This article came from 'Innerself' - your wholistic community guide in
Australia - free Oct-Dec 2011 p.32, website www.innerself.com.au
[Steven runs seminars and speaks on many topics, mainly on his research on
health and investigating world events in relation to the New World Order.]
Like I always say "everything is a conspiracy". So you may ask
me, "what do you mean"> everything is a conspiracy?" Well,
whatever is being promoted in the media "propaganda Machine" you
have to always ask, what is being said? What are they really trying to
promote? Is there a hidden agenda?
There is an esoteric and exoteric meaning to everything that comes out
today. These two words simply mean that for everything that is presented,
there is a dual meaning. One for the inner circle (people in secret societies,
Jesuits etc) and one for the outer circle (common people that they wish to
deceive). For example, Albert Mackie, 33 degree freemason, writes in what is
considered the bible of freemasonry, Morals and Dogma, that for the human
masses, we give them Roman Catholicism which is just pagan worship with a
Christian veneer. Just to give the outsiders, the human herds, the cattle, the
catechumen, the goyim, something to do with their time.
But hidden in the symbology is the real meaning or hidden meaning behind
Roman Catholicism which is Luciferism. The insiders know this and believe
Lucifer is the light-bringer while the rest (outsiders) worship him without
even knowing it.
Something that is being promoted globally to the masses and has been
building for some time is "global warming". But not everyone knows
the history and what the real meaning is behind what is being promoted. Many
years back, before the new world order media industry even existed, a
documentary came out called Secrets of Ironhorse Mountain. It detailed how in
the early 60s the US government along with the globalist elite aka Jesuits
gathered all the leading people they could find from various fields like
engineers, scientists, military etc to see how they could muster all the
people behind a common goal. The same way they use wartime to get the people
to rally behind their nation. As the Jesuits' globocop, the US and NATO have
stationed themselves just about everywhere on the planet and military bases.
They foresaw there would be little chance of any nation rising up against
their dominating power. This super intelligent group of people came up with
the idea to make the environment an issue. They said that at first, they would
have to get the people to increase the amount of pollution and get
industrialization going full steam ahead. In the 60s, cars with bigger and
bigger engines came out and larger scale industries started to pollute like
never before. The petrochemical industry created everything we touch and use
on a daily basis, mostly plastic. The people indulged in consumerism as we
became a throw-away society. Once they got it to a level they could work with,
they would then start to get the people concerned with the environment and the
state of the planet. They would get the people to start thinking they could
save the planet and start up different movements like political movements, the
greens etc. They would get the masses to start recycling and separating their
glass, paper and rubbish. They would get us to change the light globes in the
house and get us concerned with efficiency and power-saving alternatives. They
would start to bring out fuel-efficient cars and force people into little cars
by increasing the price for fossil fuels.
You may have thought this is the good in humanity. Getting together for a
common cause. Globally moving together as one in something that should concern
us all. Just to set the record straight, there are many aspects to this
movement that I agree with and any normal person should agree that it is a
good thing that we have cars that pollute less, that we recycle more and
consume less, that we stop cutting down trees and plant new ones. I'm all for
that . But what you have to understand is that the globalist elite don't have
the good of the planet at heart. They are not concerned with your welfare or
that of future generations. For the most part, if there is such a thing as
global warming, they create it with their chemtrails and HAARP technology. For
example, there are water-powered cars that run on hydrogen amongst other
methods. If the engineers and inventors of free energy devices ever try to
bring out their technology into the mainstream, they are either bought out by
new world order companies and the patent for their technology is put on a
shelf or if the innovators persist to make their technology widely available,
they will be executed. The high priest of global warming, Al Gore said that if
we don't do something soon, we would all perish, but his home consumes 20
times the energy of an average American home.
