Tuesday, 22 December 2015

Polar ice caps - (Not so) endangered Polar Bears and political environmentalists

Section One 


  1. The Ice Caps - are they melting? 
  2. Al Gore predicts in 2009 the Polar Ice Caps will be gone by 2013
  3. The Ocean temperatures are a natural cycle and the part played by El Nino in the temperature rise in 2012/3
  4. Global Cooling?

Section Two


  1. The Polar Bears - Are They going Extinct? 
  2. Contrary to predictions the numbers are up.
  3. The propaganda campaign - power of the media 


Section three 


  1. The Worship of nature - the (not so) new, religion
  2. Who benefits? 
  3. Whats the real agenda? 




  1. The Ice Caps - are they melting? 

Can you imagine what would happen to the world as we know it should these vast areas of ice melt? 


Climate Alarmists have been telling us  that the earth's atmosphere has been heating up because of an increase in Greenhouse gases. This increase is due to mankind's use of fossil fuels and because we are pouring CO2 into the atmosphere this has caused an unprecedented rise in the earth's temperature. 

  1. This week we look at the predictions alarmists make about the melting ice caps and consequent flooding of our coastal cities. 
  2. Also because the melting glaciers and ice sheets are the natural homeland of the Polar Bear we are going to have a look at the predictions made about this creature's  population dying out because Global warming has destroyed their natural homeland. 


2. Al Gore predicts in 2009 the Polar Ice Caps will be gone by 2013

December 7 - 18, 2009 

Former Vice President Al Gore references computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap may lose virtually all of its ice within the next seven years. "Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," says Gore.

More from this conference:

COP15: CLIMATE SUMMIT IN COPENHAGEN

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average.

The updated data contradicts one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

Official NASA video claiming the arctic sea ice will all be gone by 2012 !


Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years Posted on 




Earth Observatory Nasa


Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models.

“It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”

The winter ice around the southern continent has been growing relatively constantly since records began in 1979. The US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), which monitors sea ice using satellite data, said this week that the year’s maximum was 1.54m sq km (595,000 sq miles) above the 1981-2010 average. The past three winters have all produced record levels of ice.
The Guardian

The Melting of the ice caps at the end of the 1970's 

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend.

As was pointed out in my previous post, this cooling trend can be related to . . .


Ocean Temperature Cycles
The global temperature trends have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

A cooling trend had begun in the mid 1940's and the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post -1979 polar ice extent. The cooling trend ended during the 1970's just in time for Alarmists to show 'evidence' of extensive melting in the polar regions.

But this trend began to ease round about 2000 and now updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements assisted by the presence of the El Niño  . (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

What exactly is "El Niño"?

3. The Ocean temperatures are a natural cycle and the part played by El Nino in the temperature rise in 2012/3


National Ocean Service

El Niño and La Niña

El Niño, warmer than average waters in the Eastern equatorial Pacific (shown in orange on the map), affects weather around the world.

The warming trend was increased in 2005 by a regular patter of sea rise temperature in the Pacific ocean called El Niño. It is not hard to figure out that a global rise in sea temperature coupled with the El Niño would raise the climate temperature and polar caps would naturally melt to some extent during this time.

El Niño is an irregularly periodical climate change caused by variations in sea surface temperatures over the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean, affecting much of the tropics and subtropics. The warming phase is known as El Niño and the cooling phase as La Niña.

The two variations are coupled: El Niño is accompanied with high, and La Niña with low air surface pressure in the tropical western Pacific.The two periods last several years each (typically three to four) and their effects vary in intensity.

In Spanish, the capitalized term "El Niño" refers to the Christ child, so named because the pool of warm water in the Pacific near South America is often at its warmest around Christmas.

 "La Niña", chosen as the 'opposite' of El Niño, literally translates to "the girl child".

The point is that El Niño is a perfectly normal cyclical event and just as was demonstrated with the rise and fall of ocean temperatures together they can create a warmer climate, for a period of time, which then ends and the climate becomes cooler again, this is demonstrably a cyclical phenomenon and explains why the earth is now going through a cooler phase at present. 



We see this being reported in recent headlines: 

4. And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

There are now 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012!

BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.
 Dailymail.co.uk

Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html#ixzz2eHTdAqgy

Section Two


1. The Polar Bears - Are they going Extinct ? . . . 

Here's the Official point of view. . . from where else but National Geographic
Most Polar Bears Gone by 2050, Studies say 

The Polar Bears are going extinct because of me and you . . . we have killed them!

This is really the bottom line to the Climate Alarmists who have allied themselves with the Environmentalist movement who together have taken upon themselves the task of saving the planet from . . . us.


If you or I say anything to the contrary then what does that make us?


Cruel callous denialists who would stand idly by and watch the Polar Bears go extinct whilst selfishly pumping our carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The whole issue is so fraught with emotion that an open and honest discussion is impossible without tempers flaring.

Interestingly enough when one does a search for the 'official' viewpoint on the plight of the endangered Polar Bear one gets very conflicting answers . . .

2. Contrary to Predictions, the numbers are up.

for example at this site Polar Bear Science 

This article discusses the investigation by a journalist  Christina Wu into whether Polar Bears are endangered or not.

It's a Pretty Straightforward Question:


Directed to the experts from ICUN Polar Bear Specialist group (PBSG) biologists.
She included in her question a report that Polar Bear numbers must have overall been increasing since 1970.

If this is so then what is the big problem?


The conclusion at the end of the article was this:


So, are polar bears really threatened with extinction? All the evidence says they are not in any trouble right now: the classification of polar bears as ‘threatened with extinction’ is based completely on predictions made by computer models about what might happen by 2050. However, the results of recent polar bear research have disproved, or called into question, many of the assumptions used to make those models work. That leads me to conclude that polar bears are not endangered.

