Thursday, March 29, 2007
Posted by WSJ.com Staff
Fidel Castro has broken his long silence, with an editorial in the Communist Party daily Granma, blasting U.S. ethanol policy as a “sinister idea of converting food into combustibles,” putting the lives of billions of people at risk.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Global warming, Al Gore film facing new storm of skepticism
By SALIM MANSUR
On British television recently Channel Four aired its documentary production titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle."
A few days later the New York Times carried rare reporting by William J. Broad on some reaction to the hoopla surrounding the Academy Award for best documentary given to Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth on global warming.
In a cautious tone Broad reported a growing spectrum of opinion in the science community critical of Gore's alarmism about climate change, and his understanding of the science and the scientific evidence available on the subject.
BLINDED BY SCIENCE
It is not expected that Channel Four's documentary will receive notice at next year's Academy Award night in Los Angeles. But the documentary has blown open a massive hole exposing claims of Gore and the "global warming" crowd being at best questionable and at worst a scam in the name of science.
Gore's documentary, directed by David Guggenhneim, has grossed over $46 million. A companion book by Gore reached the top of New York Times bestseller list.
As Broad writes, Gore "depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse." At the heart of the argument proselytized by Gore and the "global warming" industry with many governments, including Canadian, in agreement stands the proposition that the primary cause of climate change is human activity.
The contrary evidence is damning.
Global warming presently, and as has occurred in the past, is an effect of changes in sun radiation.
In other words, there has been global warming with shifts in climate and subsequent effects before human beings walked on Earth.
The one constant thing -- despite the heat generated by debate on the subject of "global warming" -- is climate change. The planet Earth through more than 4 billion years of its history has sailed on its orbit around the sun with its climate in constant change.
Evidences gathered from the 2005 data provided by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey Missions reveal Mars' ice caps on its south pole diminishing over the past three summers.
Melting ice on Mars indicates, according to Habi-bullo Abdussamatov, chief of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, recent global warming on Earth is caused by variations in sun radiation.
Abdussamatov is quoted as saying, "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."
Richard North, co-editor of EU Referendum, in reporting the Channel Four documentary quotes Roy Spencer, formerly a senior scientist at NASA's space flight centre: "The analogy I use is like my car's not running very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine which is the sun and I'm going to ignore the transmission which is the water vapour and I'm going to look at the one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad."
Science does not have a Vatican, a clergy and a doctrine to defend. Science is an activity of fallible human beings striving to understand the workings of nature, and one tool in its arsenal is skepticism.
But when science gets co-opted by politics (often corrupt) or religion (wherein faith is primary) then skepticism is placed under a cloud, and inquisition is close at hand.
The question as to why this subject has become so divisive deserves sober thought and some humility for the planet Earth has its own history irrespective of human activity.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit
Posted: March 02, 2007 4:13 pm Eastern© 2008
Al Gore's Nashville mansion (PajamasMedia.com)Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.
Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms," writes blogger Dan Riehl.
Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere."
But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.
Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.
Hobbs points out Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists.
"In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks."
As WND reported, Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service.
The think tanks says since the release of Gore's film, the former presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
This is the film that caused all the fuss. According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.
Since then, two of the scientists who took part in the film, have made public complaints about the way the film was made. They claim that the way the film was edited gave a misleading impression of critical data and their own viewpoints. There has been a storm of complaint from at least 37 other scientists.
In August 2007, Mike Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory published a study which may have put the final nail in the coffin for the anti-CO2 brigade. He has shown than since 1985, solar activity has run in the opposite direction to global warming and therefore cannot explain rises in average global temperatures. If this study turns out to the true, then the arguments presented in this film lose much of their strength.
Check out the programme and the arguments to see what you think.
The film brings together the arguments of some scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures today.
Solar activity, over the last several hundred years, correlates, on a decadal basis, with temperature’
In more recent history there has been: a mini ice age in the seventeenth century when the Thames froze so solidly that fairs could regularly be held on the ice; a Medieval Warm Period, even balmier than today; and sunnier still was the so-called Holocene Maximum, which was the warmest period in the last 10,000 years.
Those who think global warming is a natural process point to the fact that in the last 10,000 years, the warmest periods have happened well before humans started to produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.
A detailed look at recent climate change reveals that the temperature rose prior to 1940 but unexpectedly dropped in the post-war economic boom, when carbon dioxide emissions rose dramatically.
There is some evidence to suggest that the rise in carbon dioxide lags behind the temperature rise by 800 years and therefore can't be the cause of it.
In the greenhouse model of global warming, heat from the sun's rays is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If it weren't for these gases, Earth would be too cold for life.
Greenhouse gases trap heat from the sun within the earth's atmosphere. This is the greenhouse effect. Traditional models predict that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to runaway heating.
If greenhouse warming were happening, then scientists predict that the troposphere (the layer of the earth's atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't seem to support this.
Those who think global warming is a natural process say that the troposphere is not heating up because man-made greenhouse gases are not causing the planet to heat up.
For some people, the final nail in the coffin of human-produced greenhouse gas theories is the fact that carbon dioxide is produced in far larger quantities by many natural means: human emissions are miniscule in comparison. Volcanic emissions and carbon dioxide from animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean outweigh our own production several times over.
Others would argue that carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas and that human emissions could tip up a finely balanced system.
