Global warming fantasies and the eco-cult of true believers!
Global warming fantasies and the eco-cult of true believers! by Craig Read
Hot off the UN presses – we will all die from a natural gas called Co2! Global Warming fantasies that the earth is becoming one giant microwave heated up by man’s pernicious and insatiable industrial development is of course ridiculous. The only consensus that exists on climate change is that if you believe anything the UN or Al Gore says, you are probably a moron and should exile yourself to the nearest forest to tree hugging duty. Al Gore and the UN on almost any topic, have the credibility level of Hugo Chavez when he opines on his socialist-democracy experiment.
Climate cycles are natural; they are complex with 1 million or so variables making up the climate and they exist independent of human activity. Even if you wiped out mankind you would only erase 4 % of the CO2 that makes up the supposedly scary ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions that will fry us all! Most of the so-called greenhouse gases are water vapor and are part of the earth’s naturally occurring cycle of heat transmission, conductivity and then cooling.
Asking Al Gore and the UN to model climate patterns is about as intelligent as asking a pre-schooler to build a car.
That utter gibberish such as man-made climate change is even called news says a lot about the mentality of our socialist-liberal culture. It gets really tiring trying to talk sense to eco-fascist pagans that are blinded by hate for modernity; can’t stand the thought of market based economics; and faint at the mention of the words ‘freedom’; ‘individuality’; ‘technological progress’; and tear out their hair if you tell them that our environment in all areas excepting the oceans, is in better shape and cleaner than at any time in history. The eco-fascists and Al Gore-lovers want nothing more than to manage the world; micro-manage society; destroy the modern industrial and technological processes that ensure a cleaner environment; and increase tax, regulation and bureaucratic hiring. None of these options is intelligent or necessary.
So after receiving some rather angry letters from the eco-left I decided to post a quick index of information on why the Globaloney Warming scam is malicious; ignorant and dangerous.
Destroying our modern world so politicians can engage in children’s exercises of ‘trading emissions credits’; transfer billions of dollars hither and yon; and create a massive socialist state complex that will impose itself on civilization is sheer insanity. Pagan cults are utopias. Islam, Hitlersim, Stalinism, Marxism in its various disgusting varieties, and now the eco-fascist cult, are at their core very similiar. In essence they demand mindless obedience, anti-Western orthodoxies, hatred of freedom and the market, and a commitment to lie, distort, pervert reality and facts. They are also primitive, violent and arrogant.
It would be better to put the little eco-fascists in their own sandbox with some plastic toys and let them play there; instead of allowing them to play with the modern world.
What follows is a quick index of sources countering the eco-fascist claim of man-made global warming. It only offends the eco-blind; the eco-deranged and the eco-fanatics who want to destroy civilization and create a pre-modern utopia.
=========
Bad Climate Science Yields Worse Economics, by Peter Malloy, October 26, 2006
in Friends of Science magazine.
A critical commentary on the "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change"
Climate modelers pile guess upon guess to arrive at an answer that is rendered invalid by the historical temperature record. Recent research shows:
(1) Cosmic rays impact global climate.
(2) Carbon dioxide has limited physical capability to impact global temperature.
(3) Greenhouse myths are propogated by climate alarmists.
The Climate Change Debate, Professor S. Fred Singer
Stern Critque: The Climate Change Debate is far from Over, World Economics, Vol. 7, No. 3, July-September 2006
Dr. Singer poses three fundamental questions, then answers them:
(1) Is there evidence for or against an appreciable human contribution to climate warming?
There is a lot of evidence for past variation in climate with no human contribution at all. There is some evidence that human contributions may have a minor effect on climate warming. There is no overwhelming evidence of an appreciable contribution to global warming.
(2) Would a warmer climate be better or worse than the present one?
We know from voluminous records that the human condition was better in 1100 AD during the Medieval Warm Period than during the following Little Ice Age. We know that things are better now than during the 1970 recent cold period. We also know that the reason for improvement since 1970 was due to technological advances, not a warmer climate, and that is exactly the point: Technological advances and the mobilization of capital far outweigh any climate factor one can think of in promoting prosperity.
Most agree that a colder climate would damage the economy. Would that be true for a slightly warmer climate? Is our current climate the optimum, and would any change to either warmer or colder be damaging?