The globalist elite want to create a worldwide depression and they are
using climate change as one of the tools to cripple nations. Many large
business owners already believe the coming carbon tax is having a real impact
on the Australian economy. Foreign investment in many companies in Australia
has been at a 15 year low. But recently foreign investors are being frightened
away by the political climate and the constant change of mind of government,
especially around carbon, Rob Sindl from CSR said that the carbon tax achieves
little or nothing. It is not high enough to quickly change power stations from
coal and says 15% of his [the] total cost of Australia's largest building
supplies company (Monier tiles, Pilkington glass) is electricity. He says he
does not need a higher electricity price (carbon tax) to convince him to save
electricity. If he could innovate 0 and the government seems to think this
will be the result of the carbon tax 0 he would have done so already. His
grave fear (as for most manufacturers) is not that the carbon tax will kill
his local manufacturing tomorrow. Rather, he knows he will have to compete
against imports from countries that may burn Australian coal with no carbon
tax and other advantages including the high Australian dollar; cheap labour
and heavily government0subsidised operations. In the future, carbon tax or
not, Australians will consume more bricks, tiles and glass. The question is
whether they will be made here or off shore where carbon dioxide will also be
emitted. Charlie Aitken, MD of investment firm Bell Potter says the carbon tax
or a disguised resources tax will simply increase the cost of our commodities
exports. This effectively undermines our global competitive advantage. But
more particularly, our export of low cost fossil fuels which remain in high
demand by developing countries. In simple terms, the government is favouring
competing resource exporters in countries with no carbon tax and penalizing
Australia as a carbon economy. As a result the carbon tax is exporting our
commodity revenues, jobs and emissions off shore. (Money magazine, August
2011).
Eventually the carbon tax will reach into every aspect of every person's
life on the planet You may believe you are getting a rebate on your solar hot
water or solar system and even rain water tank, but you are going into a
database and the government will require you to put a meter on your rain water
tank, even a meter on the water you pump out of your dam (that is what is
already happening). You won't be able to burn firewood without being branded a
criminal. The Pope recently said that those who are not interested in saving
the planet are going to hell. It has become more than a crime, but a moral
issue.
Isherwood: Reject green fascism—go with LaRouche solution
The fascist face of the “green” movement was displayed yesterday, when
U.S. President Barack Obama sidestepped the democratic checks and balances of
the U.S. Congress, to have his Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Lisa Jackson declare carbon dioxide a threat to “the public health and
welfare of current and future generations”.
The EPA declaration empowers Obama to mandate CO2 cuts in the
economy, without a law from Congress; otherwise, like Kevin Rudd, Obama was
going to Hans Christian Andersen’s hometown of Copenhagen as the emperor
with no clothes.
To appreciate the ridiculous insanity of the EPA’s declaration, consider
the history of CO2:
CO2 levels were up to 7,000 parts per million (ppm) during
the Cambrian Period some 530 million ago. Known as the “Cambrian
explosion” this was the period when most major groups of complex life
evolved.
A great Ice Age gripped the Earth some 450 million years ago, late in
the Ordovician Period, causing mass extinction. At this time the CO2
concentration was 4,400 ppm—nearly twelve times higher than the current
average concentration of 387 ppm. According to the global warming theory,
the Earth should have been exceedingly hot.
During the Carboniferous Period, some 300 million years ago, CO2
concentration declined to about 350 ppm—similar to the current
concentration.
During the Jurassic Period, some 170 million years ago, CO2
concentration rose to 2,400 ppm and the dinosaurs survived just fine.
The atmosphere is now CO2 impoverished as it was during the
Carboniferous Period. Higher concentrations will only help life flourish.
Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood today contrasted the
dictatorial lengths to which the green fascists are prepared to go to impose
their deindustrialisation agenda to kill people, with Lyndon LaRouche’s
proposal for a Four Powers agreement between the U.S., Russia, China and India
to replace the collapsing monetarist system of globalisation with a new credit
system, to reindustrialise the world economy, and raise the living standards
of the world’s growing population:
“Humanity is at a crossroads, but only one direction—the
LaRouche plan—leads to a future,” he said.
“Under Kevin Rudd, we are being condemned to the same green fascism, but
for Australia to survive the world economic breakdown crisis, we must go with
LaRouche’s plan.”
The CEC National Secretary urged all Australians to tune in to his 10th
December National Webcast address, Australia’s Mission in the Shift to a
Pacific-Centred World, where he’ll lay out the future options with which
Australia is confronted, and the specific choices we as a nation must make to
guarantee future prosperity.
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000
Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science,
environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition
rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human
production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption
of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is
substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal
environments of the Earth."
The Petition Project
actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand
signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of
signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation
of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie
'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according
to officials with the project.
"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in
agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about
human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school
children, to whom the film
was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very
serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could
endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a
research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of
Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon
Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access
to Energy newsletter.
WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a
response.
Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have
gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are
actually endangering people.
"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has
now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this
campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate
emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to
severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and
the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer
countries," he said.
In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both
shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."
The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science,
wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very
close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of
energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and
some other organic compounds."
"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research
data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is
harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric
carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.
Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and
review of research on "global warming," officials said.
"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the
technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are
currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the
over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries,"
Seitz wrote.
Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is
especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the
training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound
advice."
He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto,
Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the
advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of
mankind."
"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal
political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply
reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.
"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing
technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all
technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly
abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the
U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous
litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital
and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern
technology.
"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy
production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent
upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our
current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of
other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S.
citizens with too few goods and services to trade
for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade
deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.
"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production
technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can
develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is
absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to
be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of
energy," he said.
He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself,
but everything to do with power, control and money,
which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human
rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and
development.
"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent
future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that
have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S.
citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low
cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000
signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this
freedom," he said.
The Petition Project website
today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said
more names continue to come in.
In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more
scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to
"vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.
"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if
there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the
human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the
organization noted.
The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who
do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when
donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.
"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals
with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories
– real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this
statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry
Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who
happen also to have names identical to fictional or real
non-scientists," the website said.
The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others
"have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming
'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global
warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."
The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's
level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or
equivalent academic degree.
If Al Gore were in Professor Tim Ball's classroom, he wouldn't be bringing his
Report Card home.
Gore's Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth will return to class when
youngsters return to school next month.
"They are showing his film in schools when I would give it an "F"
even as a Grade X assignment," says climatologist Ball.
Gore needs a lot of work on the subject of man-made Global Warming, but his
biggest boo-boo comes from his well-publicized definition of C02.
"Gore says C02 is the most important greenhouse gas. This is wrong
for two reasons," says Dr. Ball. "First, C02 is nowhere near the most
important greenhouse gas from a climate perspective. C02 is less than 4% of the
greenhouses gases. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume.
"Second, C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to
life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no
life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic
evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research
shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses
use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times
the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at
150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will
destroy the planet. This point alone is egregious enough to reject the entire
movie and Gore's message."
That's the error of Algore's ways on the C02 debate. On the subject of Ice Core
Record, he gets a fat zero.
According to Professor Ball, he uses the ice core record in a grossly distorted
way, "but especially because he fails to note what almost all agree on and
that is temperatures change before the C02, not as assumed in the climate
models.
"He points at melting glaciers as proof of warming, particularly
Kilimanjaro. Antarctica and Greenland show increases in volume not decreases.
Why? Because glaciers are as much about precipitation as they are of
temperature. We only monitor 10% of the world's glaciers and half are advancing
and half retreating.
"Kilimanjaro is retreating because of a drought in the area. This is
aggravated by dust blown from nearby cleared areas making the ice dirty and thus
more prone to absorbing sunlight, Weather stations around the mountains show no
evidence of warming."
When it comes to using our four-legged friends to make global warming points,
Gore copied Greenpeace at Exam time.
"Polar bears are not endangered," says Ball. "In fact they have
shown significant increase in numbers. Gore uses polar bears because they are
part of the anthropomorphizing of animals with big eyes and cute, cuddly
young."
In the animal world, the errant student has it all wrong.
"That's because he has the number of extinctions completely wrong. It's
estimated we have only identified about 35% of the plants and animals. Far more
are found every year than go extinct,"
For the record, Gore's predictions of sea level rise are in total disagreement
with his favourite authority, the IPCC.
"While he projects increasing rates of temperature increase, the IPCC
reports have lowered their estimate in each successive report. The latest are so
low that even the media noticed."
Sadly, there are even more glaring errors in Gore's global warming lessons.
Global warming alarmist propaganda has reached S.E. Hendriksen all the way in
"my little settlement of Kangerlussuaq (Sondre Stromfjord, Bluei 8, a
former U.S. Airbase), who wrote to Canada Free Press (CFP) that he'd like to see
the Ilulissat Glacier scrapped as a political object to justify man-made global
warming caused by C02.
"If Danish King Christian X had invited American President Abraham Lincoln
to Ilulissat to see the glacier in 1864, he would have been seeing what all
other guests at the invitation of Danish politicians had seen--a glacier running
backwards since 1738," Hendriksen wrote CFP.
"But I'm an ordinary man, weather observer at the Danish Meteorological
Institute, DMI. No one would listen to what I have to say about global climate
change."
Meanwhile, Gore flunked global warming class, but with his new slicked-back
hairdo, looked cool at the prom.
Al Gore's head in wrong kind of clouds
Made-in-China massive air pollution ignored by global warming gurus Al Gore
& Maurice Strong
Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist
with 30 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on
Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck and The Rant. Judi can be
reached at: judi@canadafreepress.com
--
Regards
Bonzo
"[The] 70-90 year oscillations in global mean temperatures [correlate] with
corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is
obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human
[influence] are not distinguishable in the observations."