Or what about this article from The Canadian Geographic Magazine 

It is a simple question lets repeat it
Are Polar Bears really an endangered species?

In an article called 'The Truth About Polar Bears' by Zac Unger
He starts by stating . . .
"Depending on whom you ask, the North’s sentinel species is either on the edge of extinction or an environmental success story. An in-depth look at the complicated, contradictory and controversial science behind the sound bites."

Well what the heck. . . it's not a difficult question, are they dying out or not?

The article Talks about a place in Canada On the western shore of Hudson Bay, and it states

"it’s sometimes hard to remember that polar bears are supposed to be going extinct. Every fall, hundreds of bears gather near Churchill, Man., waiting for the bay to freeze so that they can head out onto the ice to hunt for seals."

Ok so what now? is the ice melting? are the Bears unable to go and hunt? and . . .  are they starving?

The article continues. . . "The population numbers have been startling. Research from 1984 to 2004 showed that the western Hudson Bay population, which includes the Churchill bears, had declined from 1,194 to 935. The trendlines from that study suggested that by 2011, the population would fall to as low as 676.

Fast-forward to today and a new study, which reveals that the current polar bear population of western Hudson Bay is 1,013 animals.

Wait … what? More bears than there were 10 years ago? Nearly double the prediction? “Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world,” says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. “There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.”
“That’s false,” says Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, the international advocacy organization that, in 2008, successfully pushed to have polar bears listed as “threatened” in the United States. “Polar bear populations are in decline. That means individual bears are starving and drowning.”

Well thats two "polarised" viewpoints
The increase in Polar Bear Population is a fact, so how do the Alarmists get around this obstacle?
The article continues :  "a deep dive into the current science behind polar bear population dynamics produces results that are complicated, contradictory and often quite controversial. For the segment of the media that traffics in sound bites, it’s easy to declare that polar bears are on the verge of extinction … or that this is just another example of the climate-change myth. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between."

The article then describes the difficulty of tracking Polar Bears and keeping accurate counts, it then goes on to describe the possible dangers for the Polar bears. . . in the future. . .

Just keep in mind that previous forecasts of doom just haven't materialised so how much faith can we have in the doomsday predictions for the future?
I must quote my favourite writer (usually discussing art) Robert Hughes who says in "The Shock of the New" . . ."Nothing dates faster than our expectations of the future."

This is certainly proving true with regard to Climate Alarmists predictions about global warming. So I guess the Polar Bear might go extinct by 2050 but the truth is that this is all just speculation and is certainly not backed up by current Science.

Keep also in mind that Polar Bears do die and have done so throughout history, which is a pretty obvious thing to say but you see nowadays if a Polar bear dies in the Arctic it would appear that this is due to Global warming, no other explanation is even considered!

Never mind the life cycle of Polar bears who live and die like any other animals and sometimes they get sick and old and are too weak to hunt, or they get injured or killed in Arctic storms. No! the reason is given the poor fellow starving because the ice is melting and his natural food source of seals have gone because he can't reach them any more without the ice to walk on. . . and so on
Here's a typical example. . .

Dead Polar Bears -  don't jump to conclusions

According to a recent report by Human Events, special investigators from the US government's Interior Department (ID) have found that a scientific paper published in a 2006 issue of the journal Polar Biology is filled with baseless assumptions about four specific polar bear deaths -- and this eventually became the foundational argument for the fight against global warming. But in reality, the deaths may have had nothing to do with melting ice caps, and everything to do with a simple windstorm. 

In the light of poor predictions and contradictory reports the Alarmists have to fall back on propaganda 


But look at how the Polar Bear is used as an emotional hook to solicit a sympathetic response. . .

3. The Propaganda Campaign - power of the media


It brings to mind the "planet Stupid" advert

Plane Stupid's campaign, developed by the ad agency "Mother", aims to show the impact that global warming is having on polar ice caps.

The group is aiming to point out that even short flights to the continent have a major impact on carbon emissions. Planet Stupid says that the ad was inspired by the fact that an average European flight produces 400kg of carbon, which it claims is the same weight as an average female polar bear.

"We wanted to confront people with the impact that short-haul flights have on the climate," said Robert Saville, a director at Mother. "We used polar bears because they are a well understood symbol of the effect that climate change is having on the natural world."
theguardian.com

The name of the Ad Agency is "Mother"

I'm not sure why they call themselves this except that it does remind of Mother Earth and the Greek name 'Gaia', very politically correct name for an Ad Agency. Ad agencies are all about promotion and getting attention for their clients and for their business. What a brilliant piece of promotion! Who ever heard of "mother" before this emotional advert was made?

The plight of the Polar bear is good business. . .
'Earth Goddess' plant sculpture at Atlanta Botanical Garden

Section Three 


1. The Worship of nature - An Unlikely Alliance

Environmentalists are fully invested in the political side of the"Climate Change", band wagon. The connection to politics is relatively recent, environmentalists has been around since before the 60's. The Political involvement may have started with "earth day" in the 70's but only really began to gain traction in the 90's. The Al Gore movie, "An inconvenient Truth" ensured it reached a far greater audience and since then has grown to its present monstrous proportions.

Environmentalism, with its political nod, is today a well intrenched world view with its own orthodoxy and practitioners and high priests and a growing number of adherents.

The fact that Politicians have usurped the Environmentalists agenda certainly wouldn't be a problem to them as it simply adds to their credibility. They know political support means access to money, that is . . .tax money lets just remind ourselves. . . yours and my money, that now funds costly publicity campaigns run through a compliant media.

General awareness among the tax payers, thats us, is constantly managed with emotional reports of starving Polar bears just like the one from "mother". People are told they can actually help by swinging to 'green', the whole edifice is now a huge prosperous industry, Green products are generally more expensive, but remember we are saving the planet so we can all just pay a little more and become the principle financial benefactors of the Environmentalist movement and line the pockets of the Politicians who promote their cause.

