Global Warming Fraud Collapses Amidst Deception And Scandal

[MrAmsterdam]

CO2 really a problem? Fine, here is your solution ; http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jz100829s

I'm sure that all this extra CO2 tax will be invested in such devices. Like all the rest of the great decisions our politicians nowadays make about the environment.

Just to quote a famous american writer ;

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

[Dotini]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142 ... 26844.html

Here is a brief discussion of two new articles of the journal Nature. The bottom is line that our best scientists in this field estimate a loss in global algae (phytoplankton) of 1% per year since 1899, and have accurate measurements of 40% loss since 1950. They readily concede they don't know the full set of reasons, but think it has to do with the warming of the global ocean.

This of course represents a catastrophe at the base of the global oceanic food chain. Elsewhere I have seen it noted that plant and animal species on Earth are undergoing extinction at a rate that would be commensurate with extinction level events that occur only at multi-million year intervals. If there is anything that could make everyone believe in catastrophism, surely it would be the rapid extinction of the majority of species on the planet!

As students of the electric plasma universe, we are pretty sure our sun is in the driver's seat in terms of dictating weather and climate events on Earth. Even so, in the face of actual catastrophe verging on extinction, what exactly could or should we as citizens of the planet, householders and families be doing about this??

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Dotini,
Maybe it's just me but at the rate and the timescale given, shouldn't the phytoplankton have all gone by now? Maybe somebody could do the maths?

[redeye]

Maybe it's just me but at the rate and the timescale given, shouldn't the phytoplankton have all gone by now? Maybe somebody could do the maths?

Heh heh. I think they mean there's been a 1% loss in that years total every year...although that would mean the total number of phytoplankton lost each year has decreased steadily since 1899. I don't know, I'm not too good at mathenmonmantics!

Cheers!

[Aardwolf]

A 40% loss in ocean food would mean a 40% loss of ocean life. As this clearly has not happened this paper can safely be consigned to the trash heap with most other politically driven AGW papers.

Of course they decided to link it to GW because thats the easiest way to ensure publication and future funding.

[Dotini]

Not so fast, Aardwolf! I'm not so sure. When I was a boy, the fishing on Hood Canal was excellent. Now there is no fishing.

Presumably the food chain dies from the bottom up. So if the photoplankton died first, then it would be the next step up that is then affected, and so on until the top is affected.

It is a well known fact that many of the world's great fisheries are moribund, with more going that way every year.

Now I'm a great fan of the plasma electric universe, and I doubt very much that man's activities have been the greatest cause of oceanic or global warming. But don't you think it premature, or even foolish, to suggest that presumably honest scientists would be deceiving us when they point with alarm at the destruction of the base of our food chain?? We are ultimately talking about the survivability of our children, so I would think a responsible person ought to be reasonably concerned.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

[CTJG 1986]

Not so fast, Aardwolf! I'm not so sure. When I was a boy, the fishing on Hood Canal was excellent. Now there is no fishing.

Presumably the food chain dies from the bottom up. So if the photoplankton died first, then it would be the next step up that is then affected, and so on until the top is affected.

It is a well known fact that many of the world's great fisheries are moribund, with more going that way every year.

Now I'm a great fan of the plasma electric universe, and I doubt very much that man's activities have been the greatest cause of oceanic or global warming. But don't you think it premature, or even foolish, to suggest that presumably honest scientists would be deceiving us when they point with alarm at the destruction of the base of our food chain?? We are ultimately talking about the survivability of our children, so I would think a responsible person ought to be reasonably concerned.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

I'm just posting to point out that most of the 'world's great fisheries' that are becoming moribund are becoming that way mainly because of decades of virtually unregulated and unsustainable commercial fishing practices, not necessarily a decline in the photoplankton food supply.

Or at least it's the commercial fishing practices that the green movement is usually blaming declining fish populations on, though I'm sure they can find a way to blame AGW as well at the same time. The more people they can spread the blame around on the better...why blame just fishermen when you can blame the whole human race?

[Aardwolf]

Not so fast, Aardwolf! I'm not so sure. When I was a boy, the fishing on Hood Canal was excellent. Now there is no fishing.

Presumably the food chain dies from the bottom up. So if the photoplankton died first, then it would be the next step up that is then affected, and so on until the top is affected.

It is a well known fact that many of the world's great fisheries are moribund, with more going that way every year.

