New pages added recently:
Signs of Intelligent Life
Appeal for the Regnum Marianum Church - Budapest - Hungary
For me, personally, this subject has been, - ever since it raised it's ugly head in the media - in the late 80's - if I remember right, - a bit of laugh and entertainment.
Now, please give me the courtesy and hear me out.
I'll try to get to my point as directly as I can.
I think of myself as an educated, intelligent, rational person.
During my school years, I remember learning about 'ice ages', - quite a few - if I remember right, spread over the millions of years, in our earth's history.
Now comes my rational thinking , which suggest, that between those 'ice ages', (somewhere in the middle, I presume, but not necessarily) we must have had 'global warmings'.
Right from the beginning, I was thinking on the line, that with this 'global warming' 'hysteria', they will create another large unworkable, unyielding conglomerate/bureaucracy with taxes or levies to match.
It is going to be the mother of all cash cows.
While I'm typing this, the following lines catch my eyes in our daily - New Zealand Herald - newspaper.
Our Aussie friends across the ditch have the Abbott Plan.
"Unworkable", - remember the League of Nations or the present United Nations, they were created after devastating world wars to stop them happening again.
Well, luckily we didn't have another world war yet, and the present organisation doing a good job in many fields, like, health, aid etc., but certainly didn't stop wars, - I mean small wars, big wars, - Vietnam, and some that going on even now as we speak, many, many places practically non stop, Iraq, Afghanistan, just to mention a few of the biggies.
Another funny thing, that most of the blame goes on from the mid 20th C. to date on 'human progress', like cars, burning fossil fuels and the like.
New Zealand is a major primary industry producer, we have over 50 million sheep and also large number of cattle and a few years ago the than government really got off side with our national wealth producers when they introduced or wanted to introduce "Fart Tax", according to them there's a lot of that down on the farms and that is a 'major' contributor to the 'global warming'.
Yeh, just think of all dinosaurs and other -auroses and they their bowl movements, 'global warmings', 'ice ages', etc., etc.
Yeh, I'm sure you got the picture by now.
As I said earlier, this whole thing a bit of laughing matter for me and have to excuse me if I don't really know or remember finite details on this matter.
I really, only want to launder the obvious pros' and cons' of this raging debate.
Remember the winter of 2009-10 in the Northern Hemisphere, especially in the USA and Europe.
I've heard the other night on the TV news, that it will take more than 60 years to fix all the potholes in the roads caused this winter's severe snowstorms and making roads usable in the short term.
A few months ago a friend of mine, (August H. (Augie) Auer Jr was an atmospheric scientist and meteorologist in New Zealand.) I used to meet at church passed away.
Auer was a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wyoming for 22 years.
A land use typing method to classify land as urban or rural, based on work he published in 1978, is used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and by the Jamaican National Environment and Planning Agency.
His most frequently cited research paper involves ice crystals in clouds.
In 1990, Auer emigrated to New Zealand, becoming Chief Meteorologist for the Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited from 1990 to 1998.
He also presented the weather forecast on TV3 News for several years, often preferring to use colloquialisms instead of technical jargon.
Auer has been frequently quoted in the New Zealand press regarding weather and climate issues, and was regarded in New Zealand as a "well- known and colourful meteorologist".
In 2006, he helped found the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition in order to argue claims about man-made global warming, leading the MetService to publicly disavow the views of their former Chief Meteorologist.
Following the transfer of "climate science" issues from the then New Zealand Meteorological Service into the "National Institute for Water and the Atmosphere" (NIWA) in 1992; Augie become critical of its statements, including those of former associate Jim Salinger.
In a 19 May 2007 interview with The Timaru Herald newspaper, Auer said a combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it, adding "It is time to attack the myth of global warming.
According to Auer: "Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm.
...if we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper".
"Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried."
