Comments on: The state’s view of climate change

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:08:58 +0000

(File under “Inconvenient Facts”) - NASA DISAPPEARS THE COOLING TREND - HERE

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:18:26 +0000

OFF

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:17:20 +0000

"Wolves to be 'educated' not to kill sheep" - HERE (FILE: "Early Morning Humor")

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:14:11 +0000
"Eco-Zealots In Overdrive: Let’s Kill The Polar Bears" - HERE -Already having to suffer its identity being abused by global warming alarmists as a symbol of manmade climate change, now the polar bear may have to fear being euthanized by overzealous conservationists.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:11:21 +0000
"BBC exaggerated climate change in David Attenborough's Africa" - HERE

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:50:43 +0000

Maybe. But I’m stumped about how one imposes THEORY (the way government was intended) upon REALITY without understanding the complexities of WHAT IS.

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:19:59 +0000

Evelyn — The “coincidence”, IMO, is due to both countries having similar political systems at the same level of maturity, on a landmass with similar resources. I disagree that we need to understand how/why the government works the way it does…we only need to figure out how to make it work the way it was intended.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:02:42 +0000

P.S. Comprehending that Australians and Americans are suffering nearly identical political/economic/regulatory transitions raises the question “What’s responsible for this “coincidence?”

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:53:08 +0000

Kirk: Previously I was unaware how much we have in common with the Auzzie experience. The linked document (not long) is worth a read. Regarding Agenda 21, as Ann Bressington says, we’re not meant to speak the words. By and large the media obeys the unwritten rules, so we remain ignorant. As for imposing our will upon the government, unless we understand how government ACTUALLY works and what REALLY is being done (forget electioneering propaganda) and where REAL POWER lies, we ain’t got a chance.

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:43:06 +0000

Evelyn — (2nd try…argh!) I have to claim ignorance regarding Australia and their experience with Agenda 21. I know a few Aussies and they never mentioned it. How we deal with it gets me back to my broken-record mantra: We The People must figure out how to impose our will on our elected representatives. The only defense against tyranny is self government. We The People have been horribly inept at playing our role in the system, almost from the beginning.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:30:46 +0000
May 2010: National Academy of Sciences Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group - HERE

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:28:17 +0000
May 2010: "Tax dollars [$5,856,600] perpetuate global-warming fiction" - HERE

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:19:04 +0000
From HERE: The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. … (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party's convention platform battle, not a scientific process.) Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:12:32 +0000
"U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims" - HERE

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:30:49 +0000

italics off?

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:29:52 +0000

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:27:07 +0000
Check out Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis HERE - He earned a Masters degree from the University of California, Berkeley from 1943 to 1944 before joining the Navy, where he served in World War II as an electronics technician. After the war, he returned to the University of California, Berkeley, and earned his Ph.D. in Physics studying under J. Robert Oppenheimer. His focus was high energy physics (cosmic rays and elementary particles). He, along with the other theoretical Physics professors at Berkeley, refused to sign the McCarthy era loyalty oath on principle, and in 1950 went to Princeton. Later, when offered reinstatement at Berkeley, he chose instead to accept a position at Bell Labs where he did research on superconducting materials. In 1956 he left Bell Labs to join the University of Wisconsin, Madison to work on solid state physics and plasmas. In 1964, he left to join the University of California, Santa Barbara as a full professor, and later chairman, in their growing Physics department. He wrote a text on the trade-offs between technological advances and risks, and also authored a popular book on decision making. In 1991 Harold Lewis won the Science Writing Award for his book 'Technological Risk'. Lewis was chairman of the JASON Defense Advisory Group from 1966 to 1973, when he worked on the issue of missile defense. He was a long-term member of the Defense Science Board (DSB), and chaired a 1985 DSB Task Force (with Stephen Schneider) on nuclear winter. Lewis was active in the field of safety of nuclear power plants. In 1975, he chaired a year-long study of light-water reactor safety for the American Physical Society (APS). Lewis chaired the 1977-1979 Risk Assessment Review for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:21:20 +0000
"Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society" - HERE - It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist. ********** (Scroll down a couple windows to get to his letter)

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:15:20 +0000
"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" - HERE ********** (I would note that these days scientists do not lightly stand apart from received orthodoxy. It is a real career killer.)

