Global Warming 101
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Here is an undeniable scientific truth: The volume of the water that is produced when ice melts is exactly equal to the volume of the water that the ice displaced, when it was floating. Water expands when it freezes into ice. That is why freezing pipes break. That is why ice floats on top of water.
If every iceberg in the world were to melt, the level of the ocean would not go up by one inch, or by one millimeter. If every iceberg in the world were to melt, the level of the ocean would not go up at all.
There is no land at the North Pole. There is land at the South Pole. The surface area of the oceans is many times as large as the surface of the land which contains ice. If all of the ice that is on land was to melt, this would make almost no difference in the level of the ocean.
Carbon dioxide is to a plant what oxygen is to an animal. More carbon dioxide means that plants grow better and faster. When plants grow better and faster, the total amount of plant matter increases. Increases in the amount of plant matter cause more consumption of carbon dioxide. More consumption of carbon dioxide lowers the level of carbon dioxide.
New ozone is continuously produced, at an incredible rate, by sunlight passing through air. Ozone is continuously decomposing back into oxygen, no matter what man does. The natural production and decomposition of ozone is so large that mankind could not change this balance of nature if he wanted to do so. Halogenated hydrocarbons would be destroyed by contact with ozone, but halogenated hydrocarbons are heavier than air, and do not go up to the ozone layer. Mankind has never produce enough halogenated hydrocarbons to have any effect at all on the total amount of ozone. Ozone fluctuations are results of the cycles of the sun.
These cycles have been occurring since the beginning of Earth. Every species that is still here is one that has been able to adapt and to survive them. The equilibriums of nature are more powerful than anything that man can do. Trying to shift any of the equilibriums of nature would be like trying to make an ocean have two different water levels.
Government uses a lack of understanding of basic science on the part of the public to increase its own power by convincing people that they are in danger, and that they can only be saved by letting the government institute more controls.
In short, nature regulates itself. Government could never regulate nature. But it can regulate people. And when government uses junk science and disinformation as part of its coordinated effort to put us all in a psychic iron cage, THAT is dangerous. We need to dismantle the prison they're building for us.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
I've come to the conclusion that the reason "News for Yahoos" has removed their "discuss" feature is because the "news" they publish is propaganda and they wish to avoid at any cost exposure to any information that might expose their lies. For example, they wish to keep you in the isolated pseudo-intellectual hot-house environment of global warming hysteria. Here's a good example. Yes, it does sound "like a sick joke about global warming, with a series of horrible punch lines." The problem is in the interpretation of the data.
What these people propose is that we must prevent the earth from recovering from its last global catastrophe in order to preserve the "human rights " of the Inuit people. In the first place, mankind didn't cause global warming, and we are powerless to stop it. If "allowed" to continue (as if we have a choice?!) the present trend (IF it continues) may result in temperate zones being extended 750 miles further toward the poles (think food production and habitable land mass) and eventually, if a worldwide mean temperature rise of 4 to 5 degrees Celsius occurs, the earth will eventually acquire a tropical climate without its present (abnormal) climatic extremes. Evidence proves that these conditions existed in the fairly recent past.
We know that rising ocean temperatures cause the release of dissolved CO2 from seawater. We also know that the current warming trend preceded the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels by 800 years, and the sharp increase in human-related CO2 emissions after WWII was followed by a 40 year cooling trend. So it is not clear that human-related CO2 emissions can cause or have caused global warming. The most influential "greenhouse gas" is water vapor, not CO2, and water vapor prevents runaway heating of the earth and its atmosphere by reflecting solar radiation back into space before it can be absorbed by the earth or lower atmosphere.
The current global warming scare by the self-appointed "scientific establishment" (a self-conceited vociferous minority) is a pathetic dog and pony show.
The article gets pretty interesting if you scroll down a little over half-way to just below the heading "According to Orr, Jr:" If you take the time to read it, you're in for a real eye-opener.
So, in terms of "human rights", what is preferable? Eating seal blubber in the Arctic Circle, or raising wheat, corn, farm animals, timber, vegetables and fruit trees 750 miles further toward the poles than is presently possible? This has been done, and not very long ago.
In the past 100 years, it has become possible to grow corn and wheat 500 miles further north than was previously possible. If this trend were reversed, (an ignorant thing to do even if it were possible) the result would be a net loss of huge areas of productive farm land in the northern U.S. and Canada. It's time to expose the global warming hysteria for what it really is: a global power grab by the Neocon corporatist "Church of Satan." They seek the kind of artificial monopolistic price controls that were imposed by de Beers in the diamond market. Same strategy, but with much more sinister implications for "human rights."
Quoting from an article on Lew Rockwell.com:
"We need to put things in perspective. It gives a warm feeling to accept Hollywood’s depiction of global warming and its "noble efforts to save us all from ourselves" – this echoes big brother’s intents exactly. And the Oscars went green! How many of the stars walked or rode the bus or their bicycles instead of taking limos or Hummers? Have a look at their electric bills." (Al Gore's is 20 times that of the average American household.) "It is reminiscent of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who collected the fortunes of educated and affluent people on the belief that material possessions were evil, yet he had fleets of private jets and Rolls Royce cars. How many actors or politicians or academics would be willing to give up their comforts and live in rustic cabins to save the human race? Who in Hollywood is ever concerned with the facts, other than in their own financial and career advancements?
We will never become enlightened and free to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness until we learn to think for ourselves and reject the sensational generalizations of the ruling class. Thomas Jefferson said, "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." Americans of all sects should learn about the logical thought process and the scientific method. It will help in all aspects of life and lead to a real understanding of the world. And then maybe we can pull together and fix the true problems that we face. It is unlikely that our "leaders" will solve these problems; it is their mindset that created them."
The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.
But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings. Furthermore, of the 2000 listed, only about 100 were experts qualified to be "authorities" on the subject matter. If you want to talk "numbers of scientists", there are over 17000 who have signed their names to a petition disclaiming allegiance to the global warming hype and agenda.
Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."
Truth be told, the UN IPCC was nothing but a politicized group encounter session run by a trained "facilitator" using the "Tavistock method" or "Alinsky approach" perfected in Russian and Korean reeducation camps. The "outcome" was determined in advance. This is not planetary or climatic science at all. It is a sinister mutated form of political and behavioral science.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment