Global Warming Exposing the Scam


Editor:
Will this fraud ever hit the “main stream media”? Gore and Suzuki are going to have to move to China with their mentor Maurice Strong. The worst part of this scam is the great harm it will inflict upon the citizens of Canada and the USA, and your govt is complicit in this scam.

Global Warming and Pagan Emptiness




Cardinal George Pell on the latest hysterical substitute for religion.

Interview by Michael Gilchrist | January 2008
In the debate over the theory of global warming, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney is a decided skeptic. His forthright reservations about the claim of catastrophic man-made climate change have made him a target for criticism in Australia. CWR talked to him about the controversy.

Your recent remarks questioning the claims about man-made climate change have drawn fierce criticism here in Australia. How do you account for that?

Cardinal Pell: Despite the fact that Australians like to see themselves as a ruggedly independent, rational, and democratic people, in some respects a herd-like mentality still prevails. Right now, the mass media, politicians, many church figures, and the public generally seem to have embraced even the wilder claims about man-made climate change as if they constituted a new religion.

These days, for any public figure to question the basis of what amounts to a green fundamentalist faith is tantamount to heresy. The angry editorials and letters to newspapers certainly suggest this.

You are one of very few public figures in this country to express open skepticism about man-made climate change and its alleged long-term effects. What is your reading of the scientific evidence for climate change? What is the basis of your skepticism?

Cardinal Pell: I am certainly skeptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Scientific debate is not decided by any changing consensus, even if it is endorsed by political parties and public opinion. Climate change both up and down has been occurring, probably since earth first had a climate.

Science is a process of experimentation, debate, and respect for evidence. Often it is dealing with uncertainties rather than certainties, and so its forecasts and predictions can be spectacularly wrong. We must not ignore evidence that doesn’t suit our cause. Long-term weather forecasting is a notoriously imprecise exercise.

In the 1970s some scientists were predicting a new ice age because of global cooling. Today other scientists are predicting an apocalypse because of global warming. It is no disrespect to science or scientists to take these latest claims with a grain of salt. Commitment to the scientific method actually requires it.

Uncertainties on climate change abound. Temperatures in Greenland were higher in the 1940s than they are today, and the Kangerlussuaq glacier there is not shrinking but growing in size. While the ice may be melting in the Arctic, apparently it is increasing in extent in the Antarctic. Overall world temperatures have not increased since 1998 according to the statistics—whatever the case might be in particular locations.

Do you accept that human activities may have contributed to at least some of the global warming?

Cardinal Pell: Significant evidence suggests that average temperatures rose by 0.6 degrees centigrade during the last century, and there is no doubt that large-scale industrial activities can have an adverse impact in particular locations, as in the larger Chinese cities. But when averaged out across the globe, it is difficult to see this being the main culprit for any overall global warming, let alone bringing us to the verge of catastrophe. Again, we are dealing with a very imprecise science here, whatever the computer models might suggest. There are so many other variables.

The journal American Scientist recently published a study on the melting glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro. The study confirms that air temperature around the glacier continues to be below freezing, so it is not melting because of global warming. Instead, the melt pattern of the glacier is consistent with the effect of direct radiant heat from the sun. Human activity can’t be blamed for that.
Michael Gilchrist is editor of the Australian religious monthlyAD2000<

A cold spell soon to replace global warming

MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) – Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.

Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?

Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.

The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions—a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect.
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Global Warming Exposing the Scam

  1. Since the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper is endorsing carbon emissions trading, I did a quick check of the other parties to see what they propose.
    Here’s the NDP plan:

    ******Give fair notice to large emitters that, starting in 2008, permissible emissions will be capped and the cap will be annually reduced with an eventual goal of a 50 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030.

    Introduce a market-based auction for available emission credits in 2009, with credits divided among sectors. At the outset, the auction will cover less than 10 per cent of available credits, with a goal of all emission credits sold by
    auction by 2030. Proceeds from the sale of emission credits will go to sustainability projects.****

    There is no mention of carbon trading per the Kyoto mechanism. Makes one wonder why the Federal Conservatives are endorsing a “socialist scan” when the even the socialists aren’t?

