Subject: alternative news - Is global climate change manmade?
Friend
In one of our message a day mailings, we said that global climate changes are the result of the "shift", the end of a 75,000 year cycle. In other words, all the billions of dollars being spent to effect emissions are not going to change anything.I thank Rose-Sinclair for forwarding this to me.
Wynn
WHOLISTIC WORLD VISION GLOBAL NETWORKING SERVICE (PLEASE PASS ON!)
www.wholisticworldvision.org
THE DEBATE IS NOW HEATING UP WITH ONLY DAYS TO GO BEFORE THE VERY SINISTER "COPENHAGEN SUMMIT" AND ITS ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT CONTROL AGENDA
(TEXT ANALYSIS ALREADY NETWORKED).
Just amazing how many intelligent people (especially in the green & environment movements) have been duped by the controlled media into believing in the New "CO2 caused Global Warming religion"!!
Now we'll ALL pay the huge price in taxes and more lost freedoms they have helped inflict on us by siding with the Al Gore Illuminati Controller agenda - thanks a lot!
Here's the book on Global Cooling at last.....
Interestingly its been published by Steiner Books.
best, Richard
And have a look at this website: BBC5TV, it has lots of interesting
footage, interviews and docos with a strong 'exposure' slant. I thought
at first it was BBC but its not affiliated.
This interview here is with Peter Taylor the 'Chill' book guy.
You can then follow onto the site from all the links...
Watch it right thru - about 10 mins.
Peter Taylor - Climate Change, Or Climate Confusion?
12 Oct 2008, Former UN Environmental Advisor, Peter Taylor, talks about the conflicting science regarding climate change and the ensuing confusion.
Filmed at the Alternative View Conference in Totnes, May 2008.
http://www.bbc5.tv/news/story/peter-taylor-climate-change
PLUS ARTICLE BELOW.......
CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- - -
The Chill Factor: How we've been duped over Climate Change
This is the most important book in the world right now. I can't imagine one that could be more so. Chill: A reassessment of global warming theory (Clairview, £14.99) by the ecological scientist Peter Taylor, will open your eyes to the truth about the Earth's climate, which is cooling, not warming.
Global warming and climate change are inventions of science, not its discoveries. Climate change has become merely a slogan, ostensibly meaningful, but in true scientific terms, quite vacuous.
Man-made global warming is a fabrication, an illusion brought about by flawed science. It has become a pervasive belief because it works very well for many powerful people. It is not a conspiracy, but more a mass delusion coupled to a massive collusion of interests.
Meticulously argued in a pellucid and persuasive prose that carries the reader forward in rapt anticipation, Peter's book (not financed by any organisation) is a devastating critique of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and must be the first critical survey of the science and politics behind the issue to be made by a committed environmentalist. For this, he cannot be congratulated enough.
The IPCC claims a consensus of the world's experts, but Peter proves this consensus is false and, in fact, never existed. There is only one basic piece of work to underpin the physics of carbon dioxide's ability to heat the atmosphere, and that is merely an assumption made by one member of the original small group of scientists that made global warming an international issue as long ago as 1988. Right from the start, that assumption was challenged as unsound, but dissent was marginalised. Politics had invaded science on a grand scale.
Future projections of global warming are critically flawed because they rely on a virtual reality computer model of the global environment that fails to incorporate long and short-term natural cycles. Peter says he was motivated to review the science because "the proposed cure is likely to be worse than the disease", and was deeply shocked to find that the predictive models had such a flimsy base.
The planet is now cooling, and so all the efforts to control carbon emissions are pointless and will make no difference to the situation. Instead, the billions being wasted in this direction should be spent on making ourselves resilient to the effects of global cooling which will cause food shortages just when food stocks are low and the population is increasing - another billion in the next 15 years. We could be facing a significant period of cooling comparable in severity to the "Little Ice Age" of 1400-1700.
Peter says: "We are not ready for global cooling. Our eye has been distracted by the virtual reality of computer simulation and an almost religious zeal to create a low-carbon economy. Food and health will be the real issues of the next decade, coupled with rising fuel prices and a crippled economy. This means that instead of ploughing vast sums into ineffective and very expensive barrages and turbine arrays, we need to be rebuilding our communities, refurbishing housing, establishing resilient local food supplies and making all our support systems robust to the future."
Ample evidence for the operation of natural factors in the satellite record and in oceanographical data was available to the IPCC but it chose to downplay them. Late 20th century "global warming" was mainly due to a decrease in cloud cover and increased solar heating of the upper oceans, a phase which changed in 2001, since when there has been increased cloud - reflecting the sun's heat back into space - and no additional warming of the oceans. Already, summer ice in the Arctic is recovering.
Another factor in the cooling is the current "quiet sun" and the absence of sunspots, which has confounded NASA predictions. A large body of peer-reviewed evidence links ocean temperatures with the sun's magnetic cycle.
The general thrust of Peter's thesis is now shared by many scientists worldwide - thousands disagree with the IPCC view. One petition in the USA already has more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who object to the IPCC's approach. But can the runaway global warming bandwagon be stopped? Governments and top scientists will want to save face, which is at best inhumane and at worst a form of abject cowardice.
