huevonkiller
Change (Deftones)
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 25,798
- Likes
- 90
- Points
- 48
I found some interesting articles over the weekend.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Human-caused global warming is just a facade for a political agenda
Letters to Editor
March 1, 2008
Comment Comments Print Friendly Print Email Email
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it" -- H. L. Mencken
Of all the propaganda campaigns mounted during the past century in the United States, and there have been some whoppers: World War I, Red Menace, World War II, Nuclear Annihilation/MAD, overpopulation, natural resource shortages, species extinction, air and water pollution, Three Mile Island, global cooling, nuclear winter. None of them comes close to comparing with human-caused global warming. Indeed, the threat of terrorism takes a backseat to human-caused global warming!
I thought the hype, the pseudo-science and the absurd catastrophic scenarios concocted by the "nuclear winterites" were a bit over the top. However, the catastrophic scenarios advanced by the anthropomorphic global-warming crowd not only go beyond the absurd, but are surely destined for some kind of record book. Even the men who advanced the absurd nuclear winter scenario, Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack and Sagan, didn't bend up known facts and methods of scientific investigation like the proponents of human-caused global warming.
As every honest scientist knows, the Earth's atmosphere and its workings are not only complex, but are poorly understood. Furthermore, the results obtained from studying ice cores, sediment samples, tree rings, fossils, etc., clearly reveal that the Earth, since the time of Noah's disembarkation, has cycled through periods of warming and cooling.
The last warming period, called the Medieval Climate Optimum (900-1300 A.D.), featured average temperatures well above today's average temperature. Indeed, the weather was so mild that the ice sheet we know as Greenland was really green when Leif Ericsson stumbled upon it in the 11th century.
Not only does life flourish in periods of warming, but the weather cycles also are not as harsh and unpredictable as they are in periods of cooling. What is more, during the Medieval Climate Optimum, the polar ice caps didn't melt and cause the world's oceans to alarmingly rise. The polar bears and other inhabitants of the polar ice caps didn't die out. The planet didn't become some impossible greenhouse as in the movie "Soylent Green." Carbon dioxide didn't cause the Medieval Climate Optimum. It didn't cause the Little Ice Age (1300-1850). And, it hasn't caused the current warming trend, which began around 1850.
The annual human-caused increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which primarily comes from burning hydrocarbons, is approximately 1 part in 10,000 of that contained in the oceans and biosphere. Contrary to the propaganda, carbon dioxide and methane, although greenhouse gases, possess physical properties that render their greenhouse effects very weak, as opposed to water vapor, which is the greenhouse gas that induces the greenhouse effect and makes the earth habitable.<u>
The truth is global warming and cooling correlate closely with fluctuations in solar activity, sunspots, and the solar system's orbital position in the arms of the galaxy, cosmic ray bombardment.</u>
As should be obvious, especially with the boatloads of draconian legislation enacted over the past few decades to "protect the environment," global-warming propaganda isn't about saving the environment, making the Earth a better place, or promoting peace. No, AI Gore and his ilk are working a political and economic agenda that is simply stated by David Rockefeller in his Memoirs: "Global political and economic integration: one world." And by one world, Rockefeller means a dictatorial world government controlled by and for the global elite. The other 98 percent of the world's population in this arrangement will be little more than serfs on the Czar's estate.
R.P. Adamson Jr. was born, raised and educated in Greeley. He is in the drywall business.</div>
http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/2008030...ADERS/301331375
There is also brand new evidence of "Global Cooling" (really there isn't but it obviously neutralizes the idea of Global Warming). Heh.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Evidence of Global Cooling
Cold Reception
Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack ?€” in the face of all the predictions of global warming.
Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.
That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded ?€” up or down.
Some scientists contend the <u>cooling is the result of reduced solar activity ?€” which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.</u></div>
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html
Enough to wipe out all evidence of Global Warming.
This is the amazing article I found:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><u>Fire and Ice
Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can?€™t decide weather we face an ice age or warming </u>
Global Warming: 1981-Present and Beyond
The media have bombarded Americans almost daily with the most recent version of the climate apocalypse.
Global warming has replaced the media?€™s ice age claims, but the results somehow have stayed the same ?€“ the deaths of millions or even billions of people, widespread devastation and starvation.
