New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: The Cornered Rats of Climate Change
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://finance.townhall.com/columni ... s_of_climate_change/page/full/
Published: May 2, 2012
Author: Marita Noon
Post Date: 2012-05-02 01:11:46 by Mad Dog
Keywords: BUSTED, the watermelons are, FREAKING out
Views: 24726
Comments: 66
Public confidence in scientific “consensus” regarding the theory of manmade climate change is threatening the believing scientists’ confidence. While polls show that taking action to fight climate change is off the radar of most Americans, the behavior of the theory’s advocates is even more telling. They are behaving like "cornered rats"—taking extreme actions to protect their turf. On February 23, European Union officials are expected to vote on a draft law would assign a higher carbon-emissions value to bitumen-derived fuels, compared to more conventional crudes. The European Commission has proposed a Fuel Quality Directive that, if passed, will exclude fuel derived from Canada’s oil sands from European use. The premise is that the production of the oil in question produces more carbon emissions than conventional oil. While virtually none of the bitumen-derived fuels are currently shipped to Europe, supporters of the manmade climate change viewpoint have been using the pending vote in attempt to get the issue back on the public’s horizon. On February 21, two days before the scheduled vote, a half-page ad was placed in the Financial Times. The ad’s large print states: “Eight Nobel Peace Laureates—including Archbishop Desmond Tutu—want to keep dirty oil out of Europe. Support the European Commission’s Fuel Quality Directive.” The expensive ad then features a letter that the Nobel Laureates sent to “European Heads of State” in which they say, among other things: “Tar sands development is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and threatens the health of the planet. As the tar sands have contributed to rising emissions, Canada recently stepped away from the Kyoto Protocol. Europe must not follow in Canada’s footsteps.” Therein lies the true purpose of the ad. The original letter is on stationary from the “Nobel Women’s Initiative” whose olive-branch logo includes this statement: “advocating for peace, justice, and equality.” The letterhead lists Laureates from many developing and/or under-developed countries. As I have previously posited, the Europeans’ support for the wealth-transferring Kyoto Protocol is that it would “equalize” energy costs between resource-rich North America and dependent Europe. The Kyoto Protocol would penalize the “wealthy” countries and financially reward the under- developed. The expensive ad seems to have been purchased out of fear that the “equalizing” Kyoto Protocol may be dropped by Europe—as it has been by Canada. It is, additionally, interesting to note that the Laureates mentioned in the ad are not Laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology, medicine, or even economic sciences—who might have some unique insight toward climate issues. They are Nobel “Peace” Laureates. The day before the Financial Times carried the “keep dirty oil out of Europe” ad, a story broke citing water scientist and climate analyst Peter Gleick’s admission that his “judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated—to attack climate science.” He apologized for his hoax that “tricked” The Heartland Institute into releasing confidential documents. Gleick, who has been active in defending the manmade climate change view, used a false name in his ruse. He acknowledges that his actions were the result of “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.” A UK Guardian news report about Gleick’s admission stated that his behavior “was seen by some as crossing a new line in the increasingly vitriolic debate.” In the New York Times, journalist Andrew Revkin describes what Gleick did as “an act that leaves his reputation in ruins.” What would cause these two well-reputed sources to go to such extremes—expensive advertising and reputation-ruining acts—to defend their manmade climate change positions? The rat is cornered. Anyone who follows the climate change debate knows that the Heartland Institute gives voice to scientists who do not ascribe to the theory of human-caused climate change. Their purpose is well known, and their strategies should not be a surprise. True scientists would welcome the debate—not seek to squash it. Gleick’s actions in tricking the Heartland Institute were aimed at discrediting it. If the science on the warmer’s side were solid, they wouldn’t need to resort to underhanded actions. But as more evidence, that began with the “Climategate” e-mails, comes out that shows that dissenters were silenced and that the predictions are being proven false, the scared promoters are taking extreme actions to protect their turf. While Gleick’s ruse supposedly exposed Heartland’s “skeptic” funding, their budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive amounts of money spent in support of the manmade climate change position. Years of steady funding in support of manmade climate change is being threatened. The cornered rats are taking extreme actions to protect their investment.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 44.
#3. To: Mad Dog (#0)
Who has been fired for fraud in the so-called "climate(empty)gate" scandal?
Who has been fired for fraud in the so-called "climate(empty)gate" scandal? LOL! I'm not your mommy. Look it up yourself. Man caused global WEATHER change is, and always has been, a total FRAUD. DEAL with it.
My suggestion to you would be to go over to RealClimate.org and post there and explain your reasoning to them. Watch out, you will probably get laughed at for your ignorance. But I bet you are too chicken to do it anyway.