New evidence shows that as the radiation coming from the sun varies (and sun-spot activity is one way of monitoring this) the earth seems to heat up or cool down. Solar activity very precisely matches the plot of temperature change over the last 100 years. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising.
In fact, what is known of solar activity over the last several hundred years correlates very well with temperature. This is what some scientists are beginning to believe causes climate change. Others feel that solar activity only explains the fine details of temperature change.
So how does the sun affect the earth's temperature? The process scientists suggest is that as earth moves through space, the atmosphere is constantly bombarded by ever-present cosmic rays. As these particles hit water vapour evaporating from the oceans, clouds form in the atmosphere. Clouds shield Earth from some of the sun's radiation and have a cooling effect.
When solar activity is high, there is an increase in solar wind and this has the effect of reducing the amount of cosmic radiation which reaches Earth.
When less cosmic radiation reaches Earth, fewer clouds form and the full effects of the sun's radiation heats the planet.
But is the effect of solar activity really enough to explain away global warming caused by the greenhouse effect? This is still a moot point.
Channel 4 transmits across the whole of the UK, except some parts of Wales, which are covered by the Welsh language S4C. It is available on all digital platforms (terrestrial, satellite and cable) as well as through traditional analogue transmission.
Channel 4 also operates a number of other services, including the free-to-air digital TV channels E4, More4 and Film4, and an ever-growing range of online activities at channel4.com, including the broadband service FourDocs and Channel 4's bespoke video-on-demand service 4oD. The Film4 production division produces and co-produces feature films for the UK and global markets.
The Channel's primary purpose is the fulfilment of its public service remit, which was most recently defined in the 2003 Communications Act. This states that "the public service remit for Channel 4 is the provision of a broad range of high quality and diverse programming which, in particular:
(a) demonstrates innovation, experiment and creativity in the form and content of programmes;(b) appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society;(c) makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to include programmes of an educational nature and other programmes of educative value; and (d) exhibits a distinctive character."
As a publisher-broadcaster, Channel 4 does not produce its own programmes but commissions them from more than 300 independent production companies across the UK, a far greater number than any other broadcaster, including the whole of the BBC. It works very closely with the independent production sector, and invests heavily in training and talent development throughout the industry.
The Channel 4 service was originally established under the Broadcasting Act 1981 and was provided for by the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The Channel Four Television Corporation was subsequently established under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Channel's functions were transferred over to the new Corporation in 1993. The Corporation's board is appointed by OFCOM in agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
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.
To begin with, those who believe the dire warnings of today's establishment press should know, as U.S. Sen. James Inhofe has pointed out, that "for more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age."
Believe it or not, over the last century America's major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times – each prediction warning that entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean "billions will die." In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. Later, in the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. Then in 1975, the New York Times' headline blared, "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." Then in 1981 it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an "almost unprecedented magnitude."
Today, to cover all their bases, much of the press is changing its terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" or "climate catastrophe." That way they're covered either way: If the world gets colder, global warming is still at fault.
But hot-and-cold press coverage is just the beginning. Whistleblower's "HYSTERIA" issue reveals exactly why so many scientists, journalists and others (even the president's speechwriters now have him pay lip service to "climate change") are so gripped by global warming fever.
Here's a hint: As "Deep Throat" famously told Washington Post "Watergate" reporter Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."
Whistleblower shows how all the main players – from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations – benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming. Indeed, just three weeks after the U.N. ratcheted up international fears over global warming, a panel of 18 scientists from 11 countries has now reported to the U.N. that the only thing that can stop catastrophic climate change is a global tax – on greenhouse gas emissions.
That's right. Global problems, real or conjured up, require global governmental solutions. As Whistleblower explains, environmentalism is nothing less than the global elitists' replacement ideology for communism/socialism. With communism largely discredited today – after all, 100-150 million people died at the hands of communist "visionaries" during the last century – elitists who desire to rule other people's lives have gravitated to an even more powerful ideology. More powerful because it seems to trump all other considerations, as it claims the very survival of life on earth is dependent on implementing its agenda.
Thus, while scientists and climatologists who dare to question the rigid orthodoxy of man-made catastrophic global warming are openly ridiculed and threatened with decertification, the movement for global governance, complete with global taxation, is moving into the fast lane.
"Global warming will be one of the most powerfully coercive weapons in the globalists' arsenal for the foreseeable future," said David Kupelian, WND managing editor and author of "The Marketing of Evil." "It's important that everyone understands the game being played. This issue of Whistleblower provides a powerful antidote to all the hysteria – namely, common sense and truth."
The proof of global warming or man's influence on climate change is not settled science. Just consider the source of the big lie: the proselytizing hypocritical high priest of the pagan environmental religion Al Gore or the other Kool-Aid drinking climateers from the left such as Learjet liberals, Hollywood high school drop-outs, billonaire elitists, the left-leaning mainstream media, the United Nations, academia, environmental radicals, socialists, other anti-capitalists and so called "researchers", "experts" and/or "scientists" whose paychecks depend upon the apparent existence of the "issue".
United States energy conservation and independence is a worthy goal that should be supported by Republicans, the Democrat Party, true Democrats, Independents and environmentalists. Energy independence is a major national security concern. However, lying to our people, implementing the cap & trade boondoggle which will crush our economy or doing anything that will cause the United States to transfer an portion of its sovereignty to the United Nations is idiotic. Not in my name!