How is this so? We will take a look at who owns what products that are making a fortune out of this whole scam and guess where the money trail leads back to . . . OH yeh Al Gore

In 2001, before leaving office as vice president, Gore was worth less than $2 million. Since then, he has grown his wealth to $100 million . . . almost entirely by investing in a handful of “green-tech” companies . . . 14 of which received more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants, tax breaks, and more from the Obama administration.

2. Who Benefits? 

Al Gore has thrived as green-tech investor

Obama also benefitted

The Failed Solyndra green energy initiative.
It is alleged that Obama, used taxpayer money to finance his re-election campaign . . . by funneling it through Solyndra.


President Obama, accompanied by Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet, looks at a solar panel during a May 26, 2010, tour of Solyndra Inc., a solar panel manufacturing facility, in Fremont, Calif. (Associated Press) Photo by: Alex Brandon www.washingtontimes.com

Read more: The Cold Truth Initiative 

Solyndra received a $536 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee, the first recipient of a loan guarantee under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.

Between 2009 and mid-2011 the price of polysilicon, the key ingredient for most competing technologies, dropped by about 89%. This precipitous drop in the cost of raw materials for Solyndra's competitors rendered CIGS technology incapable of competing.

Following the bankruptcy, the government was expected to recoup $27 million under the Solyndra restructuring plan, but no money was ever recovered.

Environmentalism - a Unifying element and a Global religion


It is now politically correct to be part of the environmentalist movement as opposed to the 60's and 70's when most people in society, agreeing with some or even all of the environmental concerns were not overly disposed to being part of the campaign and it remained somewhat marginalised as an offshoot of the hippy movement.

Being a somewhat sceptical observer of the motives and concerns of Politicians, I can see how this connection to the Green revolution provides a convenient spin off to political agenda's by having a whole 'ready-made' support group of people that are growing quickly  in numbers and provides a unified front that other political factions are now unable to ignore. The unlikely alliance between big politics and environmentalism would have been unheard of in previous decades, now provides a vital link between political factions and the general public.

But this is a good thing right? because now we can address some real issues that have real consequences for future generations of Polar Bears and . . . oh yes and a few people as well.

3. Whats the real Agenda?

Just get rid of (most of) the people and everything will be fine again. . .


Why the hesitancy with regard to people? Well here's the problem with environmentalists.

The issue with carbon emissions is this: If it were not for people the earth would be fine, in perfect harmony and in Balance with nature (Gaia, mother), but then people were sort of OK until there were too many of them. Now because we are just too many people burning up all those fossil fuels, the very future of the Planet is in danger.

To the environmentalists, Gaia/mother could be dying and we her faithful servants must save her, this is the core of environmentalism, the worship of mother earth. It is disguised with an anthropomorphic idea of a scientific proposition but at the end of the day it is the new religion.

Since most people/unbelievers are not in tune with the environment and are selfish and greedy and concerned with building up their own security and comfort at the cost of the environment they are not interested in getting on board with alternative lifestyles and reduction of carbon emissions and CFC's and whatever agendas the politicians would put upon them in the name of Environmentalism.

Wouldn't it just be better to get rid of a few billion of them and let the earth return to its original pristine state? That would make the earth much easier to rule and control. . .

Now we get to the real Political Agenda. . .







Under Construction - more to follow









Wednesday, 16 December 2015

Climate Fraud . . . CLIMATEGate and SunSpots

In todays Blog:

  • I raise a couple of questions about "An Inconvenient Truth" that I thought nobody seemed curious about except me 
  • Then talk about whistleblowers and hackers exposing corruption in politics that always seems to catch people by surprise. 
  • Then on to "CLIMATEgate" This happened when a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was hacked anonymously and what ensued - I mention a book on 'CLIMATEgate' by Brian Sussman which I am busy reading now.
  • Lastly - Alook back in time to the “Little Ice Age” and a more plausible theory about the reason for Global warming. 



Lets just go for a moment to An Inconvenient truth 

The film with Al Gore demonstrating a particular point of view
The official viewpoint it seems. . .
Al Gore - The Saviour of the World? 

After seeing the film I was frankly . . . puzzled. . .


and asked myself a few questions . . .

. . . That nobody else seemed to be asking, which again made me marvel at the passive acceptance of a movie going public that just sits there and when the Media says open wide they do so with all compliancy. . .

Open wide, thats a good consumer . . .

  1. Why is Al Gore, a professional Politician, with no scientific training at all, the principle voice behind this message? The picture boy of climate science.
  2. Shouldn’t a trained professional present the information? A qualified Climatologist or even better, a group of professionals from variously related fields with their respective qualifications presenting each aspect of the issue?
  3. A commercial documentary? We were presented with a very high quality production movie that was a documentary, and not even that, it was a lecture that was filmed and then advertised in the commercial cinemas, usually reserved for films made in Hollywood for the entertainment of the masses, and now we have a documentary on global warming to watch with popcorn and coke. . . a most unusual idea. . .There must have been some serious advertising to get people to choose this rather than the latest blockbuster!
  4. How did it become such a box office success? Are doomsday predictions popular with the public? 
This is the near distant view of Manhattan According to An Inconvenient Truth

Usually documentaries of this nature are put on TV and on not on the movie channel, maybe national Geographic or discovery.

So perhaps some will say: Climate Change and Carbon emissions is so bad now and the problem is so far gone that our altruistic political leaders, so alarmed by the clamouring reports from the scientific establishment, felt that this was the quickest and most effective means for getting the word out.

If this is indeed the case then the idea that we are not close to but right on the edge of a global catastrophe of biblical or . . . at least block-buster proportions.

But I don't trust political leaders. . . And I know that I am not alone.
And
When one mixes politics and science, this means one thing and one thing alone. . .

The Science follows the politics and not the other way round, the funding goes to the scientists who push the correct agenda.