_ o _ O _ o _
On the 10 June 2007, Auer died suddenly while dining with family in Melbourne, Australia while celebrating his 35th wedding anniversary and his 67th birthday. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Unfortunately, I only found out after Augie's passing that we had this pat subject of ours in common too, I would have really enjoyed a 'good, educated' yarn with him on this subject, without all the usual slogans, hysteria and crap, that's around this subject these days.
_ o _ O _ o _
I would like to quote another article I found during my travels on the internet, unfortunately I don't know the author of it, please let me know who you are if you read this, so I can acknowledge your authorship. Thanks
"Climate non - change
Is it not time all the doom and gloom about global warming, global temperature and climate change was left to settle and the sunbeam of a bit of reality be allowed to shine through?
So far we have all heard that cars are heating the Earth, also belching cows, flyspray cans, aeroplanes, old fridges, burning homefires, and leaving the leaving the light on.
Then a few weeks ago our attention was drawn to plants.
Topping it off the UK's Professor Lovelock proclaimed it doesn't matter what we do, humans are on course to die out in century.
Plants on the planet predate humans and arguably have more of a right to be here and more of a right to their methane output if it is warming the planet or not.
Plants fart and belch, yes, as does all of life.
One whale puts out 40x the methane of one cow.
Methane is nothing less than natural gas, which is inflammable and lighter than air and gets burned off by the next arrival of lightning.
Sorry, but there simply is NO methane cloud up in the sky.
If there was, the next plane going through it with sparks flying out the exhaust from one of its engines would ignite it in a spectacular explosion, killing hundreds on board.
Because there are plants all over the world expiring every day and every night and plants keep taking off from every major city every two minutes, these disasters must surely be happening every two minutes.
So how come we don't hear about them?
As a freezing snap hit there in November, the UK metservice warned that their coming winter would be one of the coldest ever.
So far it hasn't been. Japan and Korea and to a lesser extent eastern China had a very cold December but were closer to normal in January.
Canada and Alaska were extremely mild until February.
When Moscow plunged to -32, the coldest since 1987, the UK just dropped to 4degC.
In short, countries are different, just like people.
They all blow hot and cold according to their geographical personality.
In the same hemisphere they can have different trends and it is impossible to say overall planetary warming or cooling is occurring.
_ o _ O _ o _
Now, here I would like to quote another article from Th New Zealand Herald.
A matter of interest
In 2007 it was .8 C warmer than it was 127 years ago which averages out to around .006 per year since 1880.
It is a wonder that we could have survived such a wild temperature swing.
The tendency is to confuse GW with AGW.
The IPCC and NIWA claim this tiny tiny warming of the globe, but there is no possible way to ever prove humans alone must be mainly responsible.
Either weather is cyclic or it is not.
Weather cycles are 9-11 years which follow sun and moon.
The recent storm has even been described as a 10-year one by none other than the NZ Metservice. Ken Ring.
_ o _ O _ o _
I would like to return to my friend Augie again.
"[April 30, 2006] Auer explains why he backs Climate Science Coalition.
(New Zealand Press Association Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Wellington, May 1 NZPA - Augie Auer is irritated.
The former Met Service chief meteorologist is irked by the bad science that has gone into the dire predictions about the effects of man-made global warming on the planet.
Professor Auer, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming, is part of a group of leading climate scientists who have formed the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about man-made global warming.
In fact, he says, if we didn't have the greenhouse effect, the planet would be 33degC colder than it is now.
"The average temperature of the planet is about plus 15degC, it would be minus 18degC if we didn't have the effect of the greenhouse warming".
He said the whole history of global warming dated back to about the 1980s and he partly blames the media and partly scientists for the fears that have been raised. Some journalists were "a bit scientific illiterate" and when scientists put out the results of what their computer modeling effort would suggest, it was usually worst-case scenarios that were reported.
"It was usually an envelope of figures, one which said the planet could warm 6deg in the next 100 years and the other end of the envelope was perhaps half a deg in 100 years.
"And you know which one would be quoted," said Professor Auer.
"And the scientists were, I feel, in some respects, to blame because they never came forward and said wait a minute, you took that out of context, you know there's another end to it here."
