Global Warming hoax
Up ] Einstein-conspiracy ] [ Global Warming hoax ] Scalar energy ] Universal Seduction ] Morgan / Bearden ] Scientific Dictatorship ] Bright skies ] Free energy ] Geo science ] The weather ] Suppressed archaeology ] Young world ] Origins of oil ] True geology ] Education ]

 

Home

CONSPIRACY  
www.conspiracee.com 

Health v medicine  
www.cellsalts.net

Science 

The GW agenda 

Einstein-conspiracy 

Free energy  

Scientific dictatorship  

Scalar energy  

What is scalar electromagnetics? 

12 things about about scalar weapons  

Brave new world of scalar electromagnetics 

Universal Seduction extracts 
Pine Gap 

Dr John Coleman on GW 

Hurricane Andrew  

Forbidden Archaeology  

The vanishing case for evolution 

Geo science 

Origins of oil 
The fake oil crisis 
Oil con job 
Nuclear energy myths 

True geology 

Education

 

Hidden technology 
Hollow earth theory 

The truth about hemp 
UFOs  
Chemtrails
 
Ether - scalar technology 
Radionics 
Time travel 
Crop circles  
Mars & moon  
Breatharianism 
Coverups uncovered 

 

 

 

Hidden technology 
Hollow earth theory 

The truth about hemp 
UFOs  
Chemtrails
 
Ether - scalar technology 
Radionics 
Time travel 
Crop circles  
Mars & moon  
Breatharianism 
Coverups uncovered 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Einstein-conspiracy ] [ Global Warming hoax ] Scalar energy ] Universal Seduction ] Morgan / Bearden ] Scientific Dictatorship ] Bright skies ] Free energy ] Geo science ] The weather ] Suppressed archaeology ] Young world ] Origins of oil ] True geology ] Education ]

 

 

The Global Warming Agenda

By Steven Prahin

This article came from 'Innerself' - your wholistic community guide in Australia - free Oct-Dec 2011 p.32, website www.innerself.com.au 

[Steven runs seminars and speaks on many topics, mainly on his research on health and investigating world events in relation to the New World Order.]

Like I always say "everything is a conspiracy". So you may ask me, "what do you mean"> everything is a conspiracy?" Well, whatever is being promoted in the media "propaganda Machine" you have to always ask, what is being said? What are they really trying to promote? Is there a hidden agenda?

There is an esoteric and exoteric meaning to everything that comes out today. These two words simply mean that for everything that is presented, there is a dual meaning. One for the inner circle (people in secret societies, Jesuits etc) and one for the outer circle (common people that they wish to deceive). For example, Albert Mackie, 33 degree freemason, writes in what is considered the bible of freemasonry, Morals and Dogma, that for the human masses, we give them Roman Catholicism which is just pagan worship with a Christian veneer. Just to give the outsiders, the human herds, the cattle, the catechumen, the goyim, something to do with their time.

But hidden in the symbology is the real meaning or hidden meaning behind Roman Catholicism which is Luciferism. The insiders know this and believe Lucifer is the light-bringer while the rest (outsiders) worship him without even knowing it.

Something that is being promoted globally to the masses and has been building for some time is "global warming". But not everyone knows the history and what the real meaning is behind what is being promoted. Many years back, before the new world order media industry even existed, a documentary came out called Secrets of Ironhorse Mountain. It detailed how in the early 60s the US government along with the globalist elite aka Jesuits gathered all the leading people they could find from various fields like engineers, scientists, military etc to see how they could muster all the people behind a common goal. The same way they use wartime to get the people to rally behind their nation. As the Jesuits' globocop, the US and NATO have stationed themselves just about everywhere on the planet and military bases. They foresaw there would be little chance of any nation rising up against their dominating power. This super intelligent group of people came up with the idea to make the environment an issue. They said that at first, they would have to get the people to increase the amount of pollution and get industrialization going full steam ahead. In the 60s, cars with bigger and bigger engines came out and larger scale industries started to pollute like never before. The petrochemical industry created everything we touch and use on a daily basis, mostly plastic. The people indulged in consumerism as we became a throw-away society. Once they got it to a level they could work with, they would then start to get the people concerned with the environment and the state of the planet. They would get the people to start thinking they could save the planet and start up different movements like political movements, the greens etc. They would get the masses to start recycling and separating their glass, paper and rubbish. They would get us to change the light globes in the house and get us concerned with efficiency and power-saving alternatives. They would start to bring out fuel-efficient cars and force people into little cars by increasing the price for fossil fuels.