Whats wrong with Politicians?


Er. . .  Plenty

The publics distrust of political leaders and the media that promotes them is not unfounded as we all know.
We have many years of scandals and lies that have been exposed together with allegations and accusations that are suspected but not always proven, but these all fuel the public's mistrust.

Whistle blowers and hackers have periodically come forward with startling disclosures with varying levels of credibility.

Sometimes reports are given the dubious appellation 'Conspiracy theory' which creates  pictures of mentally unstable and gullible people gesticulating wildly and believing anything and everything they read on the internet.

But every so often the facts are presented by some enterprising hackers and whistleblowers who for varying reasons make suppressed evidence public.


For example: The most famous, but by no means only, of these are:


Wikileaks 

Julian Assange, hero or villain depending on your viewpoint famous for blowing the lid off the US military and its criminal activities in the middle east and much more.

In fact it is his disclosures that appear to be a major catalyst in the so called ‘Arab Spring’ when the corrupt government of Tunisia was exposed living the high life and deeply in bed with the US whilst its citizens were in a state of advanced poverty, the wikileaks disclosure sparked off the a revolution that  spread through the whole Moslem world.

The Wikileaks Documentary -- Full Version



Edward Snowden 

A computer professional, former CIA employee, and former government contractor who copied classified information from the United States National Security Agency (NSA) and United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) for public disclosure in 2013.

Donald Trump says he's a really bad guy but he is generally regarded as a hero by the American public
Is Edward Snowden an American hero? Vote Here

DOCUMENTARY: Edward Snowden - Terminal F (2015)



CLIMATEgate


The great global warming debate has its own ‘wikileaks’
November 2009 - A server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was hacked anonymously, at the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climatic research unit, possibly an insider.

The emails reveal discussions between the world's top Climate Scientists about hiding the truth of global warming.

The emails were private messages among climate scientists who expressed doubts about the conclusions on the cause of global warming and that global warming had not changed dramatically for the past 15 years.

The response has been furious denials and scornful dismissals. These leaked emails are  nothing more than internal chit chat with the  comments were taken totally out of context.

Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, called the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem.

But again questions come to mind like:

  1. Why would these 'Hackers' orchestrate a 'smear campaign? Does anybody wonder at this? What can they gain? Why go to all the trouble of hacking emails and revealing them if there is no real evidence? They are vilified by the media and don't get any money, so why bother f its all a lie?
  2. Why then deliberately quote sections of them out of context, to create a false impression? 
  3. If the contents were so spurious as to be harmless colloquialisms, would it be a good idea to try and manipulate the information so as to appear as if it was as serious as they claim? 
  4. Wouldn't it be a simple task to expose them by simply publishing the emails in the 'correct context?'
  5. Why don't they challenge the skeptics on the basis of the data - have a big debate and compare notes, if the skeptics facts are wrong it should be easy enough to prove.

Just look at this incredible video 

A challenge to debate. . .

On the one hand we have Roy Spencer a climatologist from the university of Alabama, not a conspiracy nut, but an academic well qualified to speak on this issue.

And in the other corner we have . . .  nobody! ! ! They failed to respond to the challenge

why?

The reason given for the other climate alarmists not pitching is. . .  they do not want to debate Roy because this would "give his extreme ideas credibility".

It is clear to me that the reason for the refusal to debate is not only the fact that a qualified scientist will easily debunk their claims but also because they don't want their overlords to see them any where near a debunker because this could put their jobs and/or their funding in jeopardy.

So alarmist, Gavin Schmidt does agree to speak but only after Roy Spencer is removed from the room. . .  ! Does he feel so threatened?

He then delivers the usual mantra's about the causes of global warming and then runs away. Roy Spencer is reasonable and prepared to discuss data in a sensible manner there is no reason for Schmidt not to stay and compare ideas - isn't that a healthy thing for academics to do?

WE can observe the same kind of over-reaction towards the CLMATEgate issue:
The sceptics who are calling for investigation into the disclosures are accused of being involved in a ‘conspiracy’ (seriously?) funded by oil companies and those with vested interests. The bottom line is the IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and CRU(Climate Research Unit) were seriously embarrassed by this leak and are clearly seen scrambling to regain lost footing

For example: Tom Wigley, a former director of the CRU and now head of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, condemned the threats that he and other colleagues had received as "truly stomach-turning", and commented: "None of it affects the science one iota. Accusations of data distortion or faking are baseless. I can rebut and explain all of the apparently incriminating e-mails that I have looked at, but it is going to be very time consuming to do so. 

Mainstream climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, alleges this is a smear campaign. Stephen Schneider compared the political attacks on climate scientists to the witch-hunts of McCarthyism. 

McCarthyism?

This is getting ridiculous now, when one considers the alliance between climate alarmists and the  politicians who back them, who are in turn fully backed worldwide by their governments who have all kinds of taxpayer money available, and have at their disposal all the legal teams they need not to mention a  general public that has been well indoctrinated.

The climate orthodoxy also has the monopoly in Educational institutions and control almost every area of academic study (Even totally unrelated fields of study have access to funding if their study incorporates ‘global warming’ somewhere in their applications for study grants)

They represent the establishment, so the ‘witch hunters' they cry for protection against are a minority of scientists and academicians and journalists who would be refused funding from the major educational institutions for not supporting the current orthodoxy, how then exactly is this a ‘witch hunt’ relating to the Mcarthy era? (in which the politicians and military government and police were the edifice united in their paranoid persecution of so called 'communist threat in America')

Logic calls for suspicion,  in the face of this strange backlash which seems a little hysterical for people who are supposedly confident in their ideas. If the data and science are sound there is no need for panic, but the silly rhetoric about “ the stomach turning allegations from the witch hunters” is quite hilarious if it weren’t so worrying, what are these people trying to hide?

