Overall a good piece. Thanks. Have you taken into consideration the type of government that is now running Brazil?
From what I understand the danger of nationalization and more socialization comes if the economy turns down. That would give the government a excuse to exercise such power.
Where do you stand on this subject?
I'm adding you to my read list. Keep up the good work.
Start Investing Now For Retirement Wealth [View article]
DIYDG:
Your comparing a penny doubled every day for a month to long term DG investing is a huge stretch, and truly is a false comparison; but you do make plenty of good points in your piece.
Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
The Science Used to Challenge Manmade Global Warming and Is Behind Many of the Letters to Various Government Agencies That Promote the Global Warming Hoax
After attempting to smear and belittle the signers of the numerous letters sent to the UN, NASA, and the US Congress, you will hear the Warmers make the spurious claim that there is no science behind the charges in those letters and petitions. More prevarication and fabrication from the Warmers!
Anything whatever to evade having to discuss content.
For example, for the purpose of smearing and discrediting the Petition against AGW signed by over 30,000 scientists with university degrees in various scientific disciplines, about 9,000 of those having earned Ph.Ds, the Warmers sent in fake names, of which one slipped in, and then immediately pointed that one out after publication. They also picked out people with names like Perry Mason and Michael Fox and claimed they were fake, but they are real scientists whose names happen to match a famous fictional character and a well-known actor.
The principal statement regarding that Petition and the beliefs of the signers is this: “From the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not `skeptics.’ These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.” See here for this statement, the list of signers, and their qualifications: http://bit.ly/15bWfcg
At this date there are 15-times the number of Ph.Ds who have signed the Petition than are involved with the UN-IPCC. Stick that majority in your pipes and smoke it — Warmers.
The work listed here on this post is the major work behind the charges against AGW by the Petition signers and other groups, and it successfully challenges and refutes each and every one of the Warmers’ claims.
The report called "Climate Change Reconsidered" can be found here: http://bit.ly/Ra9ZAr
I have read this work, and I found that I enjoyed Chapter 7 the most: “Biological Effects of Carbon Dioxide Enrichment.” Which tells us that, even if these deceitful ideologues are correct about the earth’s warming (and they most certainly do not know and are most likely wrong because they’ve been wrong since the 1960s in their extremely negative predictions), we will be better off in respect to food production than we are at this point.
The study of soybeans under higher C02 conditions is most interesting. You will find conclusions and statements such as these in Chapter 7: "Under all environmental circumstances studied, enriching the air with an extra 300 ppm of CO2 increased the total isoflavone content of soybean seeds. In addition, the percent increases measured under the stress situations investigated were always greater than the percent increase measured under optimal growing conditions."
"In conclusion, as the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, soybeans will likely respond by displaying significant increases in growth and yield, with possible improvements in seed quality; these beneficial effects will likely persist even if temperatures rise or soil moisture levels decline, regardless of their cause. Additional information on this topic, including reviews on sorghum not discussed here, can be found at http://bit.ly/15bWfZX under the main heading Agriculture, sub heading Soybean."
Being a lover of strawberries, these studies about strawberry growth at higher C02 levels I particularly like:
"In the open-top chamber study of Bunce (2001), strawberry plants (Fragaria x ananassa) exposed to air containing an extra 300 and 600 ppm CO2 displayed photosynthetic rates that were 77 and 106 percent greater, respectively, than rates displayed by plants grown in ambient air containing 350 ppm CO2. Similarly, Bushway and Pritts (2002) reported that strawberry plants grown at atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 700 and 1,000 ppm exhibited photosynthetic rates that were consistently more than 50 percent greater than rates displayed by control plants."
"In addition, Bushway and Pritts (2002) reported that a two- to three-fold increase in the air’s CO2 content boosted strawberry fruit yield by 62 percent.
As the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, strawberry plants will likely exhibit enhanced rates of photosynthesis and biomass production, which should lead to greater fruit yields.” Additional information on this topic, including reviews of newer publications as they become available, can be found at http://bit.ly/UVU1Mp."