You may have thought this is the good in humanity. Getting together for a common cause. Globally moving together as one in something that should concern us all. Just to set the record straight, there are many aspects to this movement that I agree with and any normal person should agree that it is a good thing that we have cars that pollute less, that we recycle more and consume less, that we stop cutting down trees and plant new ones. I'm all for that . But what you have to understand is that the globalist elite don't have the good of the planet at heart. They are not concerned with your welfare or that of future generations. For the most part, if there is such a thing as global warming, they create it with their chemtrails and HAARP technology. For example, there are water-powered cars that run on hydrogen amongst other methods. If the engineers and inventors of free energy devices ever try to bring out their technology into the mainstream, they are either bought out by new world order companies and the patent for their technology is put on a shelf or if the innovators persist to make their technology widely available, they will be executed. The high priest of global warming, Al Gore said that if we don't do something soon, we would all perish, but his home consumes 20 times the energy of an average American home.

The globalist elite want to create a worldwide depression and they are using climate change as one of the tools to cripple nations. Many large business owners already believe the coming carbon tax is having a real impact on the Australian economy. Foreign investment in many companies in Australia has been at a 15 year low. But recently foreign investors are being frightened away by the political climate and the constant change of mind of government, especially around carbon, Rob Sindl from CSR said that the carbon tax achieves little or nothing. It is not high enough to quickly change power stations from coal and says 15% of his [the] total cost of Australia's largest building supplies company (Monier tiles, Pilkington glass) is electricity. He says he does not need a higher electricity price (carbon tax) to convince him to save electricity. If he could innovate 0 and the government seems to think this will be the result of the carbon tax 0 he would have done so already. His grave fear (as for most manufacturers) is not that the carbon tax will kill his local manufacturing tomorrow. Rather, he knows he will have to compete against imports from countries that may burn Australian coal with no carbon tax and other advantages including the high Australian dollar; cheap labour and heavily government0subsidised operations. In the future, carbon tax or not, Australians will consume more bricks, tiles and glass. The question is whether they will be made here or off shore where carbon dioxide will also be emitted. Charlie Aitken, MD of investment firm Bell Potter says the carbon tax or a disguised resources tax will simply increase the cost of our commodities exports. This effectively undermines our global competitive advantage. But more particularly, our export of low cost fossil fuels which remain in high demand by developing countries. In simple terms, the government is favouring competing resource exporters in countries with no carbon tax and penalizing Australia as a carbon economy. As a result the carbon tax is exporting our commodity revenues, jobs and emissions off shore. (Money magazine, August 2011).

Eventually the carbon tax will reach into every aspect of every person's life on the planet You may believe you are getting a rebate on your solar hot water or solar system and even rain water tank, but you are going into a database and the government will require you to put a meter on your rain water tank, even a meter on the water you pump out of your dam (that is what is already happening). You won't be able to burn firewood without being branded a criminal. The Pope recently said that those who are not interested in saving the planet are going to hell. It has become more than a crime, but a moral issue.

 

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia

Media Release  9th of December 2009

Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 03 9354 0544 Fax: 03 9354 0166
Email: cec@cecaust.com.au
Website: http://www.cecaust.com.au
 

Isherwood Webcast, 10th December, 7pm (AEDT), www.cecaust.com.au

Isherwood: Reject green fascism—go with LaRouche solution

The fascist face of the “green” movement was displayed yesterday, when U.S. President Barack Obama sidestepped the democratic checks and balances of the U.S. Congress, to have his Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson declare carbon dioxide a threat to “the public health and welfare of current and future generations”.

The EPA declaration empowers Obama to mandate CO2 cuts in the economy, without a law from Congress; otherwise, like Kevin Rudd, Obama was going to Hans Christian Andersen’s hometown of Copenhagen as the emperor with no clothes.