Now I'm a great fan of the plasma electric universe, and I doubt very much that man's activities have been the greatest cause of oceanic or global warming. But don't you think it premature, or even foolish, to suggest that presumably honest scientists would be deceiving us when they point with alarm at the destruction of the base of our food chain?? We are ultimately talking about the survivability of our children, so I would think a responsible person ought to be reasonably concerned.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

Who said the scientists are being dishonest? There are many mechanisms that can cause an increase or decrease in photoplankton more effective than temps. Look it up. And there are many things that can cause an increase or decrease in turbidity. Look it up. That the scientists chose to highlight warming oceans as a possible cause helps their funding. It's a pattern that emerging in almost every aspect of earth sciences because of the vast sums put aside by governments for AGW "proof". Everything is being linked to AGW.

[Aardwolf]

Not so fast, Aardwolf! I'm not so sure. When I was a boy, the fishing on Hood Canal was excellent. Now there is no fishing.

Presumably the food chain dies from the bottom up. So if the photoplankton died first, then it would be the next step up that is then affected, and so on until the top is affected.

It is a well known fact that many of the world's great fisheries are moribund, with more going that way every year.

Now I'm a great fan of the plasma electric universe, and I doubt very much that man's activities have been the greatest cause of oceanic or global warming. But don't you think it premature, or even foolish, to suggest that presumably honest scientists would be deceiving us when they point with alarm at the destruction of the base of our food chain?? We are ultimately talking about the survivability of our children, so I would think a responsible person ought to be reasonably concerned.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

I'm just posting to point out that most of the 'world's great fisheries' that are becoming moribund are becoming that way mainly because of decades of virtually unregulated and unsustainable commercial fishing practices, not necessarily a decline in the photoplankton food supply.

Or at least it's the commercial fishing practices that the green movement is usually blaming declining fish populations on, though I'm sure they can find a way to blame AGW as well at the same time. The more people they can spread the blame around on the better...why blame just fishermen when you can blame the whole human race?

Indeed. And where fishing has been restricted populations have returned.

[webolife]

Also, in Hood Canal biotoxin alerts are partially reponsible for reduction in fishing, these a function of local pollution levels, and not from AGW.

[Aardwolf]

Lets see what the 2007/2008 Ecological Status Report for the North Atlantic issued by the Continuous Plankton Recorder survey says in it's summary;

Ecosystem health and water quality
At the regional scale, it has been found that most phytoplankton trends are related to hydro-climatic variability as opposed to anthropogenic* input (e.g. nutrient input leading to eutrophication*). This means that the North-East Atlantic as a whole is generally considered to be fairly healthy. This is not to say, however, that certain coastal areas and the southern North Sea are not vulnerable to eutrophication and climate change may also exacerbate these negative effects in these vulnerable regions. It has also been found that the number of microplastics* collected on CPR samples is increasing and the frequency of occurrence and bloom timing of some Harmful Algal Bloom* species are related to regional climate warming.

Of course they make the necessary references to AGW here and throughout the report but the inconvenient fact is that the North-East Atlantic (which has been warming) is fairly healthy. Unfortunatley fairly healthty reports about the planet do not get headlines or funding.

Bizarrely they refer to eutrophication as a danger of some sort which means we have one report blaming AGW on reducing phytoplankton and another blaming AGW on inceasing phytoplankton. This is why I can safely consign these alarmist papers to the trash. All they are reporting is a change of some sort which may have detrimental effects on some species but will be beneficial to others. This is called life. There is no disaster looming caused by anyone or anything. Life is everywhere on this planet living at all extremities and always will be (at least while there is liquid water available).

[MrAmsterdam]

This whole discussion is going nowhere. CO2 really the problem? Stop polluting the oceans and seas. Start massive projects growing coral and tree forrests. Nature is flexible enough to deal with natural CO2 cycles if it wasnt for pollution and destruction on massive scale. I find it shameful that a IPCC discussion about climate change is focusing only on CO2.
If you want to know how the climate is changing please take a look at this interview. Climate change mechanism is clearly explained and it is NOT CO2 driven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRRXZ1B5foE

As Russia recovers from a record-breaking heatwave followed by fierce storms, RT talks to astrophysicist and solar weather forecaster Piers Corbyn to find out what it all means and if it has anything to do with global warming.

"We should return to evidence based science and evidence based policy"

[jjohnson]

Mr. A is correct. GW has little to do with anything, as Earth has experienced much warmer and far colder climate states and life successfully survived. Even humans' addition of CO2 into the atmosphere pales in heating capacity compared to the natural presence of water vapor, naturally there.

What has changed things is more likely to be human pollution on a continuing basis. Think of increased CO2 from human power production not so much as a heating agent as an acid rain (carbonic acid) introduction into the water cycle. The oceans' natural alkalinity is being decreased ("acidified") by this, resulting in shelled animals having survival problems, from tiny plankton to larvae of gastropods and arthropods (, shellfish, crabs, lobsters, prawns, etc).