The recent slight increase in temperature could ?€œquite literally, alter the fundamentals of life on the planet?€? argued the Jan. 18, 2006, Washington Post.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times wrote a column that lamented the lack of federal spending on global warming.
?€œWe spend about $500 billion a year on a military budget, yet we don?€™t want to spend peanuts to protect against climate change,?€? he said in a Sept. 27, 2005, piece.
Kristof?€™s words were noteworthy, not for his argument about spending, but for his obvious use of the term ?€œclimate change.?€? While his column was filled with references to ?€œglobal warming,?€? it also reflected the latest trend as the coverage has morphed once again.
The two terms are often used interchangeably, but can mean something entirely different.
The latest threat has little to do with global warming and has everything to do with ?€? everything.
The latest predictions claim that warming might well trigger another ice age.
The warm currents of the Gulf Stream, according to a 2005 study by the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, U.K., have decreased 30 percent.
This has raised ?€œfears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age,?€? as the Gulf Stream regulates temperatures in Europe and the eastern United States. This has ?€œlong been predicted?€? as a potential ramification of global warming.
Hollywood picked up on this notion before the study and produced ?€œThe Day After Tomorrow.?€? In the movie global warming triggered an immediate ice age. People had to dodge oncoming ice. Americans were fleeing to Mexico. Wolves were on the prowl. Meanwhile our hero, a government paleoclimatologist, had to go to New York City to save his son from the catastrophe.
But it?€™s not just a potential ice age. Every major weather event becomes somehow linked to ?€œclimate change.?€?
Numerous news reports connected Hurricane Katrina with changing global temperatures. Droughts, floods and more have received similar media treatment.
Even The New York Times doesn?€™t go that far ?€“ yet.
In an April 23, 2006, piece, reporter Andrew C. Revkin gave no credence to that coverage. ?€œAt the same time, few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault. There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, they say.?€?
Unfortunately, that brief brush with caution hasn?€™t touched the rest of the media.
Time magazine?€™s recent cover story included this terrifying headline:
?€œPolar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever... More And More; Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame. Why the crisis hit so soon ?€”and what we can do about it?€?
That attitude reflects far more of the current media climate. As the magazine claimed, many of today?€™s weather problems can be blamed on the changing climate.
?€œDisasters have always been with us and surely always will be. But when they hit this hard and come this fast ?€” when the emergency becomes commonplace ?€”something has gone grievously wrong. That something is global warming,?€? Time said.
Methodology
The Business & Media Institute (BMI) examined how the major media have covered the issue of climate change over a long period of time. Because television only gained importance in the post-World War II period, BMI looked at major print outlets.
There were limitations with that approach because some major publications lack the lengthy history that others enjoy. However, the search covered more than 30 publications from the 1850s to 2006 ?€” including newspapers, magazines, journals and books.
Recent newspaper and magazine articles were obtained from Lexis-Nexis. All other magazine articles were acquired from the Library of Congress either in print or microfilm.
Older newspapers were obtained from ProQuest. The extensive bibliography includes every publication cited in this report. BMI looked through thousands of headlines and chose hundreds of stories to analyze.
Dates on the time periods for cooling and warming reporting phases are approximate, and are derived from the stories that BMI analyzed.
Conclusion
What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious?
Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can?€™t possibly be accurate.
For ordinary Americans to judge the media?€™s version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.
Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. <u>Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.
It is time for the news media to admit a consistent failure to report this issue fairly or accurately, with due skepticism of scientific claims.</u>
Recommendations
It would be difficult for the media to do a worse job with climate change coverage. Perhaps the most important suggestion would be to remember the basic rules about journalism and set aside biases ?€” a simple suggestion, but far from easy given the overwhelming extent of the problem.
Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:
*
?€œSupport the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.?€?
*
?€œGive voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.?€?
*
?€œDistinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.?€?
That last bullet point could apply to almost any major news outlet in the United States. They could all learn something and take into account the historical context of media coverage of climate change.
Some other important points include:
*
Don?€™t Stifle Debate: Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn?€™t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.
People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.
*
Don?€™t Ignore the Cost: Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton?€™s term.
Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.
*
Report Accurately on Statistics: Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, ?€œ20th Century Climate Not So Hot,?€? ?€œdetermined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.