(3) Realistically speaking, can we really do something about climate? Is it possible to influence the climate by policy actions in an effective way?
The Kyoto Protocol fully realized yields a calculated reduction of one-twentieth of a degree. At what cost? Further, would the enormous costs required to reduce emissions by the 60 to 80 percent required to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide be worth the effort, particularly if the result of warming was beneficial?
Global Warming or Global Cooling? An excerpt, from The Times of India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms
Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.
A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!
In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.
Bob Carter: British report the last hurrah of warmaholics
in The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690289-7583,00.html
The Stern warning could join Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth in the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded.
An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative understanding of the natural climate system and a dispassionate, accurate consideration of all the costs and benefits of warming as well as cooling.
Unfortunately, the Stern review is not a cost-benefit but a risk analysis, and of warming only.
Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html
Errors include:
* Misleading links between weather events and climate change
Climate is the average of weather conditions over long time periods; because the climate system is inherently variable, individual weather events are not indicative of trends. Nonetheless, Gore overwhelms the reader with many individual events, claiming this is global warming in action.
* Misrepresentation of data
Gore presents one graph, said to be temperature data derived from ice cores, to support the controversial claim of one research group--Mann et al.--that current temperatures are higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The graph is not the ice core data, however, but the Mann et al. data derived from tree rings and other proxies.
* Exaggerations about sea level rise
Gore claims that potential melting of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctic will force the "evacuation" of millions of people to escape sea level rise of 6 meters (20 feet). This flatly contradicts even the worst-case scenarios described by the scientific community.
* Misleading claims about effects of climate change
Gore claims that the emergence of new diseases is related to global warming, but most of the diseases he lists have little or no relationship to climate.
* Reliance on worst-case scenarios
Much of the claims about the consequences of future global warming rely on climate models that Gore calls "evermore accurate", but significant questions about the reliability of these models remain, and the effects cited by Gore presume that the worse-case predictions of these models are the correct ones.
* False claims about scientific views on global warming
Despite the abundance of scientific research contradicting his position, Gore instead concentrates on refuting a handful of skeptical claims from outside the scientific community--and can't even get the facts right on those.
* Misleading claims about the responsibility of the United States
(Gore) criticizes the U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without acknowledging the ways in which the Protocol disproportionately targeted the U.S. economy. Or that the Senate unanimously rejected Kyoto during the Clinton/Gore Administration.
* Conceptual errors
Gore's explanation of several topics, including the greenhouse effect, the relationship of carbon dioxide and global temperature, decline in Arctic Ocean pack ice, structure of the Greenland ice sheet, and ozone depletion, contain conceptual errors.
Al Gore's "science" is pretty sloppy, but of course, Al is not a scientist.
It shows.
Gorey Truths: 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore, by Iain Murray
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=
Murray lists 25 areas in which Gore is dead wrong. He could have listed 2500 but I guess he had better things to do then to educate another dumb politician.
Changes in Sea Level
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm
Projected sea level changes from 1990 to 2100: Including thawing of permafrost, deposition of sediment, and the ongoing contributions from ice sheets as a result of climate change since the Last Glacial Maximum, we obtain a range of global-average sea level rise from 0.11 to 0.77 m. This range reflects systematic uncertainties in modelling.
Will Sea Levels Rise 20 Feet As Gore Predicts?
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Will-Sea-Levels-Rise
"(T)he world’s warming in the past 150 years has produced a change in Antarctica. The huge East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains nearly 90 percent of the world’s ice, has been thickening. European satellites measured the ice sheet’s thickness 347 million times between 1992 and 2003, and found it is gaining about 45 billion tons of water per year because the planet has warmed enough for snow to fall at the coldest place on earth.
"Thickening ice in the Antarctic, in fact, is just about offsetting the meltwater being released from the edges of the Greenland ice sheet—which has also been thickening in its center. This leaves us with a global warming sea level gain of about 1.8 millimeters per year—or 4 inches per century. The rise has remained constant during the 20th century despite the moderate 0.6 degree C warming of the planet."
The Real 'Inconvenient Truth', by Junkscience.com
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
An excerpt:
"There seem to be a few things that your informant forgot to tell you -- like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population. … CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into "natural" wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it's "pollution," then it's pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit. Doesn't sound too bad to us.
