An Inconvenient Truth

[30A Skunkape]

I think I can answer your question as to why this info may not be getting much press. I have singled out one part of the article you posted above simply because of its dates. The dates that Dr. Abdussamatov give for the earth to begin cooling are very telling. Basically what he is saying is, just wait until 2012 to 2015 before you start making changes, and you will see that the earth will begin to cool. The reason that the dates he chose are interesting is because they directly coincide with the dates that world oil reserves are predicted to start running out.
"The latest measurements confirm that the world's oil and natural gas supplies are running out too fast. At some time between 2010 and 2020 the world's supply of oil and gas will fall below the level required to meet international demand." - http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0423
This is not a single person making these predictions about our oil either. Our own vice president has made the same predictions, and he should know he comes from the oil industry.
"By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]along with, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]conservatively[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif], a three-percent natural decline [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]day." - Chenney [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So in other words our demand for oil continues to grow, and yet the production of oil is steadily declining. You should go to the lifeaftertheoilcrash website. It doesn't talk about global warming, but rather the state of our economy based on our dependence on oil.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now back to what we were talking about with the significance of the dates. People may not be aware of this, but Russia has become one of the main suppliers of oil for Europe. Russia is also beginning to revert back to the days of the cold war under Putin. This is no big secret and can be researched by anyone. Putin already took over the business of the biggest oil tycoon in Russia. He had the man imprisoned and now controls the company. A lot of Russia's science is funded by the state (I want to say most of it but would have to research the numbers), and a huge part of the state's money comes from oil revenues. [/FONT]
How convenient is it that Dr. Abdussamatov is saying that the earth will begin cooling in 2010-2015 if we can just wait until then, and the oil reserves will begin to disappear at the same time. If the earth doesn't begin to cool in 2010-2015 it won't really matter to the oil industry because their product will be running out no matter what they do. It is just another sales; tactic. These sales tactics don't really receive much attention by the scientific community anymore because they are seen as just that. The only people they really affect are the public (the buyers), which is who they are aimed at to begin with. All they need to do is put doubt in our minds so we will just carry on with life as usual. It is always a small number of scientists who refute the human caused global warming issue, and they are always linked to the oil industry.
Dr. Abdussamatou----Funded by an increasingly oppressive government
Increasingly oppressive government----Funded by oil
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]​

Since when did the left have a problem with those lovable commies?;-)

 

[rapunzel]

Since when did the left have a problem with those lovable commies?;-)

Socialists are of the left, communists (though not in theory but always in practice) are creatures of the right...totalitarians.

 

[peapod1980]

Socialists are of the left, communists (though not in theory but always in practice) are creatures of the right...totalitarians.

Punzey! Where you been?

 

[30A Skunkape]

In honor of the snowfall breaking all time records in New York...

From The Sunday TimesFebruary 11, 2007

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months? time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains ?very likely? as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain?s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter?s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Ad?lie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you?re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is ?Why is east Antarctica getting colder?? It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you?re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it?s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun?s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun?s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark?s idea ? apart from its being politically incorrect ? was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark?s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it ?A new theory of climate change?.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark?s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature?s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

 

[John R]

 

[Gypsea]

Love Blue Man Group and the message.

 

[30A Skunkape]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALBY7DLHwv0&eurl=

Hmmmm, fake smoke coming out of the smokestacks and exhaust. Why am I not surprised?:roll: :roll:

 

[A Zalace]

Since when did the left have a problem with those lovable commies?;-)

If I think old Ms. Fonda should be imprisoned as a traitor and Susan should just shut up half the time, does that mean I am still part of the left? I think the whole global warming debate poses an interesting question. Is the issue of man made global warming going to become politically polarized? It is an interesting question. I know of quite a few Republicans that believe in man made global warming, but would they do nothing about it because of their party line? I guess that is basically what Bush is doing. He said he believes in man made global warming, but doing anything about it that would affect the American economy is out of the question. That seems a bit crazy wouldn't you agree? If he believes in it and does nothing about it, what kind of economy will be left? I am sure there will still be an economy, but it couldn't possibly be better off. Looking at New Orleans tells me this. I consider myself a fairly conservative person on most topics, but if I believe in man made global warming does this mean I will be viewed as an ultra liberal?

 

[John R]

For those who missed the showing of An Inconvenient Truth at gulfplace, you will have another opportunity to see it. It will be shown at the Potluck Indipendant Film Series at the Seaside Rep. Hope to see you there.

 

[Smiling JOe]

For those who missed the showing of An Inconvenient Truth at gulfplace, you will have another opportunity to see it. It will be shown at the Potluck Indipendant Film Series at the Seaside Rep. Hope to see you there.

Are you using the RiverOtter spell check again?:funn: If you miss it at the Rep next Wednesday, you can also check it out for the price of your library card at the SoWalCo Library.