That in turn started a rather insidious triangle in which maintaining that high danger, that crisis environment, drove the research funding, he said.
"Crises are what always drives the funding."
Professor Auer said the issue that aroused his particular interest was what farmers called the Fart Tax.
"It was absolutely unfounded in any scientific necessity," he said.
But then came all the predictions regarding the dire consequences of global warming.
"If you think back, you have never heard anything positive that could come about from global warming ... everything is always negative, alarmist, fear, doom," he said.
"One of my favourites is the fact we talk about the oceans will rise and the wave motion will get stronger and the beaches will erode ... have you ever seen a beach build back?
"Beaches have been eroding since time began, it's what beaches do.
Rocks weather in the rain and wind, they don't build back.
"People have lost track of just what is realistic about all this," Professor Auer said.
"Then there was the attempt to impose the carbon tax."
"That's what really got me going because I thought, well wait a minute here, there's too much of this punitive correction being leveled on populations around the world," he said.
"Every time you pop a can of pop open and go to pour it out and all the bubbles come up you could be contributing, if you buy into this argument, to the global warming issue because that's a source of carbon dioxide.
"That's how really silly it can get."
He said the global warming issue had been based on hysteria.
"It's been based on some very poor science and the bottom line is, that the greenhouse effect, which unfortunately the public's perception of is something that's very bad and very harmful, the fact of the matter is, it's a near miraculous process that keeps this planet livable, inhabitable and keeps the vegetation growing on it ... it makes it really a beautiful place, not literally the third rock from the sun."
Professor Auer said that three quarters of the planet was ocean, and 95 percent of the greenhouse effect was governed by water vapour.
"Of that remaining 5 percent, only about 3.6 percent is governed by CO2 and when you break it down even further, studies have shown that the anthropogenic (man-made) contribution to CO2 versus the natural is about 3.2 percent.
"So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that's like 12c in $100."
"It's miniscule ... it's nothing," he said.
"So if that's the driving science, why do we need to be all concerned about CO2 and why do we need Kyoto and why do we need all the consequences from it?"
Professor Auer said that what the coalition was trying to achieve was to have the other side of the issue heard.
He said there were now many scientists worldwide -- "and I'm pleased to say many young ones coming up through the ranks" -- who were beginning to question the validity of global warming.
"I have always subscribed to the philosophy that good science wins out."
"I've always told my colleagues: just be patient, that the global warming argument, particularly with all the disastrous consequences that are being promulgated ... this is all a non-sustainable argument. In other words the facts will, in time, prove them to be wrong."
The coalition has registered a website domain name, www.climatescience.org.nz, which it expects to have running within a day or two."
_ o _ O _ o _
Briefly, Augie's main argument against anthropogenic (human made) climate change, and an argument made by many other climate skeptics is, that water vapour in the atmosphere is a much more potent 'greenhouse' gas than CO2 and that due to the vast abundance of water vapour the relatively small (380 parts per billion) CO2 content in the atmosphere would not contribute much to global warming, let alone the small contribution that humans were making to that CO2 content.
And as most water vapour is naturally generated due to evaporation of the oceans, there was nothing that humanity would be able to do about it.
There is a lot more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2.
Water vapour is a perfect absorber of infrared radiation and thus the main contributor to the so called 'greenhouse' effect.
He is also correct to say, that the Earth would be covered in ice, if it was not for the warming blanket of that water vapour.
_ o _ O _ o _
The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent and Rebecca Lefort
The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.
The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.
In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.
It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC's report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.
Skeptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.
This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.
But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC's use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.
Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.
"Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.
"There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."
The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government's worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.
The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled "Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming".
It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.
The report also states that the section is intended to "assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects".
But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.
The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.
Mr Bowen said: "I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes."
The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.
Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.
The IPCC has faced growing criticism over the sources it used in its last report after it emerged the panel had used unsubstantiated figures on glacial melting in the Himalayas that were contained within a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report.
It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.
One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.
In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.
In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.
When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.