Thankfully, at street level, polls show very few believe the scary climate story. In the US, Canada and the UK, most do not trust the science, the campaigners or their governments, believing it's all a scam (which it is). A small, if deluded cabal has used its position and all manner of collusion to foster what Peter calls "this colossal erroneous child of our times".
- - -
Chill - A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory
Does climate change mean the world is cooling, and if so what should we do about it?
ISBN: 9781905570195
Paperback, Clairview Books,
$25.00 416 pages, July 2009
"Do you believe the earth is warming? Think again, says Peter Taylor, a committed environmental analyst with the unusual gift of following scientific evidence ruthlessly wherever it may lead. Taylor has done groundbreaking work on issues ranging from ocean pollution and biodiversity through renewable energy. Now he turns his relentless searchlight on climate change. His work has the ring of passion and the clarity of intellectual honesty. We can be certain his conclusions are the product of a fearless, unbiased, and intelligent intellectual journey by a remarkable mind, all the marks of genuine science. Taylor challenges us to look beyond our biases to whatever conclusions the evidence may justify. Believers in global warming such as myself may not find comfort here, but they will without question find a clear challenge to examine all the evidence objectively. At the very least, Taylor raises issues and questions that must be addressed conclusively before global warming can be genuinely regarded as "truth", inconvenient or otherwise. This book is a must-read for everyone on all sides of the climate change issue." - W. Jackson Davis, professor emeritus, University of California, and author of the first draft of the Kyoto Protocol
Although the world's climate has undergone many cyclical changes, the term "climate change" has assumed a sinister meaning, implying catastrophe for humanity, ecology, and the environment. We have been told that we are responsible for the threat and that we should take immediate action to prevent it. However, the widespread scientific consensus of opinion about the causes and effects of climate change is not what it seems.
Chill offers a critical survey of the subject by a committed environmentalist and scientist. Based on extensive research, the author reveals a disturbing collusion of interests responsible for creating a distorted understanding of changes in global climate. Scientific institutions, basing their work on critically flawed computer simulations and models, have gained influence and funding. In return they have allowed themselves to be directed by the needs of politicians and lobbyists for simple answers, slogans, and targets. The resulting policy-a sixty percent reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050-would have a huge, almost unimaginable, impact on the landscape, community, and biodiversity.
Based on his studies of satellite data, cloud cover, ocean, and solar cycles, Peter Taylor concludes that the main impetus of recent global warming has been an unprecedented combination of natural events. His investigations indicate that the current threat facing humanity is, in fact, a period of cooling, as the cycle turns, comparable in severity to the Little Ice Age of 1400-1700 CE. The risks of such cooling could be greater than global warming and on a more immediate timescale, leading to the possibility of failed harvests and leaving hundreds of millions vulnerable to famine. Drawing on his experience of energy policy and sustainability, Taylor suggests practical steps that should be acted on now. He urges a shift away from mistaken policies that attempt to avert inevitable natural changes, toward adapting to a climate that may turn significantly cooler.
Peter Taylor has extensive experience of research and policy analysis across a wide field of environmental issues, having advised governments, the European Commission, and UN organizations. He has made a significant contribution to international treaties on ocean protection and the development of the precautionary principle. Recent work has included consultancy to UK government agencies and non-government organizations on renewable energy policy and rural issues (he sits on the National Advisory Group for the Community Renewables Initiative (a joint Countryside Agency and DTI program).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change
James Corbett
The Corbett Report
Friday, November 20, 2009
A hacker has leaked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University that appear to show how climate change data was fudged and the peer review process skewed to favor the manmade climate change hypothesis.
The link to the data appears to have been posted to a number of climate science websites yesterday by an anonymous hacker or insider going by the name “FOIA,” an apparent allusion to the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent <http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/> . It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/> , Climate Audit
The information contained in the leaked emails and documents are as shocking as they are damning of the scientists who have been most vocal about the manmade global warming scare. Some of the excerpts include this email <http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/busted-2/> , purportedly from Phil Jones to researchers including Michael Mann of “Mann’s hockey stick” fame:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxxDear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
And this excerpt <http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/4567/> in which researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal because he seems to be sympathetic to climate realists:
M,
This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously rejected was submitted to GRL.
T.
According to Investigate magazine
The importance of this information will not be lost on The Corbett Report’s audience, as a recent interview I conducted with Tim Ball discussed the very issue of the Climate Research Unit and Phil Jones’ intense secrecy regarding their data:
Unsurprisingly, there has so far been deafening silence on this issue in the controlled corporate media, but in light of the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty
xxxxxxxx
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.
THIS STORY
View All Items in This Story
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.
"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.' "
Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said.
Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute who has questioned whether climate change is human-caused, blogged that the e-mails have "the makings of a very big" scandal. "Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research," he added.
The story of the hacking has ranked among the most popular on Web sites ranging from The Washington Post's to that of London's Daily Telegraph. And it has spurred a flood of e-mails from climate skeptics to U.S. news organizations, some likening the disclosure to the release of the Pentagon Papers during Vietnam.
Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and wrote some of the pirated e-mails, said it is the implications rather than the content of climate research that make some people uncomfortable.
"It is incontrovertible" that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. "The question to me is what to do."
"It's certainly a legitimate question," he added. "Unfortunately one of the side effects of this is the messengers get attacked."
In his new book, "Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save the Earth's Climate," Stanford University climate scientist Stephen H. Schneider details the intense debate over warming, arguing that it has helped slow the nation's public policy response.
"I've been here on the ground, in the trenches, for my entire career," writes Schneider, who was copied on one of the controversial e-mails. "I'm still at it, and the battle, while looking more winnable these days, is still not a done deal."
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Climatic Research Unit Hacked E Mails & Data
Wikileaks
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Summary
This archive presents over 120Mb of emails, documents, computer code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.
The CRU has told the BBC that the files were obtained by a computer hacker 3-4 days ago.
This archive includes unreleased global temperature analysis computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.
The archive appears to be a collection of information put together by the CRU prior to a FoI redaction process.
DOWNLOAD/VIEW FULL FILE FROM
fastest (Sweden)
RELATED: Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
RELATED: Caught red-handed in a monumental fraud, disgraced Climategate scientists settle on a ludicrous defense
RELATED: E-mail leak turns up heat on global warming advocates
RELATED: Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward climate skeptics
RELATED: CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change
Prison Planet.tv Members <http://prisonplanet.tv/> Can Watch Fall Of The RepublicRight Now Online - Don't Miss Out! Get Your Subscription Today!
xxxxxxxx
The Road to Copenhagen part III: A “Planetary Regime” in the Making
Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
November 22, 2009
“It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” George H.W. Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N, February 1, 1992
The machine of mass media is working overdrive now that the Copenhagen summit is approaching. All major media outlets have by now obviously received their talking-points which have an strangely similar ring about them all across the board. Even a superficial comparative study in the overall reporting reveals not only a stunning disregard for national sovereignty, but a willingness to support carbon-taxes imposed by a- as John P. Holdren puts it- “planetary regime”.
Oxford professor Dieter Helm: “I’m in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with – for political economy reasons, to get it in place.”
Last month experts told
The mass media is not only setting the agenda themselves, they more often than not simply parrot the globalists that are being shoved in our face on a daily basis. Many of whom have a Ph.D. behind their name. Under the header ‘Carbon Tax’ is sensible, and perhaps inevitable, advocate says
“(..) I’m in favor of quite a low carbon tax to start with – for political economy reasons, to get it in place, (…). Across Europe, my guess is within five years everybody will have a carbon tax…”
This, according to Helm, will make sure that the United States will eventually be forced into the global carbon tax policy as well:
“(…) is everybody else doing it? That’s a very good protection for politicians. The answer is yes, they are.”
Back in December of 2001, the Africa division of the UN Development Programme apparently already seriously considered
“The main energy sources that would be affected by a carbon tax include coal, petroleum, kerosene and natural gas. The tax would be reflected in an increase in their price, at a level based on the capacity of each type of fuel to emit carbon dioxide.”
Answering the question who would collect the taxes and enforce such a global tax policy, the UN panel was quite clear:
“The panel said a new international tax organization should be created to assume all functions performed by existing institutions. It would serve as a global intergovernmental forum for international cooperation on all tax issues. It would also help resolve conflicts between countries and help them to increase tax revenue by fostering information exchanges and measures that could reduce tax evasion on investment and personal income earned at home and abroad.”
This sounds a lot like John P. Holdren doesn’t it, exclaiming in Ecoscience that “a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment” could impose global policy and enforce it. “Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime”, said Holdren, “could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.”
Furthermore, the UN panel advocated
“We thus endorse the Commission’s proposal to create a global council at the highest political level to provide leadership on issues of global governance. The proposed council would be more broadly based than the G7 or the Bretton Woods institutions.”
In 2007, Reuters quoted Mr. Global Warming Himself, Al Gore as saying
It was the Bilderberg-appointed Herman Van Rompuy- the new EU-president- who stated recently
As a preface to the coming Copenhagen summit in December, the United Nations Population Fund in a recently published ‘ State of the Population 2009
In the foreword, the executive director of the UNFPA, Thoraya Obaid addresses the fake global warming hype, saying that “floods, storms and rising seas” will soon envelope the planet if not for quick, decisive and global efforts to combat these calamities.
“A Copenhagen agreement that helps people to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and adapt to climate change by harnessing the insight and creativity of women and men would launch a genuinely effective long-term global strategy to deal with climate change.”
Global strategy. That’s the talking point we hear over and over again from all agencies, UN or otherwise, who have an interest in profiting from the deal they are proposing. Never mind that all nation-states who sign on to the Copenhagen treaty will effectively forfeit their representative systems to this global authority, deciding which taxes will be paid by which nation-state. In the end, all roads seem to lead to a “planetary regime” envisioned by the elite long before “global warming” was even heard of.