Greenlanders Like Global Warming
http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/forums/travel-to-greenland-vt13.html
Original article in the Wall Street Journal
An Excerpt:
For Greenlanders, adapting to the effects of climate change is nothing new. Oxygen isotope samples taken from Greenland's ice core reveal that temperatures around 1100, during the height of the Norse farming colonies, were similar to those prevailing today. The higher temperatures were part of a warming trend that lasted until the 14th century.
Near the end of the 14th century, the Norse vanished from Greenland. While researchers don't know for sure, many believe an increasingly cold climate made eking out a living here all but impossible as grasses and trees declined. Farming faded away from the 17th century to the 19th century, a period known as the Little Ice Age. Farming didn't return to Greenland in force until the early 1900s, when Inuit farmers began re-learning Norse techniques and applying them to modern conditions. A sharp cooling trend from around 1950 to 1975 stalled the agricultural expansion.
Behavior of the Greenland Ice Sheet
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N2/EDIT.jsp
From the point of view of Global Warming True Believers, Greenland has been behaving rather badly. An excerpt:
... Greenland's thermal history has been incredibly volatile over the past century, with its mean near-surface air temperature rising between 2 and 4°C in less than ten years during the Great Greenland Warming of the 1920s (Chylek et al., 2004), which occurred over a period when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by a grand total of only 3 or 4 ppm. And when Greenland temperatures began to fall in the 1940s, the air's CO2 content significantly accelerated its upward climb [my emphasis]. In addition, the most recent warming on Greenland - which climate alarmists describe as being unprecedented and driven by an even more unprecedented increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration - has resulted in coastal temperatures that Chylek et al. report are still "about 1°C below their 1940 values," which peak temperatures prevailed when the air's CO2 content was far less than it is today.
Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climatic Change, by James S. Aber
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm
Some excerpts that illuminate Global Warming that occurred over 1,000 years ago, and that caused higher temperatures and as great or greater glacier and ice retreat than has occurred to date or is credibly forecasted.
* 800-1000s: Aletsch and Grindelwald glaciers (Switzerland) were much smaller than today.
* 874: Settlement of Iceland began; Viking immigration from Norway, England, Ireland, Faeroes, etc. Glaciers of Iceland much smaller than today.
* 880-1140: Radiocarbon dates on trees that grew in Canada far north of modern timberline.
* 1000-1200: Rapid population growth in Estonia based on cereal grains--barley, rye, wheat. Northernmost region for crop tillage as the primary means of subsistence. Population by early 13th century at least 150,000 people (Tannberg et al. 2000).
* 1020-1200: Minimal sea-ice cover around Iceland.
The Medieval Warm Period was followed by a period of glaciation that engulfed settled areas throughout Europe, Iceland, and Greenland.
Glacier retreat started again at the end of the Little Ice Age.
* 1855: Signs of moderate retreats by Chamonix glaciers.
* 1860-80s: Evidence of pronounced glacier withdrawal all over continental Europe; many Alpine glaciers retreated >1 km by beginning of this century. Icelandic glaciers remained in advanced positions, however.
* early 1900s: Rapid retreat by glaciers on Mt. Kenya, Africa.
* 1920: Marked decrease in sea ice in coastal waters of Iceland.
* 1920-30s: Glaciers declined rapidly everywhere, except Antarctica; end of Little Ice Ages.
=====
These are a few of the many examples of global warming and cooling during the past 1200 years that were not caused or even influenced by the activities of man.
But please don’t alarm the eco-fascists and the wailing Marxists by trying to have a rational discourse and point out some obvious flaws in the man-made global warming theory.
Just strut and march along with the others, arm outstretched in the fuehrer salute eyes fixed upon Al Gore and the UN…….clutching your little eco-fantasy bible in your other hand.
