SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
Anti Global Warming Propaganda
The Great Global Warming Swindle was something I discovered on pp.1 & 2 of The Age of Thursday May 24th. This is presented as a documentary questioning the science behind climate change. The program caused a storm when it was aired on UK Ch.4 in March. Howls of protest were heard from scientists including some featured in the film, that it's makers used fabricated data, half truths and misleading statements. It is postulated that the ABC Board has been pressuring the broadcaster to show this so called documentary to its Australian audience. Despite recommendation from the ABC Science Journalist, Robyn Williams, who advised the TV division not to buy the program, he has further labelled the broadcaster of "verging on the irresponsible" over its decision to air something that was "demonstrably wrong". The ABCV TV Director, Kim Dalton, is reputed to have caved in under pressure from the board and agreed to run this piece of unfounded sensationalism on the grounds that 'Global Warming is up amongst the top two or three issues of public and political debate and -- opinion out there questions the connection between global warming and CO2 emissions. Opinion maybe. Scientific facts, never. Opinion that is dangerous and lacks foundation, usually dollar dominated opinion. I have not seen this piece of garbage, but suffice it to say its auspices should put any right minded person on guard from the start. Promoted as 'the definitive response to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth' the fiction was created by a production company called Wag TV whose MD is one Martin Durkin, a former financial journalist. For more, go to www.theage.com.au and have a read. With the political inertia in this country about the whys and wherefores of climate change ie. global warming, this is dynamite. The ABC is usually known for the authenticity and accuracy of its programs. A lot of ABC viewers will accept this as believable if Aunty shows it, and the inactivity of governments in rising to the challenge may go on. Howard can bless another several coal fired power stations with LETDF handouts and we will be further in the mire than ever. And, one may ask, who is putting pressure on the ABC Board?
Max Stark. Sale, Vic.
|
User login |
Thanks for sharing this! The
to the skeptics of climate change...
I will post some links to stories that challenge the global warming theory or that show where the moneys that support organisations designed to challenge global warming come from... We all know we can manipulate data to make a picture fit a story but, as mentioned before there is limit to which we can stretch the porkie, a mobile phone made of wood does not work, although on the subject of global warming the media is poised to believe that it would work 50/50.
In the long run we cannot deny that we humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2 from burning carbon products (coal, gas and oil) that have been buried in the earth for millions of years. Most of this carbon was not part of the global climatic equation for at least 100 million years. Now this carbon used by us produces CO2 amounts that can be measured with sufficient precision to show we're adding 30 billion tonnes of CO2 PER ANNUM into the atmosphere.
If you think that this added CO2 is not going to have an effect on the very thin biosphere (that includes the atmosphere and the sea) then you have rocks in your head, despite being smart to challenge the global warming "theory".
CO2 is a clear gas while water (also a greenhouse "gas" when vaporised) can exist in non saturated "humidity" (clear) or saturated vapour ("clouds")...
Say, for example, on another issue, at what point, would you say that radio-active radiation becomes dangerous, versus beneficial (hospital use)? We do not see the radiation and we never know when we've been exposed unless someone with a Geiger counter comes along... Thus there are dangers that we cannot see, dangers that have cumulative effects and dangers that have a certain lag-time (inertia between cause and effect) in relation to the factors that create them. CO2 in the atmosphere carries these three characteristics.
Many scientists have rigourously scientifically collaborated to find the big picture from very complex details and created computer models for the future of the atmosphere with incremental growth of carbon dioxide, and the results are not pretty.
We've got to go back at least to the Carboniferous to understand the processes of the biosphere in relation to carbon. As the earth became cold (or as the carbon cycle modified, the earth cooled in a self feeding loop), the bio-carbon became buried as rock carbon. The relationship between the climate of the biosphere and carbon is undeniable. other events in the earth's history expose this relationship. Sure, there has been some traumatic events in the earth's history such as impacts from bolides (comets and meteorites) or sun activity that have modified the biosphere, but climate warming theorists take these into account....
At present I will argue that humans, releasing the carbon, previously buried over millions of years, in a very short span of time are like a slow bolide, the effect of which are not "catastrophic instantly" but "catastrophic cumulatively"...
It will be a question of when too much is too much, and when will it be too late to do anything about it... I stand by my previous estimated. 1996 was the turning point and 2032 is the "crunch-time"... I could be totally wrong on the date estimates, but I am right on the major influence of carbon in the biosphere, including the atmosphere. We cannot wait to be see an increase in climatic catastrophic events to still be skeptic about climate change and blame other aspects of nature — aspects that do have an influence too, and taken into account by the climate change scientists in their analysis — for ALL the variations.
CO2 has been playing a part in climatic conditions for more than 3 billion years. A rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to warm it, undeniably, while a lowering of CO2 is likely to create "cool" conditions.
Beware.
Coal is a dirty fuel to burn
Every one believes that coal is a dirty fuel to burn. When coal was burnt it releases smoke and that smoke will move into the environment and leads to acid rains. But now scientists have developed ways to capture the pollutants trapped in coal before the impurities can escape into the atmosphere. Today, we have technology that can filter out 99 percent of the tiny particles and remove more than 95 percent of the acid rain pollutants in coal.
Here is a link that might be useful: http://www.lincenergy.us
swindle explained
By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.
Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.