After all - 99% of scientists agree right? what is there to worry about from a few crackpots? If I had science and truth on my side I wouldn't worry about somebody ‘taking comments out of context’,  I would simply challenge them to examine the data which by virtue of being correct should withstand all  objective scrutiny. . .

But will it?

Unless there is some basis to the allegations. . .

Brian Sussman

American conservative talk radio host and former meteorologist in the San Francisco Bay area. He currently hosts the Morning Show on radio station KSFO

The term ‘Climategate was coined by journalist James Delingpole drawing a deliberate connection to Nixon's dirty tricks campaign in the 70's in which he was caught red-handed and lost the presidency and a lot more. . .

in 2010 Sussman wrote: Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam.

It was released nationally during a televised interview on the Sean Hannity show and immediately became a bestseller.  His current book, Eco-Tyranny, was released April 17, and also became a bestseller.

Research

It is so shocking that we live in the age where information is so easy to find and yet people do not bother to make the effort to study. It is incredible to me when discussing tricky topics like this,  most people haven't done any research at all and yet have such strong opinions about it. If you ask them what exactly have they read or watched, it is probably a couple of news programs and 'An inconvenient truth'.

My suspicions were aroused when I saw how much importance the politicians place on a particular point of view, this is a red flag to me since politicians are all about money, control and centralisation of power. Nobody seems perturbed about the enormous wealth Al Gore enjoys as a direct result of his environmental campaigns and we shall see that he has huge financial interests which he needs to fuel his private jet and fleet of carbon spewing vehicles.

Brian Sussman also calls for research by people because they could be victims of 'historical revisionism', and he complains that 'those waving the green banner of global warming have as little respect for history as Marx did'.
No one living to day was present to witness the hysteria over global cooling at the beginning of the 20th Century. There were newspaper reports all predicting a new ice age. How fascinating that this media campaign sold newspapers like hotcakes people seem to love doomsday reports.

Just after the Titanic sunk in 1912,  there was a news report in the Times from a professor Schmidt of Cornell University who warned of an encroaching ice age. The world will need scientific knowledge "To combat the perils" of the next ice age he proclaimed.

What is so interesting is to compare the rhetoric of Dr Schmidt and others on the predicted ice age with with the global warming alarmists today predicting the opposite. The ice age proponents simply sold a lot of newspapers and was conveniently shelved by the 1930's when temperatures began rising, setting records which have in many cases have yet to be broken.

The Little Ice Age and Global Cooling 

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu 


Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks since its establishment in 1998.

 Professor of Geophysics since 1964. Dr. Akasofu has published more than 550 professional journal articles, authored and co-authored 10 books and has been the invited author of many encyclopedia articles.

He is certainly well qualified scientifically to present his perspective on climate change. He has completed several articles on this subject; e.g.


  • Why has global warming become such a passionate subject?
  • Let's not lose our cool.

and

  • Is the Earth still recovering from the A Little Ice Age?
  • A possible cause of global warming


His argument is basically this:


The climate is not warming because we have pumped ever-accumulating amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

One possible cause of the linear increase may be that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. World glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have been receding since 1800 or earlier; these are not just recent phenomena. It seems to me that most climate researchers are so caught up in the CO2 effect, the Little Ice Age has been all but forgotten.  More Here


The Little Ice Age

The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.
In the midst of the Little Ice Age's colder than average climate, Europe and North America went into a deep freeze: alpine glaciers extended over valley farmland, sea ice crept south from the Arctic, and the famous canals in the Netherlands froze regularly—an event that is rare today. In London, ice festivals were held on the frozen Themes and in New York City people could walk to Manhattan and Staten Island on the ice. On the down side, crops failed and many died of the cold.

Sun Spots and Global Warming

The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots.

A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder.

That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.

Ocean Temperature Cycles

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Why global temperatures declined from 1945 - 1970 when they should have Increased

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

The increased temperature from 1970's - 1990's . . . and then?

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period.

 The Economist magazine reported in March

“The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.


The Decline of Sun Spot Activity

The number of sunspots increase and decrease over time in a regular, approximately 11-year cycle, called the solar or sunspot cycle. The exact length of the cycle can vary. More sunspots mean increased solar activity—flares and CMEs. The highest number of sun spots in any given cycle is designated “solar maximum,” while the lowest number is designated “solar minimum.”

This fact has led many scientists to believe that the future forecast is more likely to be a cooler earth  The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”
Taken from here

Scholarly article called Little Ice Age II, The Sequel?

Global Temperature has not been rising for 15 years

Even the UN’s alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has had to finally admit that global temperatures have been flat for at least 16 years despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels. IPCC has also confessed that their theoretical simulation models have grossly exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2. As a result, those social costs resulting from human-caused climate change are at least one-third less (and more likely 100 percent less) than those in the administration’s calculations.


The headlines just keep on coming 


Climate scientists told to coverup the fact that Earths temperatures have not risen for 15-years: 

Article from the  Daily Mail

One possible cause of the linear increase may be that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. World glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have been receding since 1800 or earlier; these are not just recent phenomena. It seems to me that most climate researchers are so caught up in the CO2 effect, the Little Ice Age has been all but forgotten.risen for the last 15 years

A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.
The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html#ixzz3toEqunQI

Even on Main stream news shows:

On climate change, "the temperature readings have been fabricated, and it's all blowing up in their (scientists') faces."— Dana Perino on Monday, February 9th, 2015 in a broadcast of "The Five" on Fox News http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/13/dana-perino/fox-news-host-climate-scientists-fabricated-temper/


Next : I will have a look at the Polar ice caps that . . . don't seem to be melting!  after all those dire predictions! 

Also: Whats happening to all those poor stranded Polar Bears -  who by all accounts appear to be thriving!! 






Friday, 4 December 2015

The Great Climate Change debate


Climate Change - Biggest scam in History?