After working for a few large IT firms Read born in 1966, is currently an entrepreneur and Venture Capital Advisor and Managing Consultant for Wireless and Mobile technologies [including the internet] and in particular, in software applications for the Wireless or Mobile Industry.
http://www.craigread.com/
RESOURCE:
http://www.craigread.com/displayArticle.aspx?contentID=504&subgroupID=14
Article Source: http://articles.directorygold.com
Visit the DirectoryGold Article Directory for more articles on Politics
Hot off the UN presses – we will all die from a natural gas called Co2! Global Warming fantasies that the earth is becoming one giant microwave heated up by man’s pernicious and insatiable industrial development is of course ridiculous. The only consensus that exists on climate change is that if you believe anything the UN or Al Gore says, you are probably a moron and should exile yourself to the nearest forest to tree hugging duty. Al Gore and the UN on almost any topic, have the credibility level of Hugo Chavez when he opines on his socialist-democracy experiment.
Climate cycles are natural; they are complex with 1 million or so variables making up the climate and they exist independent of human activity. Even if you wiped out mankind you would only erase 4 % of the CO2 that makes up the supposedly scary ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions that will fry us all! Most of the so-called greenhouse gases are water vapor and are part of the earth’s naturally occurring cycle of heat transmission, conductivity and then cooling.
Asking Al Gore and the UN to model climate patterns is about as intelligent as asking a pre-schooler to build a car.
That utter gibberish such as man-made climate change is even called news says a lot about the mentality of our socialist-liberal culture. It gets really tiring trying to talk sense to eco-fascist pagans that are blinded by hate for modernity; can’t stand the thought of market based economics; and faint at the mention of the words ‘freedom’; ‘individuality’; ‘technological progress’; and tear out their hair if you tell them that our environment in all areas excepting the oceans, is in better shape and cleaner than at any time in history. The eco-fascists and Al Gore-lovers want nothing more than to manage the world; micro-manage society; destroy the modern industrial and technological processes that ensure a cleaner environment; and increase tax, regulation and bureaucratic hiring. None of these options is intelligent or necessary.
So after receiving some rather angry letters from the eco-left I decided to post a quick index of information on why the Globaloney Warming scam is malicious; ignorant and dangerous.
Destroying our modern world so politicians can engage in children’s exercises of ‘trading emissions credits’; transfer billions of dollars hither and yon; and create a massive socialist state complex that will impose itself on civilization is sheer insanity. Pagan cults are utopias. Islam, Hitlersim, Stalinism, Marxism in its various disgusting varieties, and now the eco-fascist cult, are at their core very similiar. In essence they demand mindless obedience, anti-Western orthodoxies, hatred of freedom and the market, and a commitment to lie, distort, pervert reality and facts. They are also primitive, violent and arrogant.
It would be better to put the little eco-fascists in their own sandbox with some plastic toys and let them play there; instead of allowing them to play with the modern world.
What follows is a quick index of sources countering the eco-fascist claim of man-made global warming. It only offends the eco-blind; the eco-deranged and the eco-fanatics who want to destroy civilization and create a pre-modern utopia.
=========
Bad Climate Science Yields Worse Economics, by Peter Malloy, October 26, 2006
in Friends of Science magazine.
A critical commentary on the "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change"
Climate modelers pile guess upon guess to arrive at an answer that is rendered invalid by the historical temperature record. Recent research shows:
(1) Cosmic rays impact global climate.
(2) Carbon dioxide has limited physical capability to impact global temperature.
(3) Greenhouse myths are propogated by climate alarmists.
The Climate Change Debate, Professor S. Fred Singer
Stern Critque: The Climate Change Debate is far from Over, World Economics, Vol. 7, No. 3, July-September 2006
Dr. Singer poses three fundamental questions, then answers them:
(1) Is there evidence for or against an appreciable human contribution to climate warming?
There is a lot of evidence for past variation in climate with no human contribution at all. There is some evidence that human contributions may have a minor effect on climate warming. There is no overwhelming evidence of an appreciable contribution to global warming.
(2) Would a warmer climate be better or worse than the present one?
We know from voluminous records that the human condition was better in 1100 AD during the Medieval Warm Period than during the following Little Ice Age. We know that things are better now than during the 1970 recent cold period. We also know that the reason for improvement since 1970 was due to technological advances, not a warmer climate, and that is exactly the point: Technological advances and the mobilization of capital far outweigh any climate factor one can think of in promoting prosperity.
Most agree that a colder climate would damage the economy. Would that be true for a slightly warmer climate? Is our current climate the optimum, and would any change to either warmer or colder be damaging?
(3) Realistically speaking, can we really do something about climate? Is it possible to influence the climate by policy actions in an effective way?