The truly ignorant are those who think that pitiful little humans can affect the climate of the entire 4.5 billion year old planet. The climate does change. 14,000 years ago, North America was buried under ice that was 1 mile deep. Why is the ice gone? Because of global warming. Humans didn't have any SUVs or coal fired electrical plants to cause it. So what causes climate change? The earth is not a perfect sphere, it doesn't rotate on its axis perfectly (Polaris is the North Star today, but it wasn't 13,000 years ago), its orbit around the sun isn't a perfect circle, and the entire solar system periodically drifts up and down the gallatic plane every 43 million years (which closely corresponds to major extinctions). There are 7 thousand year, 26 thousand year, and 43 million year cycles at work. Is human civilization having an affect? Maybe, but it is a very small affect There is no reason at all to panic and destroy everything that we've built.
Why is the ice gone? Because of global warming. Carbon dioxide ended last Ice Age: study http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/05/3471948.htm Is human civilization having an affect? Maybe, but it is a very small affect That's not scientific consensus.
From SUVs??? No.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more warming. We have released large amounts of CO2 in the industrial age. Those are all well established facts.
Fine. What is the contribution of CO2 to the global warming (which now doesn't exist)? Let's look at a picture: In other words, the CO2 issue is MOOT. REALLY? The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic. This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect. LOL. You make it too easy. :)
No what matter what percentage of the atmosphere since it is a greenhouse gas then a large increase WILL have an effect on the climate period. In other words, CO2 LAGS temperature changes, so your conclusions are completely wrong. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/05/3471948.htm Carbon dioxide was the big driver that ended the last Ice Age, according to a new study of ice core data from around the world. About 10,000-20,000 years ago, Earth started to emerge from a quarter million years of deep freeze as the terrestrial ice sheet rolled back and warmer temperatures prevailed. What caused the end of this age, known as the Pleistocene, has long been debated. Until now, the main evidence has come from ice cores drilled in Antarctica whose air bubbles are a tiny time capsule of our climate past. Traces of CO2 in Antarctic ice show that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere rose after temperatures were on the rise. This timing has been used by sceptics as proof that man-made carbon gases either do not cause global warming or at least do not make it as bad as mainstream scientists say. But the new study, published in Nature , indicates that the Antarctic record doesn't reflect global temperature rise. The study is based on 80 ice cores and sedimentary samples taken from Greenland, lake bottoms and sea floors on every continent. The data suggests that while changes in CO2 concentration did not trigger deglaciation, they were either synchronous with, or led global warming during the various steps of deglaciation. "Putting all of these records together into a reconstruction of global temperatures shows a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the Ice Age," says lead author Dr Jeremy Shakun of Harvard University.
The study is based on 80 ice cores and sedimentary samples taken from Greenland, lake bottoms and sea floors on every continent. The data suggests that while changes in CO2 concentration did not trigger deglaciation, they were either synchronous with, or led global warming during the various steps of deglaciation. Did you forget this part?
#46. To: NewsJunky (#44)
The study is based on 80 ice cores and sedimentary samples taken from Greenland, lake bottoms and sea floors on every continent. The data suggests that while changes in CO2 concentration did not trigger deglaciation, they were either synchronous with, or led global warming during the various steps of deglaciation. Did you forget this part? Did you even read that part? If you did, are you sure you want to use that to bolster your argument?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latesthat began with the “Climategate” e-mails, comes out that shows that dissenters were silenced and that the predictions are being proven false, the scared promoters are taking extreme actions to protect their turf.
#5. To: NewsJunky (#3)
hat began with the “Climategate” e-mails, comes out that shows that dissenters were silenced and that the predictions are being proven false, the scared promoters are taking extreme actions to protect their turf.
#8. To: Mad Dog (#5)
(Edited)
a total FRAUD.
#12. To: NewsJunky (#8)
(Edited)
My suggestion to you would be to go over to RealClimate.org and post there and explain your reasoning to them. Watch out, you will probably get laughed at for your ignorance...
#19. To: jwpegler (#12)
(Edited)
14,000 years ago, North America was buried under ice that was 1 mile deep.
#25. To: NewsJunky (#19)
Carbon dioxide ended last Ice Age: study
#30. To: jwpegler (#25)
(Edited)
#34. To: NewsJunky (#30)
(Edited)
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
More CO2 means more warming.
A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:
In other words, CO2 LAGS temperature changes, so your conclusions are completely wrong. 
We have released large amounts of CO2 in the industrial age. Those are all well established facts.
The only thing you have firmly established is that your head is firmly up your ass.
#38. To: Capitalist Eric (#34)
In other words, the CO2 issue is MOOT.
#42. To: NewsJunky, Capitalist Eric (#38)
Traces of CO2 in Antarctic ice show that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere rose after temperatures were on the rise.
#44. To: We The People (#42)
But the new study, published in Nature , indicates that the Antarctic record doesn't reflect global temperature rise.
Replies to Comment # 44. But the new study, published in Nature , indicates that the Antarctic record doesn't reflect global temperature rise.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 44.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]