Global Warming Reason

Tue  Oct 9, 2007  4:05 am

First I want to welcome James to the list. I'm glad to see he has an unorthodox side in that he has investigated the Alice A. Bailey writings. I'm sure there is much on which we do agree but I will make a few comments here that will disagree with his orthodox stance on global warming.

Jim gives a quote from Wikipedia. This sounds like the methodology used by the global warming religion. Let us examine it.

"Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'propaganda', literally 'propagating'] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people."

JJ:

Yes, those who are promoting the alarmism that grandma driving her car and turning on her lights and heat is the main cause of global warming now and will continue to do so until she stops sinning are creating messages attempting to influence the masses. Indeed they have been very successful at it to the extent that Al Gore's movie is permeating the schools with no opposing view allowed. Not only that but our youth must be brainwashed with this one-sided flawed presentation.

Definition continued:

"Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience."

JJ:

This definitely describes the global warming alarmists. They will allow no other point of view to be presented neither will they debate those knowledgeable ones on the other side. Those who oppose them are not only decried with name calling but many lose their funding or jobs and some receive death threats.

Definition continued:

"The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda)

JJ:

WOW! I couldn't have written a more accurate description of how global warning alarmists make their presentation. Al Gore's whole documentary is made to appeal to the lower astral or emotional self rather than the intellect. For instance, getting on that lift cart next to the misleading graph was so emotionally contrived I just about had to click fast forward.

Even the IPCC report that is supposed to be a non biased presentation is anything but that. It actually has some good data if you look at the individual research, but the final report is compiled mostly by non scientist bureaucrats with an agenda so the final "encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented."

Jim:

"Scientific opinion on climate change...

"National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that 'An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'.

"This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists."

JJ:

This is typical of the proof offered by global warming alarmists which basically says that authorities agree therefore we must not think for ourselves, but blindly follow.

Jim then gives a number of web pages that supposed prove to us that the global warming alarmists are correct. What I looked up basically says two things:

1. They stress over and over that anyone who disagrees with them is a "global warming denier."

If I have ever seen a piece of propaganda it is the use of this phrase. If Hitler or Goebbels were alive today they couldn't have produced any greater piece of emotional diatribe to promote their cause.

To associate those who question orthodoxy with the neo Nazis today who deny the holocaust is completely outrageous and is as low of an astral approach as one can achieve. I've never seen anyone who uses this statement that is able to put together a logical sentence about global warming.

2. The authorities agree. Instead of explaining why they are correct they merely try to make us think that all scientists agree with them therefore we must also agree.

Let me give several pieces of information that destroy their attack on people such as myself and makes their arguments inconsequential.

First -- The skeptics are not global warming deniers. When the data verifies that it is getting warmer we assume it is getting warmer and when they indicate it is getting cooler we assume it is getting cooler. To categorize those who disagree as not accepting the current warming trend is extremely deceptive and disingenuous. The disagreement is not over whether it is warming at present, but the cause.

Skeptics believe that CO₂ does have an effect on warming contrary to what they are accused of thinking. They just believe that it is not the major factor as do the bureaucrats.

Second -- Financing research. Data presented from the skeptics is often dismissed merely because of the accusation that anyone who disagrees is a lackey of the oil companies.. True oil companies have financed a small amount of research but this is distorted beyond all reality to the projection that the poor little U.N. scientists are fighting a monster of overwhelming proportions to present the truth.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States government alone spends $4 billion per year on climate change research. This accounts for about 99.5% of such money spent in this country and anyone who voices skepticism in any degree rarely gets any of this money.

Thirdly -- Projections by orthodoxy are inconsistent and change from year to year decade to decade in unbelievable proportions even to reversing conclusions.

During the last century the consensus has shifted at least four times between predicting global cooling and global warming. This idea was often presented with the idea that an apocalyptic situation is near. Over a hundred years ago it was predicted that Canada would be wiped out and billions would die in an impending ice age.

(See:   http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_Biblio\ graphy.asp)

In 1971 NASA's James Hansen's research was used to predict an ice age. On July 9, 1971 the Washington Post stated that the temperature was expected to go down 6 degrees over the next 50 years due to auto emissions and the next 5-10 years could trigger an ice age.

They were wrong in both cases. The temperature went up over the next decade and the fifty years are almost up and the temperature is higher still.

Presently interpretation is totally reversed. James Hansen is now the poster boy for the orthodox man made global warming theory. Hansen's calculations are now used to predict warming instead of cooling.

Hansen does not have much of a track record for making predictions. In 1988 he told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet. It never even rose an inch.

In 2001 the Third IPCC report of the UN predicted a sea level rise of somewhere between 4 and 35.4 inches by the end of the century. Then in 2007 the fourth report predicted 7-23 inches. Then to top it off the non-scientist Al Gore predicted up to 20 feet.

Does this sound like guesswork or what? In 2001 the prediction of sea level rise was between 4 and 35.4 inches, a variance of almost a thousand percent!

That would be like me saying, "The wind speed tomorrow will be between 5 and 50 miles per hour." If I predicted such a thing a person of common sense would look at me cross-eyed and figure I didn't have a clue as to what the wind would be tomorrow.

Now look at the change of the minimum and maximums between 2001 and 2007.

Minimum:   This was increased from 4 inches to 7 inches, an increase of 175 percent

Maximum:   The maximum was reduced from 35.4 inches to 23 inches. That is a reduction of 35 percent.

If this wavering and inconsistency sounds like science to you then I have a bridge I'll sell you cheap.

Fourthly -- actual history does not agree with present CO₂ global warming theory.

Between 1850 to 1940 the earth experienced a global warming trend. During this period the release of human caused CO₂ was insignificant.

Between 1940 to 1976 we had global cooling and many scientists were predicting an ice age. The fact that the earth cooled when we had our first major surge of human caused CO₂ gives powerful evidence that the current alarmist trend is just that -- an alarmist trend.

Fifth -- As there is an increase in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere there is a decrease in its greenhouse effect. This fact is often overlooked in computer models.

The truth is that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and does produce an effect but it is much smaller than projected by alarmists. Sometimes I think the alarmists do not believe their own doctrine for most of them fight tooth and nail the two current solutions available which are hydro power and nuclear energy. Instead they offer us wind and solar power which is unlikely to ever create a dent in CO₂ emissions.

It is strange that I who am not an alarmist on man made CO₂ emissions have a much smaller footprint than many true believers. In addition I have presented a plan to greatly reduce CO₂ emissions by converting to nuclear energy and then producing hydrogen or powering electric cars from their power.

See my treatise on nuclear energy at:

http://www.freeread.com/archives/ten_deceptions.php

In addition many alarmists live a lifestyle that makes mine look extremely frugal. Al Gore flies in private jets and has at least three mansions that uses dozens of times the CO₂ as the average person. Many other well-heeled advocates follow his example.

More information can be found at:

http://www.freeread.com/archives/global-warming.php

Isn't it interesting that as the earth enters a cooling cycle that bureaucratic scientists predict more cooling and as it enters a warming cycle that they predict more warming? Does it not sound like the bureaucrats react to what is happening rather than doing real intelligent research? I think so.

Copyright © 2007 by JJ Dewey, All Rights Reserved