GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
UN's Global Warming Treaty
EPA's Secret Document – shows global warming to be a hoax.
Actual video:
Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report
EPA Supresses EPA Scientist Carlin's Report About The Global Warming Nonsense And The Cap-And-Trade.
Get your Senator's direct phone number and call him now,
before American productivity is destroyed by the "Cap and Trade" hoax.
Please call and email your Senators right away and urge OPPOSITION to the CAP AND TRADE BILL. (The 1200 page document was passed by the House so quickly that no one could have read it.) Let's kill this Bill!
The cold, hard facts instead of a lot of hot air:
The Earth goes through cycles.
Once there was an Ice Age, and one day the will be another Ice Age.
None of this is caused by man. There were no "green house gases" when the Ice Age ended.
Here is the undeniable scientific truth:
The volume of the water that is produced,
when ice melts,
is EXACTLY equal to the volume of the water,
that the ice displaced,
when it was floating.
Water expands when in freezes into ice.
That is why freezing pipes break.
That is why ice FLOATS on top of water.
If every iceberg IN THE WORLD were to melt,
the level of the ocean would not go up by one inch,
or by one millimeter.
If every iceberg IN THE WORLD were to melt,
the level of the ocean would not go up AT ALL.
There is no land at the North Pole.
There is land at the South Pole.
The surface area of the oceans is many times as large
as the surface of the land which contains ice.
If all of the ice, that is on land, was to melt,
this would make almost no difference is the level of the ocean.
Carbon dioxide is to a plant what oxygen is to an animal.
More carbon dioxide means that plants grow better and faster.
When plants grow better and faster,
the total amount of plant matter increases.
Increases amount of plant matter causes MORE CONSUMPTION of carbon dioxide. MORE CONSUMPTION of carbon dioxide lowers the level of carbon dioxide.
Nature regulates itself.
Government could never regulate nature. But it can regulate people.
The equilibriums of nature are more powerful than
anything that man can do.
Trying to shift ANY of the equilibriums of nature
would be like trying to make an ocean have two different water levels.
If mankind had the power to oppose the forces of nature
there would be no hurricanes, no earth quakes, no droughts, not tornados, no Tsunamis etc. etc. etc.
New ozone is CONTINUOUSLY PRODUCED, at an incredible rate, by sunlight passing through air
Ozone is CONTINUOUSLY decomposing back into oxygen,
no matter what man does.
The natural production and decomposition of ozone is so large
that mankind could not change this balance of nature if he wanted to do so.
Halogenated hydrocarbons WOULD BE destroyed by contact with ozone,
BUT Halogenated hydrocarbons ARE HEARIER THAT AIR,
AND DO NOT GO UP TO THE OZONE LAYER.
Man has never produced enough Halogenated hydrocarbons to have any effect at all on the total amount of ozone.
Ozone fluctuations are results of the cycles of the sun.
These cycles have been occuring since the beginning of Earth.
Every species that is still here, is one that has been able to adapt, and to survive these cycles. We will survive by ADAPTING to the cycles of nature,
not by foolishly trying to CONTROL the cycles of nature.
Government uses these hoaxes to increase its own power by convincing people that they are in danger, and that they can only be saved by letting the government take totalitarian control.
The global warming controversy has been heating up, but it is all hot air.
Truth is, the global warming hoax was never about warming, it has always been about globalism.
Globalists imagine and invent problems and then they offer us the solution, but the solution is always more government and less sovereignty.
Globalists imagine and invent problems and then they offer us the solution, but the solution is always more government and less sovereignty.
One day we will hear this:
"The global warming conference has been cancelled due to a blizzard."
Trashing the Planet: How Science Can Help Us Deal with Acid Rain, Depletion of The (Hardcover) by Dixy Lee Ray and Lou Guzzo
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E54IPS?ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF0E&sn=jperna12
The individual is handicapped coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists. — J. Edgar Hoover
When you thought you had heard it all: Yes, there is now talk of taxing you for BREATHING. Does government own the air that you breath?
The New York Times published an editorial complaining that "Right now, everyone is using the atmosphere like a municipal dump, depositing carbon dioxide free."
Of course, the assertion that we owe something for the right to put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is base on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.
EPA's Secret Document – global warming to be a hoax.
——————————–
global warming fraud – Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'
Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'
TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/3/2008 6:11:04 PM
By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute
3/3/2008 6:11:04 PM
The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.
Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.
“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”
The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.
Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.
“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”
Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.
Stuart James and Paul Detrick also contributed to this report.
Related Links:
BMI's Special Report "Fire & Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can't decide weather we face an ice or warming"
Climate of Bias: BMI's page devoted entirely to global warming and climate change in the media.
————
OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL WARMING
by Harry Mobley
Simple science:
Oxygen = O2
When ultraviolet rays from the sun hit oxygen, the two molecules that make up oxygen break apart and immediately clump back
into a group of three.
Ozone = O3
Ozone is a pale blue gas. Every day when the sun comes up, ozone begins forming, and continues all day until the sun goes down.
When the sunlight fades, the ozone dissipates.
There has always been an ozone hole over one of the poles. It is created at whichever pole is experiencing winter.
This happens because the sunlight at the pole is most indirect at that time of year.
To make an ozone generator:
Place an ultraviolet light and a fish tank air pump into a box and plug them in. Poke two holes, on opposite sides of the box.
Through one pull the air pump intake tube, through the other, the output tube.
Now oxygen goes into one tube and ozone comes out the other. Leave it on for a couple of days and it will purify the air in your house. Hospitals use these for sterilization and elimination of odors.
Now oxygen goes into one tube and ozone comes out the other. Leave it on for a couple of days and it will purify the air in your house. Hospitals use these for sterilization and elimination of odors.
"Global warming" was created by a group of DUPONT'S scientists to get Diflourodichloromet hane (r-12 freon) made illegal.
Their patent's time limit, 30 years, on freon was set to expire, and they wanted to eliminate the possibility of competition for it's manufacture.
Without the proper certification, it became illegal to possess r-12 freon after July 1st, 1993. At this time, 5/26/2003, a 30 pound can of RECLAIMED r-12 ( virgin r-12 is no longer available) costs about $1500 U.S. WHOLESALE. Most of that is Federal tax.
Prior to 1993, a 30 lb can was about $24-27.00 wholesale. Retail, a 12 oz. can was 87 cents.
Last I heard there were over 18,000 scientists worldwide who claim that global warming is a fraud.
Of course, no one in the controlled media will talk to them.
Of course, no one in the controlled media will talk to them.
____________ ________
————
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. " A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreep ress.com
This page printed from: http://www.canadafr eepress.com/ 2007/global- warming020507. htm
===========
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph (U.K.)
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007
[…the use of the word 'denial,' which of course echoes 'holocaust denial,' is ominous….it
means the Left is now pulling out all the stops to crush dissent on this issue….scary. ..steve]
Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.
"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."
Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology – who also appeared on the documentary – recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."
Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."