The chair of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has faced mounting pressure and calls for his resignation amid the growing controversy over the error on glacier melting and use of unreliable sources of information.
A survey of 400 authors and contributors to the IPCC report showed, however, that the majority still support Mr Pachauri and the panel's vice chairs.
They also insisted the overall findings of the report are robust despite the minor errors.
But many expressed concern at the use of non-peer reviewed information in the reports and called for a tightening of the guidelines on how information can be used.
The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: "The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed."
Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC's latest report, added: "The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.
"It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically skeptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."
The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report but it has insisted over the past week that despite minor errors, the findings of the report are still robust and consistent with the underlying science.
_ o _ O _ o _
OK. Let's have a break.
_ o _ O _ o _
I'm sorry, but all the Global Warming errors sound just like: Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook", when he was - Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky" when he did - John Edwards saying "I did not have an affair" when he did - and all the baseball players with huge muscles saying "I don't use drugs" when they do. We all know they're lieing, you just don't care. Shame on you. Anonymous
_ o _ O _ o _
Where is the smoking gun of the Global Warming scam. Anonymous
_ o _ O _ o _
Global Warming now resembles a religion much more than a science. It even comes complete with an initial Eden-like rainforest, Mankind's fall from grace through an Original Sin of enjoying the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge (the industrial revolution) and a great flood sent to destroy Mankind for our evil industry. Anonymous
_ o _ O _ o _
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." Anonymous
_ o _ O _ o _
No - Bangladesh isn't drowning it's gaining 20 sq kms annually! Anonymous
_ o _ O _ o _
Global Warming US Cities Getting Warmer
_ o _ O _ o _
This 'Global warming is serious matter, especially since we will have to start to pay for sooner than we realise, by tax or levy or higher prices or all 3 of them.
_ o _ O _ o _
Just remember this is the place where you seen it first.
_ o _ O _ o _
Let's get back to our subject than.
_ o _ O _ o _
By the way, as I'm writing this article at the beginning of February 2010, and I live near the bottom of the Southern Hemisphere, our TV news coverage brought pictures of snow blizzards, transport interruptions and extreme cold conditions on the northern Hemisphere, especially the USA and Europe practically every night since late November, if I remember right.
_ o _ O _ o _
Global warming' is non-science
by Peter J. Morgan B.E. (Mech.), a North Shore (Auckland, New Zealand) based engineer and teacher.
Some say that mankind should not burn oil and coal because the carbon dioxide so produced causes global warming.
The proper answer to that is to state the truth, that the idea that mankind's production of carbon dioxide causes global warming is merely a hypothesis.
There is more than enough physical evidence to thoroughly discredit such a hypothesis, as has been shown by Prof Robert Carter and numerous other scientists.
You are invited to view a video of Prof Carter's demolition of the "mankind's production of carbon dioxide causes global warming" hypothesis at www.nzcpr.com/ forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=385 where you will see Prof Carter illustrate five examples of verifiable science that refute the hypothesis.
Prof Carter makes the point that truth in science is never decided by consensus, but if you prefer your scientific beliefs to be decided by a consensus of the world's scientists, the pronouncement by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that "2,500 scientists of the United Nation's IPCC agree that humans are causing a climate crisis", which is repeated ad nauseam by environmentalists, the press and governments around the world, including New Zealand's, has been thoroughly discredited at http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/ article/968 where Tom Harris and John McLean tell the truth about this deception and point out that "an example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that 'hundreds of IPCC scientists' are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely "Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years."
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change".
Almost 60% of the comments received from the 62 expert reviewers of this critical chapter were rejected by the IPCC editors and 55 of the 62 expert reviewers had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
In my view, seven does not constitute "a consensus of the world's scientists."
If it's consensus you want before you decide on what the truth is, then follow the link to www.network.nationalpost.com/ np/blogs/fpcomment/ archive/2008/05/17/32- 000-deniers.aspx to read about the petition signed by more than 32,000 scientists, more than 9000 of whom hold PhDs.