Remember, the wild-eyed Warmers have claimed that if we don’t stop spewing C02 into the atmosphere, the earth will begin to lose its wheat crops and that will disable us from being able to make pasta. So then, they warn, if you love pasta, you better get behind legislation to stop polluting the atmosphere with C02.
But see here: Wheat “In one study, Dijkstra et al. (1999) grew winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in open-top chambers and field-tracking sun-lit climatized enclosures maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of ambient and ambient plus 350 ppm CO2 for two years, determining that the elevated CO2 increased both final grain yield and total above-ground biomass by 19 percent. In another study, Masle (2000) grew two varieties of wheat for close to a month in greenhouses maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 900 ppm, finding that the CO2-enriched plants exhibited biomass increases of 52 to 93 percent, depending upon variety and vernalization treatment.”
“Based on a plethora of experimental observations of this nature, many scientists have developed yield prediction models for wheat. Using the output of several such models, Alexandrov and Hoogenboom (2000) estimated the impact of typically predicted climate changes on wheat production in Bulgaria in the twenty-first century, finding that a doubling of the air’s CO2 concentration would likely enhance wheat yields there between 12 and 49 percent in spite of a predicted 2.9° to 4.1°C increase in air temperature.”
Note: Notice that these researchers use the predictive temperature models designed by the Warmers at the UN-IPCC — which have been wrong and will continue to be wrong. That’s using your opponents’ own exaggerated claims and still besting them — which makes for a powerful argument. AD
And this conclusion on the Warmers’ glacier melting claims: "Global data on glaciers do not support claims made by the UNIPCC that most glaciers are retreating or melting. Additional information on this topic, including reviews of newer publications as they become available, can be found at http://bit.ly/15bWg01.”
The Warmers who have taken the “consensus” view of science seriously and the theoretical predictive models from the UNIPCC as absolutes (and most have) — and have run with these as if “consensus” is the only science and all else is quackery, and that these models are accurate forecasters, must read Chapter 1, “Climate Models and Their Limitations.”
You will find statements such as this one: “In 2007, Armstrong and Kesten C. Green of Monash University conducted a `forecasting audit’ of the UN-IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Green and Armstrong, 2007). The authors’ search of the contribution of Working Group I to the UNIPCC `found no references … to the primary sources of information on forecasting methods’ and `the forecasting procedures that were described [in sufficient detail to be evaluated] violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical.’”
After this and other non-publicized crushing blows to their theoretical predictive models, the UNIPCC immediately claimed that it now has “greatly improved methods of predicting future climate” — and then shortly stated that their new theoretical predictive models came up with the same predictions as the old ones that contained so many “critical violations” of “forecasting procedures.”
It’s very difficult at this point in the Hoax for the Warmers to get out of the sludge they’ve piled around themselves without stinking up the whole scientific community. That occurs when dogma trumps reason and truth. So they have to pretend they get the same results no matter what method or data they use.
And then there’s this: “[Study results show that] forecasts by scientists, even large numbers of very distinguished scientists, are not necessarily scientific forecasts.”
And finally, this: “One principle of scientific forecasting Green and Armstrong say the UNIPCC violated is `Principle 1.3: Make sure forecasts are independent of politics.’ The two authors write, `this principle refers to keeping the forecasting process separate from the planning process. The term ‘politics’ is used in the broad sense of the exercise of power.’ Citing David Henderson (Henderson, 2007), a former head of economics and statistics at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), they say `the UNIPCC process is directed by non-scientists who have policy objectives and who believe that anthropogenic global warming is real and a danger.’”
In other words, their models and their predictions are purely political — as every unbiased, non-dogma-driven person who has studied the issue already knows. AD
They conclude: “The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainty and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.”
The above is a small sample of what you will find that convicts the Warmers for their political non-science — and condemns their baleful predictions as bunk. But be sure to read it for yourselves, and enjoy, because it’s clear and easily readable.
