They Blinded us with Pseudoscience - The Global Warming Con

by Stefan Fobes

The environmental situation on the planet isn’t really very good. We have the cutting down of much of the Amazon rainforest, the trees of which produce 20% of the world’s oxygen, the rampant use of depleted uranium, which is anything but depleted and is leaving Iraq filled with trillions of microparticles of carcinogenic death sweeping over Iraq, and the Eastern Garbage patch, a mass of plastic in the Pacific covering an area twice the size of Texas. Fish have routinely been found dead with bottle caps and all sorts of other crap in their stomachs. Do we get the mainstream media and the big environmental groups holding their big rallies and beating down the mainstream media and the politicians’ doors about that?

Instead, we get another load of trash — that the source of global warming is human-caused carbon emissions and that the world scientific community is in unanimous agreement about the “fact”.

Chris Landsea, member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, resigned, issuing an open letter stating:

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

He further elaborates:

“It is certainly true that “individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights”, as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR.”

Add to the list of “crazies” John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel…

“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.”

Tim Patterson, a paleoclimatologist and professor at Canada’s Carleton University, disagrees as well, asserting the science used to establish the Kyoto Protocol (the UN treaty which requires most countries to reduce greenhouse gases) is false.

“My own research shows that, on all time scales, there is a very good correlation between the Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena, such as changes in the brightness of the sun. The fact that the sun is now brighter than it has been in 8,000 years should have a major impact on climate.”

People have been basted in conditioning to react by the media for decades to be afraid of a perfectly natural protective mechanism of this planet. If it weren’t for greenhouse gases this planet would be a flying Popsicle out in space. The function of a greenhouse is to keep the heat from escaping. That’s why they call it that. Patterson also puts forth:

“Greenhouse gases are natural and have been an integral part of the biosphere since life appeared on the planet,” he says. “The earth’s temperature would be –18 degrees Celsius if we got rid of greenhouse gases.”

It is a basic scientific fact that about 90% of greenhouse gas is water. Carbon dioxide amounts to just a mediocre 10%.

There are literally dozens, thousands of scientists just like the three just quoted. And they’re not alone. Not by far. More comprehensive lists with accompanying info can be found here, here, and here

We are told that global warming will cause massive hurricanes, and Hurricane Katrina is often cited as an example. Which is an absurd twisting of the facts. Even the puppet mainstream media outlets like CNN and others have reported the fact that it was the levees breaking, and the ensuing flooding that resulted, that caused the massive damage to New Orleans. 2006’s hurricane season was supposed to be the worst in history. Gigantic hurricanes that would lick towns and cities like ice cream cones were going to rampage across America. Nothing happened. The doomsday crowd has nothing to say about this. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, (OISM) a human life and health research institute, put out a paper that brings to light some interesting points. One is that since about the early 1940s, the consumption of gas, coal and oil started to sharply increase, and continues to do so even now. At the same time, there was a downward cooling trend of global temperature, which in the 1970s, became known as the new ice age. A world disaster had arrived! Melting the arctic ice cap was proposed, as well as (haha) covering the ice cap with black soot. There were songs, news articles, a BBC documentary, and books written about it. Then temperatures went back up, and everyone lived happily ever after. Till now. Commenting on the bold assertation that an increased presence of atmospheric CO2 causes more hurricanes, William Gray, a research fellow at Washington think tank The Independent Institute, answers:

“The hypothesis that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the number of hurricanes fails by an even wider margin when we compare two other multi-decade periods: 1925-1965 and 1966-2006. In the 41 years from 1925-1965, there were 39 U.S. land-falling major hurricanes. In the 1966-2006 period there were 22 such storms—only 56% as many. Even though global mean temperatures have risen by an estimated 0.4 Celsius and CO2 by 20%, the number of major hurricanes hitting the U.S. declined.”

A report by the National Weather Service echoes this observation. In the Jackson, Missouri area, over the past 90 years, the number of tornadoes classified as killer went steadily down from 31 in the 1916-1925 period to 4 in the 1996-2005 period. The report concludes:

“One thing that seems clear from this data is that in spite of some notable tornado events in the last decade (November 24, 2001 outbreak; Hurricane Rita outbreak; Veteran’s Day 2002 outbreak; Brandon, MS tornadoes), this time period has been notably unremarkable with regard to strong/violent tornadoes and associated casualties across central Mississippi, northeast Louisiana, and southeast Arkansas, at least in comparison to “normal.”

But what about those sweet cuddly polar bears?? Aren’t they gonna cook to death? I saw that picture of them stranded on that itty bitty ice sheet, didn’t I?

Polar bear biologist for the government of Canadian province Nunavut Mitch Taylor, says:

“No evidence exists that suggests that both [polar] bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new conditions. Polar bears have persisted through many similar climate cycles.”

So they won’t bubble, boil, and brew?

“Our activities are not driving the bears to the brink of disaster. So curtailing our activities cannot prevent them from tumbling over an ecological precipice they are not teetering on in the first place.