To appreciate the ridiculous insanity of the EPA’s declaration, consider the history of CO2:
CO2 levels were up to 7,000 parts per million (ppm) during the Cambrian Period some 530 million ago. Known as the “Cambrian explosion” this was the period when most major groups of complex life evolved.
A great Ice Age gripped the Earth some 450 million years ago, late in the Ordovician Period, causing mass extinction. At this time the CO2 concentration was 4,400 ppm—nearly twelve times higher than the current average concentration of 387 ppm. According to the global warming theory, the Earth should have been exceedingly hot.
During the Carboniferous Period, some 300 million years ago, CO2 concentration declined to about 350 ppm—similar to the current concentration.
During the Jurassic Period, some 170 million years ago, CO2 concentration rose to 2,400 ppm and the dinosaurs survived just fine.
The atmosphere is now CO2 impoverished as it was during the Carboniferous Period. Higher concentrations will only help life flourish.

Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood today contrasted the dictatorial lengths to which the green fascists are prepared to go to impose their deindustrialisation agenda to kill people, with Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal for a Four Powers agreement between the U.S., Russia, China and India to replace the collapsing monetarist system of globalisation with a new credit system, to reindustrialise the world economy, and raise the living standards of the world’s growing population:

“Humanity is at a crossroads, but only one direction—the LaRouche plan—leads to a future,” he said.

“Under Kevin Rudd, we are being condemned to the same green fascism, but for Australia to survive the world economic breakdown crisis, we must go with LaRouche’s plan.”

The CEC National Secretary urged all Australians to tune in to his 10th December National Webcast address, Australia’s Mission in the Shift to a Pacific-Centred World, where he’ll lay out the future options with which Australia is confronted, and the specific choices we as a nation must make to guarantee future prosperity.

For more information on Craig’s webcast, click here.

To discover the real causes of natural climate change, click here to receive a free copy of our “Free Energy” pack.

 

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=64734#

Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

 

Save the Environment From School Dunce Al Gore
By Judi McLeod
Thursday, August 9, 2007
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover080907.htm

If Al Gore were in Professor Tim Ball's classroom, he wouldn't be bringing his Report Card home.

Gore's Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth will return to class when youngsters return to school next month.

"They are showing his film in schools when I would give it an "F" even as a Grade X assignment," says climatologist Ball.

Gore needs a lot of work on the subject of man-made Global Warming, but his biggest boo-boo comes from his well-publicized definition of C02.

 "Gore says C02 is the most important greenhouse gas. This is wrong for two reasons," says Dr. Ball. "First, C02 is nowhere near the most important greenhouse gas from a climate perspective. C02 is less than 4% of the greenhouses gases. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume.

"Second, C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet. This point alone is egregious enough to reject the entire movie and Gore's message."

That's the error of Algore's ways on the C02 debate. On the subject of Ice Core Record, he gets a fat zero.

According to Professor Ball, he uses the ice core record in a grossly distorted way, "but especially because he fails to note what almost all agree on and that is temperatures change before the C02, not as assumed in the climate models.

"He points at melting glaciers as proof of warming, particularly Kilimanjaro. Antarctica and Greenland show increases in volume not decreases. Why? Because glaciers are as much about precipitation as they are of temperature. We only monitor 10% of the world's glaciers and half are advancing and half retreating.

"Kilimanjaro is retreating because of a drought in the area. This is aggravated by dust blown from nearby cleared areas making the ice dirty and thus more prone to absorbing sunlight, Weather stations around the mountains show no evidence of warming."

When it comes to using our four-legged friends to make global warming points, Gore copied Greenpeace at Exam time.

"Polar bears are not endangered," says Ball. "In fact they have shown significant increase in numbers. Gore uses polar bears because they are part of the anthropomorphizing of animals with big eyes and cute, cuddly young."

In the animal world, the errant student has it all wrong.

"That's because he has the number of extinctions completely wrong. It's estimated we have only identified about 35% of the plants and animals. Far more are found every year than go extinct,"

For the record, Gore's predictions of sea level rise are in total disagreement with his favourite authority, the IPCC.

"While he projects increasing rates of temperature increase, the IPCC reports have lowered their estimate in each successive report. The latest are so low that even the media noticed."