</div>
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep.../fireandice.asp
Solar activity appears to have much more to do with Warming than anything man has done.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Human-caused global warming is just a facade for a political agenda
Letters to Editor
March 1, 2008
Comment Comments Print Friendly Print Email Email
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it" -- H. L. Mencken
Of all the propaganda campaigns mounted during the past century in the United States, and there have been some whoppers: World War I, Red Menace, World War II, Nuclear Annihilation/MAD, overpopulation, natural resource shortages, species extinction, air and water pollution, Three Mile Island, global cooling, nuclear winter. None of them comes close to comparing with human-caused global warming. Indeed, the threat of terrorism takes a backseat to human-caused global warming!
I thought the hype, the pseudo-science and the absurd catastrophic scenarios concocted by the "nuclear winterites" were a bit over the top. However, the catastrophic scenarios advanced by the anthropomorphic global-warming crowd not only go beyond the absurd, but are surely destined for some kind of record book. Even the men who advanced the absurd nuclear winter scenario, Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack and Sagan, didn't bend up known facts and methods of scientific investigation like the proponents of human-caused global warming.
As every honest scientist knows, the Earth's atmosphere and its workings are not only complex, but are poorly understood. Furthermore, the results obtained from studying ice cores, sediment samples, tree rings, fossils, etc., clearly reveal that the Earth, since the time of Noah's disembarkation, has cycled through periods of warming and cooling.
The last warming period, called the Medieval Climate Optimum (900-1300 A.D.), featured average temperatures well above today's average temperature. Indeed, the weather was so mild that the ice sheet we know as Greenland was really green when Leif Ericsson stumbled upon it in the 11th century.
Not only does life flourish in periods of warming, but the weather cycles also are not as harsh and unpredictable as they are in periods of cooling. What is more, during the Medieval Climate Optimum, the polar ice caps didn't melt and cause the world's oceans to alarmingly rise. The polar bears and other inhabitants of the polar ice caps didn't die out. The planet didn't become some impossible greenhouse as in the movie "Soylent Green." Carbon dioxide didn't cause the Medieval Climate Optimum. It didn't cause the Little Ice Age (1300-1850). And, it hasn't caused the current warming trend, which began around 1850.
The annual human-caused increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which primarily comes from burning hydrocarbons, is approximately 1 part in 10,000 of that contained in the oceans and biosphere. Contrary to the propaganda, carbon dioxide and methane, although greenhouse gases, possess physical properties that render their greenhouse effects very weak, as opposed to water vapor, which is the greenhouse gas that induces the greenhouse effect and makes the earth habitable.<u>
The truth is global warming and cooling correlate closely with fluctuations in solar activity, sunspots, and the solar system's orbital position in the arms of the galaxy, cosmic ray bombardment.</u>
As should be obvious, especially with the boatloads of draconian legislation enacted over the past few decades to "protect the environment," global-warming propaganda isn't about saving the environment, making the Earth a better place, or promoting peace. No, AI Gore and his ilk are working a political and economic agenda that is simply stated by David Rockefeller in his Memoirs: "Global political and economic integration: one world." And by one world, Rockefeller means a dictatorial world government controlled by and for the global elite. The other 98 percent of the world's population in this arrangement will be little more than serfs on the Czar's estate.
R.P. Adamson Jr. was born, raised and educated in Greeley. He is in the drywall business.</div>
http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/2008030...ADERS/301331375
There is also brand new evidence of "Global Cooling" (really there isn't but it obviously neutralizes the idea of Global Warming). Heh.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Evidence of Global Cooling
Cold Reception
Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack ?€” in the face of all the predictions of global warming.
Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.
That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded ?€” up or down.
Some scientists contend the <u>cooling is the result of reduced solar activity ?€” which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.</u></div>
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html
Enough to wipe out all evidence of Global Warming.
This is the amazing article I found:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><u>Fire and Ice
Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can?€™t decide weather we face an ice age or warming </u>
Global Warming: 1981-Present and Beyond
The media have bombarded Americans almost daily with the most recent version of the climate apocalypse.
Global warming has replaced the media?€™s ice age claims, but the results somehow have stayed the same ?€“ the deaths of millions or even billions of people, widespread devastation and starvation.