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:01:46 +0000
Kirk: I understand your reaction to "clown" enviro- or otherwise. But the article does deal with the qualifications of those making policy decisions of national/international significance. There are many serious scientific papers I could post that would address your concern; the one in question simply is what I came across today. Regarding the diminution of our liberties, I'd like to ask a favor. Seriously. Whenever you have time, please would you read THIS document. What I'm wanting to know is a) whether you find credible Ann Bressington's portrayal of the Australian experience, and b) whether you think our own situation resembles Australia's.

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:32:40 +0000

Evelyn — I can’t tell if your link is intended to be serious or comic relief. It clearly has an agenda…”enviroclown” is not the sort of term an objective analysis would contain. The point that only “real” climate scientists can do a good job of managing the organization does not hold water. Ditto for the implication that *all* research supporting climate change is based on unethical methods. And, I am very skeptical of the world wide conspiracy designed to rob us of our liberties.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:43:46 +0000
SO CALLED UN CLIMATE EXPERTS ACADEMICALLY UNQUALIFIED IN METEOROLOGY - HERE - If GW/CC was the great threat to the planet we are told it is then why isn’t it being presented and examined by the world’s great actual climate scientists and meteorologists? It is simply because it is a political based scheme for control and financial gain for those behind the cause, offering flawed data and manipulated computer models in place of actual recorded and visual fact. ********** (At every level of government & policy making, and in non-profits, climate change talk is a mantra, unsupported by honest academic study.)

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:55:54 +0000

We add ~26 billion tons of CO2 every year to the system. As a comparison, Mt St Helens produced ~10 million tons of CO2.

By: rod

rod — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:52:41 +0000

Evelyn, Kirk, flattery will get you everywhere, thanks. But I have to confess all the stats are straight from the book “the world Ocean” Anikouchine & Sternberg, a famous university text print ‘pre EPA’ (before the ‘enviroligionists’ started stripping original data from university libraries). You may copy it since I wrote it, but caveat emptor!. Kirk, It would be fanatastic to find some nonbiased data on current CO2 emmissions, but this we know. The oceans by far outweigh by several orders of magnitude any other sources, man’s contribution would be the smallest. However, The aquatic equilibrium of dissolved gasses trumps additional CO2 ANYWHERE. It may take a few hundred years for man’s contribution to be precipitated out on the ocean floor, but it will happen just as the sun rises, followed by the moon. ciao for now

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:50:54 +0000

. . . and you did not provide bucket dimensions, Paddy. . . . sloppy science, mr O

By: Paddy O'furniture

Paddy O'furniture — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:44:21 +0000

All right, I’ll admit, that wasn’t quite as impressive as Rod’s was.

By: Paddy O'furniture

Paddy O'furniture — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:43:12 +0000

Kirk asks “How much CO2 are we adding to the system each year?” I’ll answer for in a nice scientific like way, as Rod does. Forest fires and volcanoes have been occurring with regularity for millennia, and Mt Pinatubo alone spewed more CO2 than man has ever produced. One little burp out of thousands. Now for scientific explanation to how much we are adding; get your self a glass of iced tea (or cold beer if you’re so inclined) and set it aside. Next, grab a 5 gallon bucket and fill to the top with water. Now hold your tea over the bucket until condensation forms on the outside of the glass. Hold the glass over the bucket. When the very first drop of condensation falls from the glass into the bucket, you have your answer to how much greenhouse gas humans add to the equation; a drop in the bucket.

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:40:29 +0000
LINK - Vast California Oil Reserve May Now Be Within Reach, and Battle Heats Up

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 03:21:12 +0000

Unfortunately, the “Global Warming and Why We Must Give Up Our Freedoms/Money” battlefield is beyond these pages. It is at City Councils, Planning Commissions, County offices & BOS, SACOG, and all the way up. Hats off to the one or two dedicated, vigilant & brave people who consistently have been fighting the good fight on our behalf.