 Part 1

An Inconvenient Truth

2006 - This whole controversy about Climate Change and global warming began when we were all told about this very important film which we should all go and see. 

so we did. . .

In this film we saw presidential candidate and vice president AL Gore explain to us that earth was on the precipice of a major environmental disaster. The world was warming up rapidly, the polar ice caps were melting glaciers retreating and Polar bears were dying. 

All of this was directly related to carbon emissions and CFCs

(Just for myself I needed to check exactly what do we mean by CFCs)



Here's the official view: 

(Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are a family of chemical compounds developed back in the 1930's as safe, non-toxic, non-flammable alternative to dangerous substances like ammonia for purposes of refrigeration and spray can propellants. Their usage grew enormously over the years. One of the elements that make up CFCs is chlorine. Very little chlorine exists naturally in the atmosphere. But it turns out that CFCs are an excellent way of introducing chlorine into the ozone layer. The ultraviolet radiation at this altitude breaks down CFCs, freeing the chlorine. Under the proper conditions, this chlorine has the potential to destroy large amounts of ozone. This has indeed been observed, especially over Antarctica. As a consequence, levels of genetically harmful ultraviolet radiation have increased.)




These are being spewed out and polluting the atmosphere creating a 'greenhouse' effect which put simply traps the suns rays in the atmosphere and causes temperatures to rise. 

http://www.livescience.com/37743-greenhouse-effect.html
Left: Naturally occurring greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) — normally trap some of the sun’s heat, keeping the planet from freezing. Right: Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, are increasing greenhouse gas levels, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect. The result is global warming and unprecedented rates of climate change.


As we can clearly see the cause of this was . . . US! 

We drive too many cars which pump toxic fumes into the air, our  factories pour out more pollutants into the air and water. And unless we do something extremely quickly and radically, this could be the end of the world as we know it. 



On August 27, 2010, Sean Hannity aired a special program called “The Green Swindle”   
The 42-minute program explains the history of global warming and who stands to profit from all the hype.

Everyone's going green! Controlling your carbon footprint has become a global fad, but is it all just a con job? And, how much "green" is it costing you? Sean investigates the truth behind this billion dollar industry and how concern about the environment turned into global warming hysteria. 

KSFO morning host Brian Sussman is one of the featured guest. Suss is author of the book, “Climategate” which tied together all the years of evidence of climate change fraud, and the very costly legislation being proposed world-wide due to this fake science. 

A veteran meteorologist, Sussman expose the Global Warming scam on the special edition of Hannity. "This is the television program that will pound the final nail into global warming’s coffin," says Sussman. "Sean and his team at Fox News approached me earlier this summer, asking me to play a significant role in the show. Sean knows that my book reveals the Marxist foundation of fraud upon which the climate-change movement is built. He also knows that in Climategate I call out the perpetrators of this con by name—and that’s exactly what Sean will do tonight on national television."

Bogus Hockey Stick graph 
Along with Sussman, the hour-long special, entitled "The Green Swindle," include a rare interview with the two brilliant researchers who broke the crafty code used to fabricate the bogus hockey stick temperature graph used by Gore, the United Nations, and the U.S. Federal government to scare Americans into believing that they’re experiencing the hottest weather ever. 

Climategate

The program also details the damning emails leaked from the infamous Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. The emails revealed that influential climate scientists were involved in a manipulation scheme to alter the world’s temperature record. 

Sussman contends a CRU insider purposefully leaked the emails. "Clearly someone inside CRU was sick of the scam being conducted from within the hallowed halls of this once prestigious research institution. 

Socialist Policies
They blew the whistle to alert the world that political activists with Ph.D.s were using their academic cover to manipulate data and professionally blackball scientists with opposing points of view." In Climategate Sussman shows how unscrupulous climate scientists are supplying policy makers with the tools needed to usher in a wave of socialist policies designed to de-develop the United States and redistribute American wealth. 

Follow the Money
He also reveals the billions of dollars Al Gore and others stand to make off of the so-called green revolution and cap-and-trade schemes. "Hats off to Hannity and Fox News for having the courage to produce this very special program," contends Sussman. "They should win a Nobel Prize for telling the scientific truth. Tonight will mark the end of the global warming hustle."

Video one:

The video introduces the issue with a word from the major politicians of the day Obama and Gore agreeing that the planet is very ill and is literary dying from overheating caused by carbon emissions and this is all your fault. 


We are told 99% of Scientists agree and the vast majority of peer reviewed literature backs up the assertion with scientific facts.

The aim of this video is to demonstrate how the the global warming hypothesis is a multibillion dollar industry with a huge vested interest in perpetuating the idea


But firstly a bit of background 

Brief history of the Environmentalism movement. 

Definition: Environmentalists advocate the sustainable management of resources and stewardship of the environment through changes in public policy and individual behaviour. This has also encompassed the Climate Movement.

The U.S environmentalist movement did not really take off until after World War II as people began to recognise the costs of environmental negligence, disease, and widespread air and water pollution through the occurrence of several environmental disasters that occurred post-World War II. 

1940’s Aldo Leopold wrote "A Sand County Almanac”

He believed in a land ethic that recognised that maintaining the "beauty, integrity, and health" of natural systems" as a moral and ethical imperative.

He is a descendant. . . philosophically speaking, of the Romantic movement in early 1900's England. 

This was the time when William Wordsworth and Charles Ruskin among others were advocating a 'return to nature', and an anti-city, anti - industrial view as a thoroughly unnatural and disagreeable state of being for humankind. 

This in turn was a spin off from the french enlightenment when philosopher's like Rousseau were busy removing Catholic orthodoxy as the repository of truth and replacing it with a kind of worship of nature - a Pantheistic idea that subsequently caught on in England.

1960’s Rachel Carson 

But in America the literary Romantics were to evolve into a modern equivalent of back to nature enthusiasts, we remember nowadays as Hippies.