Industrial waste has greatly increased the toxic character of coastal and inland waters, with reduced survival rates and food chain interruptions. Hood Canal off Puget Sound is but one small example, but orcas are barely holding their own reduced numbers there now, due to reduced salmon runs (damming, decreased habitat, and human septic pollution in addition to hydrocarbon runoffs from increasing roads and road traffic, etc.). Agricultural chemical runoffs into the rivers of the world all end up in the oceans, with resultant algae blooms and eutrification areas (low oxygen "dead zones").

Aerosols from burning hydrocarbons of all types for nearly all our energy needs are producing a constantly hazy planet, just on the esthetic side, not to mention increased birth defects and chronic diseases such as emphysema and asthma among the top predators in the food chain (us).

Add to this dismal list over-fishing and over-whaling, which are decimating populations and unbalancing the food chains in the oceans. Decrease a population too much, and there is a point at which it becomes non-sustainable, and that segment of the food chain disappears, with side effects.

We have met the enemy, and he is us. We as a whole are not choosing to be good stewards of our planet. I suspect that she will find a way to get even, if we persist.

Jim

[Siggy_G]

Came over this today:

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

(...) For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist (...)

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-l ... ciety.html
(one of the sites showing his open letter)

[MrAmsterdam]

Leaves us with one more question; has the world ever been in a more corrupted state then nowadays? Or is it the fact we can read about it on the internet where the whole world is discussing this...

Please read the following article of James Delingpole of the UK newspaper 'The Telegraph'

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... s-to-turn/
----
And if you wondered how much money is involved, here is Roman Column to explain:

The professor wrote: “…the money flood has become the raison d’être …” Let me present some figures below to see why “flood” was not an exaggeration (extract from http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf)

“The Money Connection

So what is going on here? In time-honored journalistic fashion, follow the money:

- The amount of money spent on anti-AGW activity by organizations is around US$2 million per year, primarily from Heartland.
- The amount of money spent by pro-AGW organisations on research is about US$3 billion per year, about 1,000 times larger. It mainly comes from big government spending on pro-AGW climate research and on promoting the AGW message, and from the Greens.
- Emissions trading by the finance industry was US$120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over US$1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest “commodity” market in the world—larger than oil, steel, rice, wheat etc. Typically the finance industry might pocket 1% – 5% of the turnover, so even now their financial interest matches the spending on pro-AGW activities and soon it will vastly exceed it.

And here’s a physicist Phillip 2, putting Professor Lewis in context:

I too had a long career as a physicist and I met Prof Hal Lewis at a conference in 1976 (my career was not as long or as eminent as his). I will never forget the talk he gave after dinner one evening. He spoke for an hour without any notes and was truly inspiring; the room was packed and all there were enthralled. A scientist of honour, honesty and integrity. He is one of the last survivors of the great physicists of the second half of the 20th century.

His words of wisdom should be widely disseminated and heeded. “climate scientists” are not scientists in comparison to him.

And here’s another REAL scientist (as opposed to a “climate scientist”) – a geologist this time – from NZ called Geodoug:

Good article. I am a geologist and a 40yr member of AusIMM and find that they also will not take a stand on this matter. All geologists are aware of climate change episodes in the geological past, frequently of much greater magnitude than that occuring at present. Problem seems to be that pressure is coming to bear on scientific societies world-wide not to speak out. And as the NZ govt has ratified the Kyoto Protocol etc, just 2 weeks ago we were made subject to additional Emissions Trading Scheme taxes on all fuels and energy supplies. It just goes on ………… !!

These were characteristic of the unusually high quality of comments this blog attracted from all round the world, often from first time visitors. Hal Lewis – who has now joined the advisory committee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation – struck a chord. As Realfreedom noted:

I think this is just the beginning. All credit to Harold Lewis for his honesty and for the having the courage to state his position. It is indeed one of the greatest scams to have been perpetrated by the scientific community, albeit under incessant political pressure. Watch out for the mass exodus – it will only take a few more respected (and brave) figures to open the flood gates.

Then it will be highly entertaining to read all the excuses and as they fall over themselves retreating.

I know personally many scientists (teachers) who feel under pressure not to decare ther position for fear of reprisals. There will be a good business opportunity in rewriting text books in the not too distant future, as there was when the Piltdown Man hoax was exposed and all the science text books had to be changed accordingly.

I think Realfreedom is right. And the people who ought most especially to take notice are our political class. In Britain, we are stuck with a terrifyingly undemocratic situation in which all three of our main political parties are committed to throwing more and more taxpayers money into the Great Climate Change Lie Machine. When taxpayers finally wise up to what’s going on (H/T Nick Mabbs)

The lesson to be learned here...mistrust (all) authority, follow the money and make up your own mind?