Dr. K. Lassen, Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Division
The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social
effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly
controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this
impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the
truth
Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming
was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite
suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the
planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world
government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians,
scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts,
plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.
Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, which was
published last week, says that the debate is over. It isn't. There are more
greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the world should warm a bit,
but that's as far as the "consensus" goes. After the recent
hysteria, you may not find the truth easy to believe. So you can find all
my references and detailed calculations here.
The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It
brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I
declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised
Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent
from Exxon.
In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, 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 (no, one inch). The UN set up a
transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team,
which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length
document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.
This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on
historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect,
overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental
law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.
Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and
environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism
implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with
previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists'
"precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in
case) is killing people.
So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last
four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of
temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar.
Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do
that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature
preceded the changes in CO2 levels.
Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at
the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist
at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150
years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote:
"With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant
credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They
thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service
of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major
person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an
astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm
Period.' "
So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a
1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was
warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no
medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the
warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The
wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from
1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:
• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer
temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).
• The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report
had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines.
Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when
there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide
fertilisation distorts the calculations.
• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without
saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking
it into a folder marked "Censored Data".
• They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but
scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even
if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".
The large, full-colour "hockey-stick" was the key graph in the
UN's 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times. The Canadian
Government copied it to every household. Four years passed before a leading
scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or
the Canadian government apologise? Of course not. The UN still uses the
graph in its publications.
Even after the "hockey stick" graph was exposed, scientific
papers apparently confirming its abolition of the medieval warm period
appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They
found that the graph was meretricious, and that known associates of the
scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its
conclusion.
The UN, echoed by Stern, says the graph isn't important. It is. Scores of
scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up
to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes:
today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under
permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron
sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.
The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all
its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years,
reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide
show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the
snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising
(it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al
Gore please note.
In some places it was also warmer than now in the Bronze Age and in Roman
times. It wasn't CO2 that caused those warm periods. It was the sun. So the
UN adjusted the maths and all but extinguished the sun's role in today's
warming. Here's how:
• The UN dated its list of "forcings" (influences on
temperature) from 1750, when the sun, and consequently air temperature, was
almost as warm as now. But its start-date for the increase in world
temperature was 1900, when the sun, and temperature, were much cooler.
• Every "forcing" produces "climate feedbacks"
making temperature rise faster. For instance, as temperature rises in
response to a forcing, the air carries more water vapour, the most important
greenhouse gas; and polar ice melts, increasing heat absorption. Up goes the
temperature again. The UN more than doubled the base forcings from
greenhouse gases to allow for climate feedbacks. It didn't do the same for
the base solar forcing.
Two centuries ago, the astronomer William Herschel was reading Adam
Smith's Wealth of Nations when he noticed that quoted grain prices fell when
the number of sunspots rose. Gales of laughter ensued, but he was right. At
solar maxima, when the sun was at its hottest and sunspots showed,
temperature was warmer, grain grew faster and prices fell. Such observations
show that even small solar changes affect climate detectably. But recent
solar changes have been big.
Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the
sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past
11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the
past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks.
The UN expresses its heat-energy forcings in watts per square metre per
second. It estimates that the sun caused just 0.3 watts of forcing since
1750. Begin in 1900 to match the temperature start-date, and the base solar
forcing more than doubles to 0.7 watts. Multiply by 2.7, which the Royal
Society suggests is the UN's current factor for climate feedbacks, and you
get 1.9 watts – more than six times the UN's figure.
The entire 20th-century warming from all sources was below 2 watts. The
sun could have caused just about all of it.
Next, the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent from
33C in the climate-physics textbooks to 20C, making the man-made additions
appear bigger.
Then the UN chose the biggest 20th-century temperature increase it could
find. Stern says: "As anticipated by scientists, global mean surface
temperatures have risen over the past century." As anticipated? Only 30
years ago, scientists were anticipating a new Ice Age and writing books
called The Cooling.
In the US, where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere,
20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C. AccuWeather, a worldwide
meteorological service, reckons world temperature rose by 0.45C. The US
National Climate Data Centre says 0.5C. Any advance on 0.5? The UN went for
0.6C, probably distorted by urban growth near many of the world's
fast-disappearing temperature stations.