Their book of Holy writ was written by a marine biologist who was to have enormous impact on the next generation. 
Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 – April 14, 1964) was an American marine biologist and conservationist whose book Silent Spring and other writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement. 

 "Silent Spring" was about declining bird populations due to DDT, an insecticide, pollution and man's attempts to control nature through use of synthetic substances. 
Both of these books helped bring the issues into the public eye Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" sold over two million copies.

This video makes the point that the book was seized upon with a kind of revolutionary fervour expressing the disaffection o the youth during the time of the Vietnam war. 




What is quite ironic is this is the generation that is largely concerned with the issue today is having to deal with the next generation of dissenters has that expresses a similar distrust of the government. . .  we don't have Vietnam but we do have Afghanistan and the whole middle East debacle. 

This distrust is apparently at an all time high, 

so what went wrong with all those idealistic hippies and their environmental concerns? 



1994  - an edition of Silent Spring was published with an introduction written by Vice President Al Gore.

1970 Earth Day 


Oil Spill of the coast of Santa Barbara 
This disaster inspired Wisconsin Senator, Gaylord Nelson to set up a day of environmental awareness and education called Earth day

 Gaylord Nelson, was able to win support from the youth by using the highly successful 'teach-in' concept on the environment to be observed by every university campus in the U.S., this was modeled after the highly effective Vietnam War teach-ins of the time. 


Socialist leanings?

The video points out that Earth day was launched on April 22 1970 which is the birthday of Lenin. They point out that this was not a coincidence and the sense of 'being part of a cause' which many disaffected young Americans felt after the solidarity of protesting agains the Vietnam war and when that finally wound down, another crusade was needed for them to join.

The big cause was really building on a rebellious youth flushed with success after the Vietnam demonstrations only too eager to join the bandwagon against the 'greedy capitalist overlords'. . . 


Global Cooling?

The movement kicked off with dire predictions of a Global freeze

. . . Scuse me?. . 



This has sparked off some strenuous rebuttals from the Climate Orthodoxy - Always a telling sign. 

The rebuttals admit they didn't have it right back then, but Climate science was in its infancy and they didn't know what they know today. 

They say the reports were from journalists who didn't have the full story from the science of the day. 

They claim that the covers of Time magazine predicting a big chill were talking about an energy crisis and not a Climate crisis. 

But the reports are not hard to find. . . hers a telling clipping 
taken from: http://www.populartechnology.net/

The Argus-Press, January 26, 1970
Video Documentary: 1978 Leonard Nimoy (Star Trek) narrates a doom and gloom forecast from the scientific community about the imminent next ice age.


Greenpeace was created in 1971 


as an organisation that believed that political advocacy and legislation were ineffective or inefficient solutions and supported non-violent action. 

Well surely Greenpeace would be right up there cheering on Al Gore and the carbon emission hypothesis. 

But in fact Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, is apparently quite disenchanted with the current views. Heres a lecture delivered by Moore totally against the current view. . . 

In the video  Moore states that the idea of carbon emissions causing global warming is just a hypothesis rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. He states that CO2 Is a necessary building block for all life on earth and not the villainous poison it has been described as. 

He describes his idyllic upbringing on a river island in Canada and then his (impressive) education and his development into an environmentalist. 

Although he was a fully qualified scientist with a Phd by 1970 he was very much a radical long haired left wing liberal who spearheaded the development of Greenpeace. 

They named their ship 'the rainbow warrior' after an Indian legend about all nations banding together to save the world. 

He describes how, in 1985 under orders from french president François Mitterrand the rainbow warrior was sunk killing its photographer.

The rainbow warrior sinking in 1985.

He was there on the little rubber dinghies confronting the huge Soviet whalers preventing the harpoons from spearing the whales, which was broadcast all over the world. It is this effort that lead to the banning of whaling by 1985.




Save the whale







Next: Save the seal.






















This is not only a man who has the courage of his convictions but has the qualifications to go with them. . . .


He then describes his reasons for leaving Greenpeace. The original intention was to object to the nuclear threat, but the movement began to replace some original intentions with an overall idea that humankind was the enemy of nature.

He describes the shift in greenpeace towards a ban against chlorine, he explained how chloride exists on the periodic table and is useful and good element. This caused his resignation.

He then explains how he decided to develop and environmental program that was based on "Science and Logic as opposed to sensationalism misinformation, anti humanism and fear"

He then goes on to deliver a hypothesis on the benefits of CO2 as opposed to the dismal forecasts from what he calls climate 'alarmists'.  


So what is interesting here is another scientist who is not linked to a political payroll, he shows his disdain for the poor science in modern climatologists and because he does not need funding or pension pay he can use his training and logic to refute the current orthodoxy. 

what is so important about Moore's point of view is the following:
Its not a question of his findings being the ultimate truth in the debate, what is more important is that scientists with the same training and ability to collate and read data  . . . DO NOT ALWAYS AGREE

The politics of any given issue make NO ALLOWANCE for this. It is simply not expedient to their cause to have scientists bickering over the data. 


It is very important to have a point of view that appears to be solid proof and to back up their point of view they use the idea of a 'Consensus' , The all powerful persuasive argument is . . . 99% of scientists agree on the Climate Change hypothesis.


Now hold on a minute. . . the general public has no scientific training and it is clear that the scientists are revered by most people as the genius's of the world and their word is truth. This is powerful leverage against a gullible world, but in reality a bit of digging shows them to be ordinary people like you and me full of foibles and hangups, also very susceptible to fame and fortune, like most people are.  

But this is the method by which this point of view is presented as indisputable, Its fine they say, that there are one or two mavericks out there, but it makes sense, we are told, to trust the viewpoint of the VAST MAJORITY of scientific consensus on this issue. 