Given that there have been so many demolitions of the hypothesis that mankind's production of carbon dioxide causes global warming, one is entitled to ask "What about what Einstein is reputed to have said, that just one fact was all that was needed to invalidate his theory of relativity?"
Why do so many apparently intelligent people and especially scientists persist in holding blindly to their faith in the truth of the hypothesis that human- produced carbon dioxide causes global warming, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?
Leo Tolstoi, the famous Russian author of War and Peace, provided a plausible explanation when he wrote "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."
Few people are ever in a position to disregard the financial consequences of their decisions, none more so than climate scientists.
In far too many cases, a climate scientist who changes his mind rapidly becomes an unemployed climate scientist!
This explains why so many climate scientists who are branded as 'skeptics' are actually retired.
Further, there is a hidden agenda, in that 'human-caused global warming' is merely a subterfuge for global governance, by which powerful forces are hard at work behind the scenes to forge a 'one world government' controlled by the world's power elite.
That the IPCC's activities and reports have more to do with the politics of such global governance than they have had to do with science has been well documented in an excellent video, all 700MB of which is available for downloading to your hard drive, at www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid= 4860344067427439443 - it is well worth the time to watch it!
Knowing that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming frees us to resume building coal-fired electricity generating stations to meet New Zealand's growing electrical energy needs.
When the cost of eventual decommissioning the respective plants is factored in, coal is a long way cheaper than nuclear power, and with the latest technology in exhaust gas filters and scrubbers, burning coal is much less environmentally unfriendly than it used to be.
New Zealand has vast reserves of lignite in Southland and anthracite in numerous locations around the rest of the country.
We could begin by building a coal-fired power station close to Auckland, possibly close to the steel mill, which would mean that the visual blight and vast expense of the proposed 70m high pylons leading in to Auckland would not be needed.
Also, a new coal-fired station at Tiwai Point could feed the aluminium smelter, freeing Manapouri to feed the national grid.
These would have the added benefit of reducing our dependency on hydroelectricity during the inevitable dry seasons.
Of course, coal-fired electricity stations would make the alternative of much more expensive and vastly less reliable wind-turbine farms totally unnecessary.
Yes, we can have plenty of electricity without destroying the visual beauty of some of New Zealand's most prized landscapes.
Each of us in our own small way can now burn as much petroleum product as we can afford to put in our cars and boats, safe in the knowledge that all the extra carbon dioxide we produce will not cause global warming, but will help plants, and hence food, to grow faster, thus helping to feed the billions!
Please feel free to contact your local MP and urge him or her to put a stop to the lunacy of trying to reduce mankind's carbon dioxide emissions.
The sooner people the world over wake up to the non-science of 'global warming' and 'burning oil and coal is an environmental sin', the better off we and our children and our children's children (etc) will be.
So please, do not be afraid to put your head above the parapet and speak the truth - out loud!
Please feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I will send you a copy of this article so that you may copy and paste the text to an email to all those on your mailing list.
By doing this, you will help to ensure that sufficient people will tell their government that they will not put up with the 'global warming' nonsense any more, that the whole edifice will collapse, in much the same way that the Berlin Wall was brought down and the Iron Curtain collapsed - without another shot being fired - just as, I might add, I predicted during my years spent teaching economics at a high school in the early 1980s.
Several years later, in 1989, I was in Ludwigshafen, only two weeks before the Berlin Wall came down, and well remember the tears flowing profusely down the cheeks of my elderly East German companions as I told them that the wall would come down in a few weeks and that there would be "one Germany, very soon!"
Still not convinced that man-made global warming isn't happening?
How about considering that both surface-based measurements and satellite measurements agree that there has been a decline in mean global temperatures over the past ten years, wiping out the gains over the previous 100 years.
Further articles may be read on the (website of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, at www.nzclimatescience.net)
_ o _ O _ o _
Did you know? They were growing grapes all over England the early 1900s?
_ o _ O _ o _
Greenhouse effect real?