The recent slight increase in temperature could ?€œquite literally, alter the fundamentals of life on the planet?€? argued the Jan. 18, 2006, Washington Post.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times wrote a column that lamented the lack of federal spending on global warming.
?€œWe spend about $500 billion a year on a military budget, yet we don?€™t want to spend peanuts to protect against climate change,?€? he said in a Sept. 27, 2005, piece.
Kristof?€™s words were noteworthy, not for his argument about spending, but for his obvious use of the term ?€œclimate change.?€? While his column was filled with references to ?€œglobal warming,?€? it also reflected the latest trend as the coverage has morphed once again.
The two terms are often used interchangeably, but can mean something entirely different.
The latest threat has little to do with global warming and has everything to do with ?€? everything.
The latest predictions claim that warming might well trigger another ice age.
The warm currents of the Gulf Stream, according to a 2005 study by the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, U.K., have decreased 30 percent.
This has raised ?€œfears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age,?€? as the Gulf Stream regulates temperatures in Europe and the eastern United States. This has ?€œlong been predicted?€? as a potential ramification of global warming.
Hollywood picked up on this notion before the study and produced ?€œThe Day After Tomorrow.?€? In the movie global warming triggered an immediate ice age. People had to dodge oncoming ice. Americans were fleeing to Mexico. Wolves were on the prowl. Meanwhile our hero, a government paleoclimatologist, had to go to New York City to save his son from the catastrophe.
But it?€™s not just a potential ice age. Every major weather event becomes somehow linked to ?€œclimate change.?€?
Numerous news reports connected Hurricane Katrina with changing global temperatures. Droughts, floods and more have received similar media treatment.
Even The New York Times doesn?€™t go that far ?€“ yet.
In an April 23, 2006, piece, reporter Andrew C. Revkin gave no credence to that coverage. ?€œAt the same time, few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault. There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, they say.?€?
Unfortunately, that brief brush with caution hasn?€™t touched the rest of the media.
Time magazine?€™s recent cover story included this terrifying headline:
?€œPolar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever... More And More; Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame. Why the crisis hit so soon ?€”and what we can do about it?€?
That attitude reflects far more of the current media climate. As the magazine claimed, many of today?€™s weather problems can be blamed on the changing climate.
?€œDisasters have always been with us and surely always will be. But when they hit this hard and come this fast ?€” when the emergency becomes commonplace ?€”something has gone grievously wrong. That something is global warming,?€? Time said.
Methodology
The Business & Media Institute (BMI) examined how the major media have covered the issue of climate change over a long period of time. Because television only gained importance in the post-World War II period, BMI looked at major print outlets.
There were limitations with that approach because some major publications lack the lengthy history that others enjoy. However, the search covered more than 30 publications from the 1850s to 2006 ?€” including newspapers, magazines, journals and books.
Recent newspaper and magazine articles were obtained from Lexis-Nexis. All other magazine articles were acquired from the Library of Congress either in print or microfilm.
Older newspapers were obtained from ProQuest. The extensive bibliography includes every publication cited in this report. BMI looked through thousands of headlines and chose hundreds of stories to analyze.
Dates on the time periods for cooling and warming reporting phases are approximate, and are derived from the stories that BMI analyzed.
Conclusion
What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious?
Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can?€™t possibly be accurate.
For ordinary Americans to judge the media?€™s version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.
Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. <u>Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.
It is time for the news media to admit a consistent failure to report this issue fairly or accurately, with due skepticism of scientific claims.</u>
Recommendations
It would be difficult for the media to do a worse job with climate change coverage. Perhaps the most important suggestion would be to remember the basic rules about journalism and set aside biases ?€” a simple suggestion, but far from easy given the overwhelming extent of the problem.
Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:
*
?€œSupport the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.?€?
*
?€œGive voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.?€?
*
?€œDistinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.?€?
That last bullet point could apply to almost any major news outlet in the United States. They could all learn something and take into account the historical context of media coverage of climate change.
Some other important points include:
*
Don?€™t Stifle Debate: Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn?€™t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.
People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.
*
Don?€™t Ignore the Cost: Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton?€™s term.
Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.
*
Report Accurately on Statistics: Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, ?€œ20th Century Climate Not So Hot,?€? ?€œdetermined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.
</div>
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep.../fireandice.asp
Solar activity appears to have much more to do with Warming than anything man has done.