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 03:19:43 +0000

Rod — Thanks for the description of the carbon cycle. From what I understand, forest fires and volcanoes continue to keep up their contribution of CO2, while the burning of fossil fuels puts an additional burden on the cycle. How much CO2 are we adding to the system each year?

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 03:00:52 +0000

Rod: PLEASE hang around for the next installment of “Global Warming and Why We Must Give Up Our Freedoms/Money”. I have saved your 1,010 words (yes, have made a Word doc, so know the count). If you aren’t here when needed I ask permission to reinsert you comment+name+link. Masterful summary executed with appropriate passion. Clearly you know your stuff. MANY MANY THANKS.

By: rod

rod — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 02:21:05 +0000

Global warming 101: When the Cap and Trade bill failed in congress, the EPA simply declared CO2 a pollutant (there’s that Orwellian reverse speak again) and proceeded to write copious regulations that negatively impact all of us. Tremendous new taxation on most nation wide industries, economic energy (fossil fuels) for us all, and auto emission standards are a result, based on an assumption that global warming is an anthropocentric phenomenon, or man caused.
Just for the record, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is emitted as a natural function of animal respiration, plants in the absence of sunlight, forest fires, oceans and volcanoes, and all internal combustion engines. That’s a lot of sources of ‘pollution’ to blame on man. Yes the earth is warming up….again, but is it caused by Man? At least three glaciations have occurred since time began, so consequently there has been three global warmings…and man wasn’t around then. Now Let’s take a look at the facts.
There is a simple little exercise that is quite revealing. The next time you have an opportunity to stand on a hill, or a spot where you can see an object like a house three to four miles away, point to it. Then fix that scene in your mind and slowly rotate your arm to vertical, projecting the vision of that house straight up.
That is the distance (about 18,000 feet) above your head and below where over one half of the earth’s atmosphere resides, nitrogen, oxygen, argon and carbon dioxide in a ratio of about, 78%, 21%, .9% and .03% respectively. This is known as the Troposphere. Now consider the earth’s circumference of 27,000 miles and realize that most of our earth’s atmosphere really is an extremely thin layer compared to the size of the earth.
Point 1. Now, the oceans of the world comprise about 71% of the earth’s surface and average about 13,000 feet in depth. But water has a much higher saturation point for dissolved gasses, about 300 times greater than our atmosphere. Therefore, the total amount of CO2 in the oceans is astronomically higher than it is in our atmosphere. Well what does this mean?
Enter the carbon cycle. In simple terms, the oceans maintain a fairly constant equilibrium of these dissolved gasses depending on temperature and PH throughout the world. As dissolved CO2 builds up and exceeds the equilibrium threshold, it precipitates out as calcium carbonate or bicarbonate, dropping to the sea floor forming limestone. This essentially locks up CO2 as a solid, thereby removing it as a gas from the oceans as well as the atmosphere. As ocean temperatures increase, solubility of CO2 decreases and forms limestone more rapidly. It is no secret the capacity of the oceans to contain CO2 as a gas and a solid is almost infinite.
The reverse occurs when ocean temperatures decrease. Cold water can hold more CO2 as a dissolved gas thus limestone reverts back into CO2 and the calcium ion maintaining the equilibrium. This is the dominant mechanism by which CO2 is subtracted or added to the atmosphere, warming or cooling it and our oceans. Are we getting the picture?
Not only are the oceans great at subtracting or adding CO2 in water, they are also superb at scrubbing the air for all gasses. As the eternal winds blow across the oceans they are continually mixing and changing from vertical to horizontal directions as they come in contact with ocean surfaces. This forced interface is where gas exchange takes place and is a two- way agreement. If the winds hold an abundance of CO2, it is given to the oceans, and vice versa.
Point 2. The carbon cycle is only the first barrier to excessive global warming. There are many mitigating factors but the big one, the one that holds the hammer is dissimilar surface heating. As solar radiation (sunshine) penetrates the atmosphere it warms the land surfaces at a higher rate than the oceans. Heat reflected from land surfaces becomes infrared radiation and is trapped by atmospheric CO2 causing it to warm. This is called the ‘greenhouse effect’. Water simply has a much higher heat capacity without warming as much. Through the scientific term known as the ‘heat of evaporation’, the hotter it gets the more cooling occurs on ocean surfaces than land. This term probably should have been called the ‘cold of evaporation’, oh well, but what does this mean?
The hotter the atmosphere becomes, the more evaporation takes place creating cloud mass. In the hotter climates of the tropics and subtropics there is a continual daily cycle of clouds and rain. Extrapolating this concept to the entire earth, (ala Jurassic Park) the hotter it gets the more clouds will form reducing solar radiation on land (cooling). This reduces infra-red radiation from the earth’s surface thereby cooling the atmosphere and the oceans. Aside from the carbon cycle, there is no more beautiful and proven natural equilibrium.
So, the oceans are not just the ‘great moderator of temperature’ as we all know, but also a fantastic moderator of CO2. A chemical equilibrium that has well managed the full spectrum of temperature ranges from glaciation to the other end, global warming… and it has all happened without man.
While it is true man is contributing more CO2 to the biosphere since the industrial revolution began, it is entirely miniscule when considering all the eternal and natural CO2 emanating from the oceans, volcanism and forest fires.
So why all the fear of global warming? This is simple proven physics supported by history, how can it be misconstrued? Why has it been? Have these unfounded fears been manufactured? Have computer models been tweaked to support environmental agendas? Since the EPA’s Endangered Species Act is getting tired, as evidenced by the catastrophic destruction to our economy and Constitutional rights, can it be the EPA is looking for a gigantic overreaching encore… A new martyr… from ‘death of a species’ to ’death of the earth’? Is global warming less about our environment, and more about control through more lucrative taxation?