Sadly, there are even more glaring errors in Gore's global warming lessons.

Global warming alarmist propaganda has reached S.E. Hendriksen all the way in "my little settlement of Kangerlussuaq (Sondre Stromfjord, Bluei 8, a former U.S. Airbase), who wrote to Canada Free Press (CFP) that he'd like to see the Ilulissat Glacier scrapped as a political object to justify man-made global warming caused by C02.

"If Danish King Christian X had invited American President Abraham Lincoln to Ilulissat to see the glacier in 1864, he would have been seeing what all other guests at the invitation of Danish politicians had seen--a glacier running backwards since 1738," Hendriksen wrote CFP.

"But I'm an ordinary man, weather observer at the Danish Meteorological Institute, DMI. No one would listen to what I have to say about global climate change."

Meanwhile, Gore flunked global warming class, but with his new slicked-back hairdo, looked cool at the prom.

Al Gore's head in wrong kind of clouds

Made-in-China massive air pollution ignored by global warming gurus Al Gore & Maurice Strong

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck and The Rant. Judi can be reached at: judi@canadafreepress.com

--

Regards

Bonzo

"[The] 70-90 year oscillations in global mean temperatures [correlate] with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human [influence] are not distinguishable in the observations."
Dr. K. Lassen, Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division

 

Climate chaos? Don't believe it

1 of 2 Images
 
Biblical droughts, floods, plagues and extinctions?

Download Christopher Monckton's references and detailed calculations [pdf]

The Stern report last week predicted dire economic and social effects of unchecked global warming. In what many will see as a highly controversial polemic, Christopher Monckton disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth

 

Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government". This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science.

Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, which was published last week, says that the debate is over. It isn't. There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the world should warm a bit, but that's as far as the "consensus" goes. After the recent hysteria, you may not find the truth easy to believe. So you can find all my references and detailed calculations here.

The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon.

In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.

This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.

Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.

So to the scare. First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:

• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

• The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".

• They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".

 

The large, full-colour "hockey-stick" was the key graph in the UN's 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times. The Canadian Government copied it to every household. Four years passed before a leading scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or the Canadian government apologise? Of course not. The UN still uses the graph in its publications.

Even after the "hockey stick" graph was exposed, scientific papers apparently confirming its abolition of the medieval warm period appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was meretricious, and that known associates of the scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its conclusion.

The UN, echoed by Stern, says the graph isn't important. It is. Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.

In some places it was also warmer than now in the Bronze Age and in Roman times. It wasn't CO2 that caused those warm periods. It was the sun. So the UN adjusted the maths and all but extinguished the sun's role in today's warming. Here's how:

• The UN dated its list of "forcings" (influences on temperature) from 1750, when the sun, and consequently air temperature, was almost as warm as now. But its start-date for the increase in world temperature was 1900, when the sun, and temperature, were much cooler.

• Every "forcing" produces "climate feedbacks" making temperature rise faster. For instance, as temperature rises in response to a forcing, the air carries more water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas; and polar ice melts, increasing heat absorption. Up goes the temperature again. The UN more than doubled the base forcings from greenhouse gases to allow for climate feedbacks. It didn't do the same for the base solar forcing.

Two centuries ago, the astronomer William Herschel was reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations when he noticed that quoted grain prices fell when the number of sunspots rose. Gales of laughter ensued, but he was right. At solar maxima, when the sun was at its hottest and sunspots showed, temperature was warmer, grain grew faster and prices fell. Such observations show that even small solar changes affect climate detectably. But recent solar changes have been big.

Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks.

The UN expresses its heat-energy forcings in watts per square metre per second. It estimates that the sun caused just 0.3 watts of forcing since 1750. Begin in 1900 to match the temperature start-date, and the base solar forcing more than doubles to 0.7 watts. Multiply by 2.7, which the Royal Society suggests is the UN's current factor for climate feedbacks, and you get 1.9 watts – more than six times the UN's figure.

The entire 20th-century warming from all sources was below 2 watts. The sun could have caused just about all of it.

Next, the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent from 33C in the climate-physics textbooks to 20C, making the man-made additions appear bigger.