The Kyoto Protocol fully realized yields a calculated reduction of one-twentieth of a degree. At what cost? Further, would the enormous costs required to reduce emissions by the 60 to 80 percent required to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide be worth the effort, particularly if the result of warming was beneficial?
Global Warming or Global Cooling? An excerpt, from The Times of India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms
Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.
A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!
In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.
Bob Carter: British report the last hurrah of warmaholics
in The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690289-7583,00.html
The Stern warning could join Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth in the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded.
An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative understanding of the natural climate system and a dispassionate, accurate consideration of all the costs and benefits of warming as well as cooling.
Unfortunately, the Stern review is not a cost-benefit but a risk analysis, and of warming only.
Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html
Errors include:
* Misleading links between weather events and climate change
Climate is the average of weather conditions over long time periods; because the climate system is inherently variable, individual weather events are not indicative of trends. Nonetheless, Gore overwhelms the reader with many individual events, claiming this is global warming in action.
* Misrepresentation of data
Gore presents one graph, said to be temperature data derived from ice cores, to support the controversial claim of one research group--Mann et al.--that current temperatures are higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The graph is not the ice core data, however, but the Mann et al. data derived from tree rings and other proxies.
* Exaggerations about sea level rise
Gore claims that potential melting of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctic will force the "evacuation" of millions of people to escape sea level rise of 6 meters (20 feet). This flatly contradicts even the worst-case scenarios described by the scientific community.
* Misleading claims about effects of climate change
Gore claims that the emergence of new diseases is related to global warming, but most of the diseases he lists have little or no relationship to climate.
* Reliance on worst-case scenarios
Much of the claims about the consequences of future global warming rely on climate models that Gore calls "evermore accurate", but significant questions about the reliability of these models remain, and the effects cited by Gore presume that the worse-case predictions of these models are the correct ones.
* False claims about scientific views on global warming
Despite the abundance of scientific research contradicting his position, Gore instead concentrates on refuting a handful of skeptical claims from outside the scientific community--and can't even get the facts right on those.
* Misleading claims about the responsibility of the United States
(Gore) criticizes the U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without acknowledging the ways in which the Protocol disproportionately targeted the U.S. economy. Or that the Senate unanimously rejected Kyoto during the Clinton/Gore Administration.
* Conceptual errors
Gore's explanation of several topics, including the greenhouse effect, the relationship of carbon dioxide and global temperature, decline in Arctic Ocean pack ice, structure of the Greenland ice sheet, and ozone depletion, contain conceptual errors.
Al Gore's "science" is pretty sloppy, but of course, Al is not a scientist.
It shows.
Gorey Truths: 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore, by Iain Murray
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=
Murray lists 25 areas in which Gore is dead wrong. He could have listed 2500 but I guess he had better things to do then to educate another dumb politician.
Changes in Sea Level
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm
Projected sea level changes from 1990 to 2100: Including thawing of permafrost, deposition of sediment, and the ongoing contributions from ice sheets as a result of climate change since the Last Glacial Maximum, we obtain a range of global-average sea level rise from 0.11 to 0.77 m. This range reflects systematic uncertainties in modelling.
Will Sea Levels Rise 20 Feet As Gore Predicts?
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Will-Sea-Levels-Rise
"(T)he world’s warming in the past 150 years has produced a change in Antarctica. The huge East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains nearly 90 percent of the world’s ice, has been thickening. European satellites measured the ice sheet’s thickness 347 million times between 1992 and 2003, and found it is gaining about 45 billion tons of water per year because the planet has warmed enough for snow to fall at the coldest place on earth.
"Thickening ice in the Antarctic, in fact, is just about offsetting the meltwater being released from the edges of the Greenland ice sheet—which has also been thickening in its center. This leaves us with a global warming sea level gain of about 1.8 millimeters per year—or 4 inches per century. The rise has remained constant during the 20th century despite the moderate 0.6 degree C warming of the planet."
The Real 'Inconvenient Truth', by Junkscience.com
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
An excerpt:
"There seem to be a few things that your informant forgot to tell you -- like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population. … CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into "natural" wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it's "pollution," then it's pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit. Doesn't sound too bad to us.
