leaders are calling for up to an 80% reduction of co2 emissions….what do you think will be reduced?
(as far as industry is concerned…. I live in a small town in North Carolina- Within ten minutes from my house there are cotton and textile mills, furniture factories, a vehicle gasket making company, and a few other large factories- 98% are CLOSED!!!! Moved to places like India and China, where they get a green light (no pun intended- laughed at, but unintentionally) to pollute things that are banned here….like mercury and other harmful and longlasting pollutants)
Again… I want a clean environment to live in….like everyone else- But putting taxes on life, and living will only generate money for the taxes takers, and will further push the ‘haves’ up above the ‘have-nots’.
The goal here isn’t to save the planet- it’s to gain power.
If the goal was to save the environment, then we would see real issues brought up….like dumping toxic waste in the ocean, burning our expired nerve gasses in Alabama, and a range of other atrocities happening in the country and around the world. (it doesn’t take too much looking to find it- you just have to look)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2003/2003-08-15g.asp
BUT, you aren’t told about the things that are really killing us- because there is big money behind what you are told by the TV, and your opinion really isn’t something you came up with using facts, and reason. No, it isn’t.
Your opinions are something that are brought to you by Coke instead of Pepsi, and you know for sure that it is cool and refreshing…. because you are told so…. and you don’t question it, because they don’t ask you to.
TV states opinions and agendas as facts without the other side represented and you come to the only outcome- to agree with it.
This Copenhagen summit, or meeting is really about setting up a world government that will be funded by a tax on co2.
Please, don’t believe me!
Look into it, and prove me wrong. If you dismiss what I’ve said without looking into it just know you are willing stooge that is easily manipulated- a sheep.
“Just because you don’t see the train coming, doesn’t mean it won’t run your a$$ over”
JoeSign-