Then the UN chose the biggest 20th-century temperature increase it could find. Stern says: "As anticipated by scientists, global mean surface temperatures have risen over the past century." As anticipated? Only 30 years ago, scientists were anticipating a new Ice Age and writing books called The Cooling.

In the US, where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere, 20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C. AccuWeather, a worldwide meteorological service, reckons world temperature rose by 0.45C. The US National Climate Data Centre says 0.5C. Any advance on 0.5? The UN went for 0.6C, probably distorted by urban growth near many of the world's fast-disappearing temperature stations.

The number of temperature stations round the world peaked at 6,000 in 1970. It's fallen by two-thirds to 2,000 now: a real "hockey-stick" curve, and an instance of the UN's growing reliance on computer guesswork rather than facts.

Even a 0.6C temperature rise wasn't enough. So the UN repealed a fundamental physical law. Buried in a sub-chapter in its 2001 report is a short but revealing section discussing "lambda": the crucial factor converting forcings to temperature. The UN said its climate models had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per watt of forcing.

You don't need computer models to "find" lambda. Its value is given by a century-old law, derived experimentally by a Slovenian professor and proved by his Austrian student (who later committed suicide when his scientific compatriots refused to believe in atoms). The Stefan-Boltzmann law, not mentioned once in the UN's 2001 report, is as central to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein's later equation is to astrophysics. Like Einstein's, it relates energy to the square of the speed of light, but by reference to temperature rather than mass.

The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN's scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it now puts lambda at 0.8C: that's 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most of the UN's computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C.

On the UN's figures, the entire greenhouse-gas forcing in the 20th century was 2 watts. Multiplying by the correct value of lambda gives a temperature increase of 0.44 to 0.6C, in line with observation. But using Stern's 1.9C per watt gives 3.8C. Where did 85 per cent of his imagined 20th-century warming go? As Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT pointed out in The Sunday Telegraph last week, the UK's Hadley Centre had the same problem, and solved it by dividing its modelled output by three to "predict" 20th-century temperature correctly.

A spate of recent scientific papers, gearing up for the UN's fourth report next year, gives a different reason for the failure of reality to keep up with prediction. The oceans, we're now told, are acting as a giant heat-sink. In these papers the well-known, central flaw (not mentioned by Stern) is that the computer models' "predictions" of past ocean temperature changes only approach reality if they are averaged over a depth of at least a mile and a quarter.

Deep-ocean temperature hasn't changed at all, it's barely above freezing. The models tend to over-predict the warming of the climate-relevant surface layer up to threefold. A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years. The computers didn't predict this. Sea level is scarcely rising faster today than a century ago: an inch every 15 years. Hansen now says that the oceanic "flywheel effect" gives us extra time to act, so Stern's alarmism is misplaced.

Finally, the UN's predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne carbon dioxide. The true rate is 0.38 per cent year on year since records began in 1958. The models assume 1 per cent per annum, more than two and a half times too high. In 2001, the UN used these and other adjustments to predict a 21st-century temperature increase of 1.5 to 6C. Stern suggests up to 10C.

Dick Lindzen emailed me last week to say that constant repetition of wrong numbers doesn't make them right. Removing the UN's solecisms, and using reasonable data and assumptions, a simple global model shows that temperature will rise by just 0.1 to 1.4C in the coming century, with a best estimate of 0.6C, well within the medieval temperature range and only a fifth of the UN's new, central projection.

Why haven't air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN's models predicted? Because the science is bad, the "consensus" is wrong, and Herr Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, FRS, was as right about energy-to-temperature as he was about atoms.

 

Global Warming or Global Governance? (DVD) 
http://superstore.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2145


The Truth About Global Warming
What you don't hear in the media!

The debate is still raging within the scientific community. Sovereignty International has put together interviews of climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance.

Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters as they discuss how global governance puts global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of our economy. The U.S. government is very close to making this a reality. Very close. Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story.

NOTE: Purchasing "Global Warming or Global Governance?" from WND's online store also qualifies you to receive three FREE issues of WND's acclaimed monthly print magazine, Whistleblower. Watch for the FREE offer during checkout.

 

 

 

"HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming"
March 2007 
http://superstore.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2043&RELATED_ITEM_ID=2145

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.