Greenlanders Like Global Warming
http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/forums/travel-to-greenland-vt13.html
Original article in the Wall Street Journal
An Excerpt:
For Greenlanders, adapting to the effects of climate change is nothing new. Oxygen isotope samples taken from Greenland's ice core reveal that temperatures around 1100, during the height of the Norse farming colonies, were similar to those prevailing today. The higher temperatures were part of a warming trend that lasted until the 14th century.
Near the end of the 14th century, the Norse vanished from Greenland. While researchers don't know for sure, many believe an increasingly cold climate made eking out a living here all but impossible as grasses and trees declined. Farming faded away from the 17th century to the 19th century, a period known as the Little Ice Age. Farming didn't return to Greenland in force until the early 1900s, when Inuit farmers began re-learning Norse techniques and applying them to modern conditions. A sharp cooling trend from around 1950 to 1975 stalled the agricultural expansion.
Behavior of the Greenland Ice Sheet
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N2/EDIT.jsp
From the point of view of Global Warming True Believers, Greenland has been behaving rather badly. An excerpt:
... Greenland's thermal history has been incredibly volatile over the past century, with its mean near-surface air temperature rising between 2 and 4°C in less than ten years during the Great Greenland Warming of the 1920s (Chylek et al., 2004), which occurred over a period when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by a grand total of only 3 or 4 ppm. And when Greenland temperatures began to fall in the 1940s, the air's CO2 content significantly accelerated its upward climb [my emphasis]. In addition, the most recent warming on Greenland - which climate alarmists describe as being unprecedented and driven by an even more unprecedented increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration - has resulted in coastal temperatures that Chylek et al. report are still "about 1°C below their 1940 values," which peak temperatures prevailed when the air's CO2 content was far less than it is today.
Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climatic Change, by James S. Aber
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm
Some excerpts that illuminate Global Warming that occurred over 1,000 years ago, and that caused higher temperatures and as great or greater glacier and ice retreat than has occurred to date or is credibly forecasted.
* 800-1000s: Aletsch and Grindelwald glaciers (Switzerland) were much smaller than today.
* 874: Settlement of Iceland began; Viking immigration from Norway, England, Ireland, Faeroes, etc. Glaciers of Iceland much smaller than today.
* 880-1140: Radiocarbon dates on trees that grew in Canada far north of modern timberline.
* 1000-1200: Rapid population growth in Estonia based on cereal grains--barley, rye, wheat. Northernmost region for crop tillage as the primary means of subsistence. Population by early 13th century at least 150,000 people (Tannberg et al. 2000).
* 1020-1200: Minimal sea-ice cover around Iceland.
The Medieval Warm Period was followed by a period of glaciation that engulfed settled areas throughout Europe, Iceland, and Greenland.
Glacier retreat started again at the end of the Little Ice Age.
* 1855: Signs of moderate retreats by Chamonix glaciers.
* 1860-80s: Evidence of pronounced glacier withdrawal all over continental Europe; many Alpine glaciers retreated >1 km by beginning of this century. Icelandic glaciers remained in advanced positions, however.
* early 1900s: Rapid retreat by glaciers on Mt. Kenya, Africa.
* 1920: Marked decrease in sea ice in coastal waters of Iceland.
* 1920-30s: Glaciers declined rapidly everywhere, except Antarctica; end of Little Ice Ages.
=====
These are a few of the many examples of global warming and cooling during the past 1200 years that were not caused or even influenced by the activities of man.
But please don’t alarm the eco-fascists and the wailing Marxists by trying to have a rational discourse and point out some obvious flaws in the man-made global warming theory.
Just strut and march along with the others, arm outstretched in the fuehrer salute eyes fixed upon Al Gore and the UN…….clutching your little eco-fantasy bible in your other hand.
After working for a few large IT firms Read born in 1966, is currently an entrepreneur and Venture Capital Advisor and Managing Consultant for Wireless and Mobile technologies [including the internet] and in particular, in software applications for the Wireless or Mobile Industry.
http://www.craigread.com/
RESOURCE:
http://www.craigread.com/displayArticle.aspx?contentID=504&subgroupID=14
Article Source: http://articles.directorygold.com
Visit the DirectoryGold Article Directory for more articles on Politics
posted by Foodie at 3:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home