Although the study contains citations and source notes from hundreds of scientific studies and scientists (respectively), Sherwood Idso headed up the work.
Short bio of Sherwood Idso: Sherwood Idso is the author or co-author of over 500 scientific publications including the books “Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe?” and “Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition.” He served on the editorial board of the international journal Agricultural and Forest Meteorology from 1973 to 1993 and since 1993 has served on the editorial board of Environmental and Experimental Botany. Over the course of his career, he has been an invited reviewer of manuscripts for 56 different scientific journals and 17 different funding agencies, representing an unusually large array of disciplines.
He has been Research Physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona, where he began working in 1967. He has been closely associated with Arizona State University over most of this period, serving as an Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Botany, Geography, Geology, and Microbiology.
As a result of his early work in the field of remote sensing, Idso was honored with an Arthur S. Flemming Award, given in recognition of "his innovative research into fundamental aspects of agricultural- climatological interrelationships affecting food production and the identification of achievable research goals whose attainment could significantly aid in assessment and improvement of world food supplies." He continues his research into the biospheric consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.
Sherwood’s Idso’s website will keep you up to date better than any other on the latest science regarding C02 and its affect on the planet and the atmosphere. It is of the highest quality — and is an easy read. See here: http://bit.ly/15bWfci
Now, quite naturally, the Warmers have attempted to shoot the messenger by slandering the entire Idso family (a whole group of scientists) — yet never in not one instance that we can find do they argue against the content of their work. Their biggest knock is that Big Oil (in particular, Exxon) funds their work. Exxon in fact slings money across the board in the “global warming” war, and I have shown where BP and Chevron provide millions in funding every year for the Warmers — and not just for studies and research as Exxon does, but to promote “global warming” around the globe. See here where Chevron believes in and promotes "global warming": http://bit.ly/12mnLoW
Exxon gives money to hundreds of groups and far more leftist, pro-global-warming ones than not. In 2002, ExxonMobil announced an investment of $100 million in Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project (C-CEP). This 10-year project, which will eventually total $225 million in donations, is cosponsored by a group of global companies who often sponsor and promote “global warming” groups. In addition to ExxonMobil, those companies include GE, Toyota, and Schlumberger.
The Stanford Global Climate Project already believes that C02 is a problem and in the “greenhouse theory” — the organization began with that bias, because this is their own stated mission: “Our mission is to conduct fundamental research on technologies that will permit the development of global energy systems with significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions.” See here: http://stanford.io/UVU22H
The sycophantic Warmers don’t seem to understand that oftentimes large businesses seek to shut out smaller ones, thereby creating monopolies for themselves. So naturally, you’re going to find some oil companies who want the world’s ample supply of oil partially shut off from drilling — for the less the supply, the greater the price they can obtain for their product. That’s the reason that for years the oil companies tried to hide what their geologists were telling them: there is oil all over the world and plenty of it.
But none of that means a damn thing. What counts is the quality and content of the work itself no matter who funds it or creates it — each side’s work should stand or fall on its own value.
And this the Warmers do all they can to evade having to do — they simply will not debate content. They misdirect and change the subject. If they are not changing the subject entirely, if the topic point is general, they switch to the specific. If it is specific, they switch to the general.
They slander authors and shoot the messenger; they distort the data and conclusions from opposing studies and their own; they ignore quality work that goes against their views; they use guilt by association to destroy the reputations of opponents, thereby shooting the messenger; they twist their message to suit the empirical evidence as soon as that evidence shows they are wrong; they often take empirical evidence that is local and extrapolate it into a universal claim; and their media consistently ask those who reject “global warming” who funds their work rather than focusing on the work itself. All this they do to discredit opponents and their work — without having to mention the content or quality of that work.