The number of temperature stations round the world peaked at 6,000 in
1970. It's fallen by two-thirds to 2,000 now: a real
"hockey-stick" curve, and an instance of the UN's growing reliance
on computer guesswork rather than facts.
Even a 0.6C temperature rise wasn't enough. So the UN repealed a
fundamental physical law. Buried in a sub-chapter in its 2001 report is a
short but revealing section discussing "lambda": the crucial
factor converting forcings to temperature. The UN said its climate models
had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per watt of forcing.
You don't need computer models to "find" lambda. Its value is
given by a century-old law, derived experimentally by a Slovenian professor
and proved by his Austrian student (who later committed suicide when his
scientific compatriots refused to believe in atoms). The Stefan-Boltzmann
law, not mentioned once in the UN's 2001 report, is as central to the
thermodynamics of climate as Einstein's later equation is to astrophysics.
Like Einstein's, it relates energy to the square of the speed of light, but
by reference to temperature rather than mass.
The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the
UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's true value is
just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law,
doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda
should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired
the UN's scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it now
puts lambda at 0.8C: that's 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most
of the UN's computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C.
On the UN's figures, the entire greenhouse-gas forcing in the 20th
century was 2 watts. Multiplying by the correct value of lambda gives a
temperature increase of 0.44 to 0.6C, in line with observation. But using
Stern's 1.9C per watt gives 3.8C. Where did 85 per cent of his imagined
20th-century warming go? As Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT pointed out in The
Sunday Telegraph last week, the UK's Hadley Centre had the same problem, and
solved it by dividing its modelled output by three to "predict"
20th-century temperature correctly.
A spate of recent scientific papers, gearing up for the UN's fourth
report next year, gives a different reason for the failure of reality to
keep up with prediction. The oceans, we're now told, are acting as a giant
heat-sink. In these papers the well-known, central flaw (not mentioned by
Stern) is that the computer models' "predictions" of past ocean
temperature changes only approach reality if they are averaged over a depth
of at least a mile and a quarter.
Deep-ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing.
The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface
layer up to threefold. A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled
sharply in the past two years. The computers didn't predict this. Sea level
is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years.
Hansen now says that the oceanic "flywheel effect" gives us extra
time to act, so Stern's alarmism is misplaced.
Finally, the UN's predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated
forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation
nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne
carbon dioxide. The true rate is 0.38 per cent year on year since records
began in 1958. The models assume 1 per cent per annum, more than two and a
half times too high. In 2001, the UN used these and other adjustments to
predict a 21st-century temperature increase of 1.5 to 6C. Stern suggests up
to 10C.
Dick Lindzen emailed me last week to say that constant repetition of
wrong numbers doesn't make them right. Removing the UN's solecisms, and
using reasonable data and assumptions, a simple global model shows that
temperature will rise by just 0.1 to 1.4C in the coming century, with a best
estimate of 0.6C, well within the medieval temperature range and only a
fifth of the UN's new, central projection.
Why haven't air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN's models
predicted? Because the science is bad, the "consensus" is wrong,
and Herr Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, FRS, was as right about
energy-to-temperature as he was about atoms.
The
Truth About Global Warming
What you don't hear in the media!
The debate is still raging within the scientific community. Sovereignty
International has put together interviews of climate scientists and biologists
from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global
warming alarmists are incorrect. It also provides evidence that the global
warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism
to create global governance.
Hear from congressmen, experts and
even well-known news broadcasters as they discuss how global governance puts
global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control
of every aspect of our economy. The U.S. government is very close to
making this a reality. Very close. Every American, every citizen of the
world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story.
NOTE: Purchasing "Global Warming or Global Governance?" from
WND's online store also qualifies you to receive three FREE issues of WND's
acclaimed monthly print
magazine, Whistleblower. Watch for the FREE offer during checkout.
The U.N. recently announced global warming is leading inexorably to global
catastrophe. Al Gore won the "best documentary" Oscar for his disaster
film "An Inconvenient Truth." The news media beat the drum of
"climate catastrophe" daily, all but ignoring scientists who say the
threat is overblown or nonexistent. And across America, school children are
frightened to death with tales of rising oceans, monster tornadoes, droughts and
millions dying � all because of man-made global warming.
However, hidden just beneath the surface of the world's latest environmental
craze is a stunningly different reality, as the March edition of WND's acclaimed
Whistleblower magazine documents.
Titled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession
with global warming," Whistleblower tells the rest of the story the
"mainstream press" will never reveal.
The
Truth About Global Warming