By: rod

rod — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 02:08:11 +0000

Mr. Daley apparently has some Russian history, psychology and counseling to his credit. so where is the background in physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, or oceanography, maybe some meteorology no? Please, spare us the ‘science lecture’ salted by EPA… and tell us why Stalin hated Lenin, thankyou!

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:44:40 +0000

Agenda 21 is simply ONE approach to this vexing growth function —–> A = P(1+r/n)^nt <————— Are there ANY math literate posters on this forum?

By: cookie65

cookie65 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:21:02 +0000

I didn’t realize this when I posted my last comment but this is the opening to this story. “The Sacramento Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy are based on the following conclusions:” Right there in big letters… Sustainable Communities….

By: cookie65

cookie65 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:18:19 +0000

One World Government. Sustainability. The Good of the Whole. Social Contract. Living Constitution. Resource Management. Conservationism. Consumption. Sustainable Development. Central Planning. Eminent Domain. Zoning. IPCC. All part of the same big picture.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:53:15 +0000
I wish there were a transcript of Ann Bressington, South Australia MP, speaking (2/2/2013) on Agenda 21 & the Club of Rome. THIS 21 min video records that address. I had not realized that Australia is suffering managed transformations (and deprivations) such as our own. The content of what MP Bressington has to say is totally documentable. Source documents can be found with relative ease. The alarm she sounds for Australians is the same alarm we should be hearing. But we’re not. At least, not in any organs of the mainstream media. WATCH. SAVE. PASS IT ON.

By: cookie65

cookie65 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:58:42 +0000

Anyone see where the state of California is dropping the algebra 1 requirement for 8th graders? And they are using the lefts favorite excuse when all of their inlightened ideas fail miserably. In this case it is the kids fault. You just can’t make this $h%^t up…. toooooo funny…Maybe if they got exposed to algebra nearly as often as they get told about global warming we would be producing some mathematical wizards. They are actually trying to tell us the kids can’t learn. Hey, but they need more mone. http://www.news10.net/news/article/228625/2/Calif-drops-Algebra-1-requirement-for-8th-graders

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:58:51 +0000
REW writes, "Every bacteria, insect, plant and animal on the planet has a purpose, yet some humans feel they do not." - Yes. You can count me among those who question the need for chiggars, seed ticks and HIV. - REW, are you really Rabbi Michael Lerner? Are you pitching Tikkun olam again?