So much has been written now about emissions and global warming, hardly anyone bothers any more to challenge the basic science behind the need for the emergency taxes and regulations that are going to drastically alter our way of life.
But let's ask some fresh questions about the so-called greenhouse effect, whereby the heat from the earth reflects down from the "greenhouse" cover made by "greenhouse gases", especially from emissions from cars and factories, and this somehow is supposed to make the world steadily hotter.
When we were at school, weren't we taught that heat never goes down, it only ever goes up, which is why we put lids on pots but is also why supermarket horizontal freezers are sometimes open to the air?
How can the trapping of heat raise an object's temperature in the first place?
Doesn't it only slow down heat loss?
For instance, a polar bear is a living thermos bottle.
Its internal body temperature is much the same as ours.
The reason polar bears can happily exist in zoos like those in the south of France, San Diego and until a few years ago, the Auckland Zoo, is because they are unaffected by outside temperatures.
Its surrounding fat and fur are such good insulation a polar bear is virtually invisible to a thermal camera.
Just like coffee in a thermos, you can't tell how hot the inside of a polar bear is by looking at it from the outside.
So does coffee in a thermos get hotter because its heat is trapped?
In my thermos it just retains its temperature for a longer time.
Otherwise, both the polar bear and the thermos would pretty quickly self-ignite.
In short, the earth absorbs enough energy from the sun to reach a certain temperature.
Since it radiates the same amount, its temperature obviously isn't raised by carbon dioxide absorbing infrared rays - for CO2 simply releases that energy at the same pace, as satellites attest.
But even if CO2 did trap thermal energy, as insulation does (creating an emission discrepancy that would be quite observable to satellites), surely the earth's temperature could go no higher than what it began with!
To repeat, coffee doesn't seem to get hotter in a thermos.
Even on special websites for children, the message is that the greenhouse effect is "caused by gases in our atmosphere (especially water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane).
They trap energy from the sun's light and reflect it back to Earth, so we just keep on getting warmer.
Given that heat does not go down, then isn't all we are talking about just reflection?
It would be a preposterous scientific lie to scare children into thinking some reflection is dangerous.
You might as well believe that your image in a mirror can burn your face.
It is surely questionable, and yet is it not the theory that the IPCC, NIWA, and politicians continue to try to foist on the public?
But honestly, is Earth's atmosphere anything like a greenhouse, because heat from near Earth's surface can freely escape into space anytime, there being no walls to trap it within.
As insulation is not warming, as reflection is not magnifying, as an actual greenhouse does not destroy but only enhances the well-being of its crop within, is not this whole greenhouse-effect scare a little overblown?
_ o _ O _ o _
Back to Augie Auer again.
A interview on National Radio some time ago couldn't be more appropriate.
Well-known weatherman Augie Auer is being asked what he thinks about the Kyoto protocol, which the government has just ratified.
He's not a fan.
He believes it's being pushed by climate scientists who've hinged their careers on theories not facts about global warming.
Just what the government's ratification of the protocol will mean for me isn't clear, but I tend to believe it will simply add more cost for the sake of uncertain science.
_ o _ O _ o _
Now just one or two important point.
Neither of the three (USA, China, India) largest nation, 'polluters' and industrialised contributors to this 'global warming, so to say, keen to subscribe to it or the so called Kyoto Protocol or want to have much to do with it.
Now, funny that!
_ o _ O _ o _
One thing certain, that you and me going to pay for it, and pay for it in a very big way.
Take my word for it.
Have you heard about the 'green point', 'trading points', etc.
They are coming and many other new concepts schemes, names, etc!
_ o _ O _ o _
You may say this page is biased and taking things out of context and concentrating on one side of the argument only, well my friend/s wait till they will hit you in the pocket, now that'll biased and one sided and we all going to be the the sacrificial lamb.
Call me scaremonger, we will all have to pay!!!
Call me doomsday prophet, we will all have to pay!!!
Thanks for coming, I hope you have enjoyed it, will recommend
it to your friends, and will come
back later to see my site developing