There are 20 significant populations of polar bears around the top of the globe. Of the 13 in Canada, 11 are either stable or increasing in size. “They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,”

A picture is a picture. You can add just about any caption or commentary that you want to it. As long as the great majority of people continue believe anything they are told in the papers and TV, more often than not backed up with nothing more than pure repetition than actual sourcing and facts, i.e., SARS, bird flu, Caveman Bin Laden orchestrated 9/11, etc., the controllers can get away with pretty much anything they want.

Global warming sees polar bears stranded on melted ice, is the big boo used in this UK Daily Mail article. The photo was credited to EnviroZine, when it was actually a University of Alaska Fairbanks student, Amanda Byrd, as part of a university field trip. As she put it:

‘the image you have seen around the world was distributed without my consent, and [with] the wrong byline’.

And the real caption is?

Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves. photo © Amanda Byrd.

The picture was also taken during the summer, when the Arctic gets warmer and the sea ice breaks up during those months. The bears were anything but stranded. Polar bears are very good swimmers, and easily can do a 100 mile journey between ice blocks. The article even admits this. The spin is that as global warming continues the bears will have to swim longer distances to swim from ice chunk to ice chunk. But even if you believe that article, this disintegrates in light of the fact that arctic temperatures have been much warmer at several points in the past, as highlighted in a study by Dr. David Legates, climatologist and director of the University of Delaware’s Center for Climatic Research:

“Polar Bear Populations. Warming theory proponents also argue that a warmer Arctic with less sea ice poses a significant risk to polar bear populations (and other indigenous species). Indeed, the Arctic Assessment concluded “global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them.” This is misleading because, as discussed above, Arctic air temperatures in the 1930s were as high as present temperatures and Arctic air temperatures prior to the Little Ice Age were higher than present temperatures, yet polar bears survived.”

Exactly. During the Medieval Warm Period of 800-1300, temperatures in the Arctic region were much warmer than they were today, and nothing happened then, so where’s the evidence now that anything will? The Earth gets its energy from the sun. When the sunlight disappears, we have night, and it gets cold. The opposite happens during the day. And at the same time we are expected to believe that the sun having any effect on matters of climate makes no sense. Checking out this NASA Goddard Space Flight Institute report shows us just how negligible the sun really is!

“Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and other researchers have used a computer model to reconstruct climate and atmospheric conditions from the present back to the Little Ice Age.

They determined that a dimmer Sun reduced the model’s westerly winds, cooling the continents during wintertime. Shindell’s model shows large regional climate changes, unlike other climate models that show relatively small temperature changes on an overall global scale. Other models did not assess regional changes.

During the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, from 1645 to 1715, there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the Sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity. Known as the Maunder Minimum, astronomers of the time observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period as opposed to a more typical 40-50,000 spots.”

The sun is a massive electromagnetic broadcaster which floods the planets of the solar system with heat, light, UV radiation, and electrically charged particles. This is why other planets in the solar system, like Mars, Neptune, and Pluto are also warming up. But we see no reason for the sun to be able to do that!, mainstream science says. Every 11 years, the sun cycles between the solar maximum, where there are increased numbers of sunspots and solar flares, and the solar minimum, where there are lesser numbers of these. They can adversely affect satellite communications, shortwave transmissions, and power grids. (at times causing blackouts) It’s not the sun, huh? Well what’s causing it then, super secret Shell gas stations on Mercury? Yeah, right.

If global warming is real, then why the snow in Iraq? Why is it that states in the US are having their worst winters ever? Why is it that China had that big blizzard in January which shut down several of their cities? Why is it that Al Gore and his celeb pals tell us to ride bicycles and yet refuse to stop flying around on private jets? Why is it that if the undisputable fact that global warming is human caused so self-evident, all the major proponents of the theory refuse to debate the subject in public?

This, and other world events, such as the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, the awful treatment of Hurricane Katrina survivors, the sudden simultaneous influx of immigrants in Australia, America and European countries, genetically modified food desperately being pushed all over, electromagnetic pollution through cell towers, and the mad scramble to vaccinate kids despite the proven health dangers seems, to the unaided eye, just a confusing combo of government incompetence and corporate greed. Put under the microscope, however, when you see the same programs and policies being put into place worldwide, such as the EU and its mirrors, the African, and fast approaching North American Union, the national ID cards repeatedly being pushed, congestion pricing and the “we don’t care what you want, this is how it’s gonna be” attitude of government leaders and officials to the rejection of these actions by the peoples of the respective countries, you see that the world “leaders” are just pawns marching to the beat of something much bigger than they are. The New World Order. A plan to take over the world and create a world government is real. David Rockefeller, the commander of death himself, said in his own autobiography Memoirs on p. 405:

“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Proud of it, huh? Well I sure was proud writing this. Pass this across the web. I’m sure David’ll love you for it.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming - HUMAN EVENTS