There are two problems with this: 


Firstly: Just exactly how did they arrive at the 'vast consensus' statistic?  (and as we shall see it is hardly the consensus we were lead to believe).

Secondly: Consensus has historically nearly always been shown up to be false by one or two 'mavericks' who realised something that was only accepted much later (Galileo and Copernicus are the famous examples). 
It only takes one scientist to present proof to the contrary to make the consensus wrong.

1980 saw the creation of Earth First

Another group inspired by 'silent spring'.

They have an ecocentric view of the world --- believing in equality between the rights of humans to flourish, the rights of all other species to flourish and the rights of life-sustaining systems to flourish.


Paul Ehrlich Born 1932

American Biologist, known for his warnings against the consequences of population growth.


The Population Bomb 




Ehrlich wrote this with his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968.

It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its author brought the idea to an even wider audience.




Back to the Garden or Evolutionary opportunity?


Whatever the criticisms on this book, fears about the exponential growth of mankind remain. . . how many humans can this planet take before we humans like locusts level the fields and resources and are left with mass extinction?


what's strange to me is the philosophy behind this thinking. . .



The Mythology of Environmentalism


This concerted attempt to rouse support for the mankind to rise up and 'Save the Planet' has its own kind of mythology 

Which goes something like this: 
Once was a time when the earth was like a garden of eden but then the humans came and multiplied and covered the face of a once pristine earth. 

The 'original sin' in this mythology is human greed, our technological development that destroyed the beautiful earth and then overpopulation, there are just too many of us for the fragile planet to cope with. 


Man is evil and the earth would be better off without him, so maybe just a few people is what we should strive for, which means something must be done to get rid of the unwanted millions. 'Redemption' in this context will be when the population is reduced to an acceptable number and the earth will return to its once beatific state. 



But this mythology is simply not in line with the evolutionary paradigm that has been the official view by the 'consensus' (there's that word again) of scientific thought today.



The Evolution Paradigm

If we look at this from a evolutionary perspective then we know that death is a means to new life right? If there is too much Carbon in the atmosphere then perhaps we should just evolve into a carbon loving organism? If we die out then . . . so what? 

Lets have a blast and accept the fate of countless generations of species that already have disappeared. Like the dinosaur maybe we have had our time and out of the detritus of human civilisation a whole new life form can emerge - or not! 


Isn't that evolution? Exactly how it works! This is the point made by comedian George Carlin .





George Carlin on Global Warming
This is a well known somewhat cynical materialist evolutionist comedian the late George Carlin giving his view on the misplaced responsibilities of the environmentalist movements.
If evolution is a correct hypothesis for man's existence then this is soooo true. 

But of course there will be some serious minded responsible type people will say . . .This is the wrong attitude and we should act now in order to save the planet for our children's children and prevent mankind's extinction. 


Well thats all fine and all just remember, this is not the evolutionary process as we understand it.


So then what is it? 


just as so many critics say and rightly so - environmentalism is a new religion. . . 




Just to be obtuse 

There are some who say there is NO problem

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2717309/Life-open-road-Meet-Americas-new-nomads-broken-free-society-follow-ancient-paths-natural-fulfilling-life.html

Mind you - there are many who say there is plenty of room on this earth for everybody. The crowded cities draw people in to use the resources available and job opportunities, and the over crowding of city centres give the idea that there is no space left on the earth. The reality is there are vast areas of earth that have not been utilised and are basically left wide open people just don't want to live there because life is apparently better in the cities.


 Here's a great example


But how can people just go off into the Wilderness and survive? Well yes it takes a co-ordinated collective effort and hard work. But it is certainly possible and has been achieved already. 


Well without getting into the politics have a look at Israel. 


The land itself is not great for growth and development but through technology initiative and hard work Israel has become a huge exporter of fruit - an amazing accomplishment. 



http://www.fromthegrapevine.com/photos/nature/sweetest-fruit-mountain/

This is just one example, the photo is of a pomegranate plantation in southern Israel.


Israeli pomegranates  ripen from late August through March, with October as the prime month for harvesting.


Israel exports nearly half of its annual supply to countries throughout the world.


This is one success story that could be repeated time and again -But POLITICS 


Yes these politicians all keeping back wealth to use for war mongering and selfish power struggles, do not distribute wealth to uplift the economies of African countries who have far more natural recourses than small arid land in the desert of the middle east.


And it is these types who control the Climate change agenda. 




Spiked has been consistently critical of environmentalism. 






It accuses environmentalism of misanthropy for supporting cuts in population and economic growth, rather than investment in technological improvements, particularly in response to climate change. 

James Heartfield, for instance, argues that the environmentalist concern with cutting back growth is linked to elitist prejudices:
The ecological outlook is an expression of middle-class rage at the masses ... Environmentalism, like all political discourses that take shortage as their starting point, will tend towards misanthropic solutions. 

Any movement that begins with the view that mankind must be curtailed to reduce the pressure on the environment will have to start thinking how it will select those who must make sacrifices.

Spiked has not denied that human carbon emissions are contributing to climate change. Spiked criticises what it sees as the political interpretation of this fact put forward by the environmentalist movement. For example, in 2007 James Woudhuysen and Joe Kaplinsky argued that "the IPCC's fairly sober summary of climate science has been spun [by environmentalists] to tell a story of Fate, Doom and human folly.” Josie Appleton argued that: "Today's 'global warming story' — where morality equates to carbon calculating – owes more to the anxious zeitgeist than scientific findings."


Spiked criticises environmentalists for preferring to reduce economic growth in response to climate change, rather than to expand it by finding improved alternative sources of energy. Furedi argues that "innovation is necessary, not only to deal with climate change, but also to produce a great deal more inexpensive energy in order that more people can enjoy the fruits of modern society.”Spiked  contributors have thus written in defence of hydroelectric  and nuclear power,often dismissed by environmentalist campaigners