Is Global Warming Really Man-Made?
author: Janet
|
Of course, the entire idea of "cleaning" the atmosphere of carbon dioxide seems a bit ridiculous when you realize that by historical levels we are living in a CO2-starved environment, that global surface temperatures are dropping, that global ocean temperatures are dropping, that key proponents of the man-made global warming theory have been caught faking data to support their arguments, that Arctic sea ice is expanding, and that sea levels are not rising. But why let actual science get in the way of a good scare story, especially when that scare story can be used to create a new trillion dollar industry for the banksters?
|
Global Warming or Global Governance - Free Online Video:
 link to video.google.com
sss manmade
link to www.telegraph.co.uk
The world has never seen such freezing heat
By Christopher Booker
Published: 12:01AM GMT 16 Nov 2008
Comments 1106 | Comment on this article
Snow in London
A sudden cold snap brought snow to London in October
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
* Read more from Christopher Booker
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
* EU facing revolt over climate change target enforcement
* EU plans new energy deals
* Himalayan glaciers 'could disappear completely by 2035'
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
|
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
|
Testing that has taken place since WWII.
Just the single blast by the Russians at Novaya Zemla
resulted in a 4 mile wide fireball at temperatures at
or about 1,000,000 Degrees.
It's location is in the North Arctic.
This single blast released more energy than all munitions
expended during the WWII conflict.
And there were many more subsequent Nuclear Events in the
same area over a 30 year period.
What originally brought me too this theory was melting a
bottled water that had been frozen and was being thawed in
a microwave oven. I noticed, very often that the surface
ice remained intact, and the ice appeared to melt quickest
toward the center of the ice.
The other area of interest is the Marshall Island chain, where
a significant amount of Nuclear Bomb Testing had also taken
place during the same time period. I further believe that this
testing created a permanent crack in the crust of the Earth,
that can still be identified by satellite thermal photography
(Infra-Red) today.
I believe that Hotspot maybe responsible for the El Nena/ La Nena
phenomenon, or at least a primary contributor to that systemic
anomaly.
If we look upon these events, not as singular instances, but as a
compounded multi-event system somewhat like a combustion engine in
which each blast is like the cylinders firing sequentially, then
we can begin to relate to the transfer of that energy to the Earth's
Body.
I posed this theory to a weather chatboard some years ago, and the
initial response was, "How can you prove a connection to Global Warming
and these Nuclear Events?"
I said, "Have You ever grabbed the handle of a hot pot on the Stove?"
Him:"Yes!"
Me: "Did you get burnt?"
Him:"Yes!"
Me:"Well? ...There is your connection."
Virtually all of these Nuclear incidence have been in direct contact with
the Earth. Whether Atmospheric, Below or Above Ground, or Marine? These
temporal forces have been absorbed by our Earth. And when we look at these
events as a complete system that did not end until the later part of the
20th Century, I would surmise that a change in the Pacific Ocean's mean
temperature could have been effected by 1 to 2, maybe even 10 degrees over
a significant period of time.
We know it takes a pot on the Stove a time to cool off. Why would the Earth
be any different?
Combine this with sustained radiation that can last for hundreds of Centuries,
and we have turned the Earth's Crust into a thermal blanket. Not very technical?
But good Science all the same.
I find it quite shocking that the Most Catastrophic Man Made Events that Man has
chose to burden Our Planet have no corresponding Environmental Impact Data available
for examination? It's like, "We Quit, and It Never Happened."
That's Our World for You.
Take Care,
Love Tracy