    The Greens are in bed with the Liberals so there’s no point looking at Green Policy wrt carbon trading. The Liberal plan includes:

    ********Establishing a carbon trading system – One of the primary reasons for adopting our approach is to give our companies a head start in preparing to participate in and profit from emerging global carbon markets. Companies who are below their ‘carbon budget’ will be able to trade their unused allotments to other Canadians firms. Companies would also be able to buy international emission credits certified under the Kyoto Protocol to offset up to 25% of the amount they exceed their carbon budget. Only projects that provide real, verifiable and incremental emission reductions will be eligible. Finally, we will introduce a system of incremental domestic offsets as quickly as possible. Companies will be able to use these offsets to reduce the amount that they are required to deposit that year into their Green Investment Account. This will ensure that industry has access to a full array of cost effective
    emissions reduction options.************

    No one should be surprised at the Liberal plan because their man on the inside of the UN, Maurice Strong, covertly under a “Cloak of Green” has been working the UN to further the agenda of the global elites. Those NG0s’, many operating in foreign lands, that participate in these UN conferences are financed with your Canadian tax dollars, that is provided they tow the party line. NGO directors and staff are hand picked. They are not representative of the grass roots. The NGOs stage protests and media stunts to shape public opinion in support of the agenda of the elites. Governments sign the UN conventions then draft policies and pass laws to enact programs. The end result is a “Clean Water Acts”, “Tree conservation by-laws”, land use regulations, “green” energy policy that puts wind turbines in your back yard. Bureaucratic empires mushroom. YOU pay at the municipal, provincial and federal level to have these programs imposed on YOU without your say. The local politicians play along because they too aspire to share in the power and maybe become next UN Secretary General like Maurice Strong had.
    Meanwhile, for all your dollars spent, it’s business as usual for the corporations but you won’t read about that in the main stream media. This is 14 years after the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro Brazil that brought you Agenda 21.
    Dateline July 17th, 2006:
    ************“In the past three years, nearly 70,000 square kilometres of the Amazon rainforest have been destroyed. The smoke from burning trees pushed Brazil into the top four of global greenhouse gas producers in 2004. Despite commitments from the government of President Lula da Silva, the destruction of the Amazon rainforest continues.
    Almost three-quarters of it occurs illegally. Brazil’s award-winning Environment Minister, Marina da Silva, speaking at the RSE symposium, was keen to point to progress being made in slowing the rate of deforestation. According to government figures based on a satellite survey, there was a 32 per cent decrease in the rate of deforestation last year.

    Three years ago, the agrobusiness giant Cargill, the largest privately owned company in the world, opened a soya port in Santarem. And Father Edilberto has set himself on a collision course with the Minnesota multinational that he says represents the worst of rapacious capitalism. Father Edilberto has used the church-funded Radio Rurale de Santarem as a means of fighting back against the incursions of the illegal loggers, ranchers and soya farmers, who in turn supply the grain giants.
    “We are small and we are fighting multinationals like Cargill – people who are using soya as a commodity. I’m sure there are at least 200,000 listening. Our objective is to educate the people, provide critical and objective news.”
    It is less than 18 months since another rainforest campaigner and champion of Brazil’s rural poor, Sister Dorothy Stang, was murdered in broad daylight further east in Para state, in the city of Anapu. After death threats, the US-born, naturalised Brazilian nun was assassinated by gunmen allied to illegal ranchers.
    “I don’t need a uniform,” says the outspoken priest, who eschews the Catholic garb for a green polo shirt and an indigenous necklace. “My uniform is my face and my mouth. People know I’m a priest.”
    Lately he has started to receive the same kind of threats that preceded the murder of Sister Dorothy. “Two months ago, some crazy, nuts guy posted on the internet that the best thing they could do with Father Edilberto Sena was to kill me.”***********

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s