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:52:58 +0000
"Polar Bear Researchers Urge Governments to Act Now and Save the Species" - HERE - (Also see above, yesterday @2:20pm)********** I love polar bears. When first seeing those photos of them stranded on an ice berg, floating into oblivion, my heart nearly broke. Years later I was greatly relieved when reminded that polar bears can swim!!!

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:22:04 +0000
One of my personal favorites remains TheScientist 2009 revelation concerning pharmaceutical giant Merck. Seems Merck had been publishing a fake “scientific” journal primarily consisting of articles presenting data favorable to Merck. There was no disclosure of company sponsorship.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:10:36 +0000
64-pg report from the Union of Concerned Scientists: HEADS THEY WIN, TAILS WE LOSE - HOW CORPORATIONS CORRUPT SCIENCE AT THE PUBLIC’S EXPENSE. This describes interference in science and how companies with a financial stake in the outcome are allowed to influence the scientific research used by policy makers. “Corporations use front groups, public relations firms, and other paid consultants to influence public opinion, undermine science, and gain access to policy makers while maintaining the illusion of independence. Corporate involvement in these groups is often obscured, as the groups do not have to disclose their funding sources.” - HERE

By: M. Schumann

M. Schumann — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:52:07 +0000

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
– Thomas Jefferson

By: Martin

Martin — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:39:25 +0000

As I stated before if common since was a snake there wouldn’t be a problem, employment would be at record highs and our government would be under control of the people.

By: cookie65

cookie65 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:29:29 +0000

For years I have made the claim that they determine the outcome before they ever do the the research and everytime I say it I get mocked up one side and down the other by some brain-dead indoctinated leftist as being anti-science. But it has never caused me to quit saying it. Because it is true.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:11:28 +0000

“The infamous ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph purporting to show a runaway acceleration in global temperatures beginning in 1850 was never accurate–and the Climatic Research Unit [but not Al Gore] knew it wasn’t accurate when they published it.” ********** From “scientist” Phil Jones to colleagues:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick . . . to hide the decline.” (See Cookie’s 9:15 pm)

By: cookie65

cookie65 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 05:15:04 +0000

Phil Jones and the dog ate my homework excuse. When the creators of the hockey stick graph were questioned on thier research and how they reached their findings they couldn’t produce anything to support their conclusions. I believe it was Phil Jones who claimed he wasn’t good at keeping records. The truth is for years they have cherry picked various things from around the globe to promote global warming while ignoring anything that contradicted it. http://www.examiner.com/article/the-hockey-stick-was-never-accurate-and-cru-knew-it

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 04:55:51 +0000
February 2010 - "Climate change email scandal shames the university and requires resignations" - The Guardian's new revelations about the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia might help to explain the university's utter failure to confront its critics. They could also explain why the head of the unit, Phil Jones, blocked freedom of information requests and proposed that material subject to those requests be deleted. He has been spared a criminal investigation only because the time limit for prosecutions has expired. The emails I read gave me the impression that Phil Jones had something to hide. Now we know what it might have been. The Guardian has discovered that Jones appears to have suppressed data that undermines a paper he published in Nature in 1990. The paper claimed that Chinese weather stations show that local heating caused by urbanisation has very little effect on the temperature record. It now seems that much of the data they used is worthless and the documents required to validate it do not exist. The paper might be 20 years old, but in a way that makes the scandal worse: Phil Jones has had 20 years in which to issue a correction. - HERE

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 04:42:12 +0000

Cookie: I couldn’t say whether I’ve previously read that particular article, but in the last several years I have read similar articles about Greenland, why it is so-named, etc. I’m not a climatologist, so would be unable to debate the finer details. But I am convinced that Global Warming, as it’s being sold to us, is based on fraudulent science and is making a number of people endearingly wealthy. For me, the Climategate scandal several years ago involving leading “scientists” from Penn State and East Anglia University in the UK was the nail in the coffin.

By: cookie65

cookie65 — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 04:13:13 +0000

Evelyn, have you ever read this? http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/hotair4.html