Sherwood Idso speaks to the constant question of funding here: http://bit.ly/UVU22O
Here’s the way the Master Warmers work — and it’s an easy sell to the sycophantic Warmers who troll the Web. They first demonize an outfit or person, as they have the Koch brothers, for example, by calling them something evil, such as “conservative” (a term leftists have already demonized among their own) when they are truly Libertarian and are actually very “green,” or the Heartland Institute, which is also Libertarian yet has sponsored and published articles intended to expose the “global warming” Hoax.
They then — often in the most extraneous stretch imaginable — tie authors whose work exposes the “Global Warming” Hoax to people and groups they have demonized. This method of destroying your opponent obviously works with semi-literate to illiterate people, because the Master Warmers have surely scammed multitudes using it.
Another example of how they work is here: The Warmers intend for this allegedly leaked email from the hated Heartland Institute to condemn Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who rejects AGW and runs this website: http://bit.ly/15bWfcj
“We [the Heartland Institute] have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”
Well, let’s hope that happens, because the more people checking behind the Warmers’ so-far mendacious claims the better. This shows how truly silly the sycophant Warmers are — that the Master Warmers can use such sophomoric tricks to deceive them.
The work noted here exposes just how many wrongs the Warmers promote and proves their claim a fabrication that there is no science behind charges in the letters and petitions sent to various governments around the world.
Moreover, as noted above, this report successfully challenges and refutes each and every one of the Warmers’ claims.
The report called "Climate Change Reconsidered" can be found here: http://bit.ly/Ra9ZAr
Note: As always, thanks to the girls who did the grunt work. I edited. The ArtfulDodger
Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
The Global Freezing Claims of the 1960s and `70s "... the Leftist press continues to quote bug and flower scientists about global warming — including doomsayers who three decades ago were predicting a fast-approaching, planet-freezing ice age. I should know, being author of the 1976 Prentice-Hall bestselling climate book, "The Cooling." (Lowell Ponte in the 1990s, author of the 1976 hot-book for Freezers, "The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun?")
“Predictions of future climate trends by Stephen Schneider and other leading climatologists, based on the prevailing knowledge of the atmosphere in the early 1970s, gave more weight to the potential problem of global cooling than it now appears to merit.” (“Betrayal of Science and Reason,” 1996, p. 34, by Paul and Anne Ehrlich; Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore's main mentor, wrote "Overpopulation" in 1968; he also founded Zero Population Growth "to save the earth from overpopulation"; in those books he predicted the disappearance of England and that 65-million Americans would die of starvation during the 1980s)
Stephen Schneider died in 2010, but he became a full-blown Warmer long before. By 1977, even with cold weather blustering across North America like nobody’s business, mainly because his predictions were not even close to coming true, Schneider straddled the fence as any good leftist would do when in trouble and stated this in “Nature”: “we just don't know enough to choose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling — or when.” (“Nature,” 12-77)
This was one of the first signs that the Freezers’ cold feet were warming. And why? Not only were their predictions failing to come about — but the rest of the world was not going through the same brutal cold that North America was. And for “global” anything to be absolute — then if a thing is occurring in one place it better be occurring in the other.
The Freezers had made the same mistake — some surely did it on purpose as they do today — that we had watched them make on so many other occasions, and it’s still one of their more common errors (and methods of deception): to extrapolate a local into a universal. This deceitful trick the Master Warmers have used to deceive hordes of lay people in America, to aid them in their quest to stop the use of natural earth fuels: oil, coal, and gas.
"The worriers about cooling included `Science,' the most influential scientific journal in the world, quoting an official of the World Meteorological Organization; the National Academy of Sciences worrying about the onset of a 10,000 year ice age; “Newsweek” warning that food production could be adversely affected within a decade; the `New York Times' quoting an official of the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and `Science Digest,' the science periodical with the largest circulation.” (“The State of Humanity”: Part VII, final chapter: “What Does the Future Hold? The Forecast in a Nutshell,” by Julian Simon, 1995, p. 646)
For someone to claim that the Left’s central climate theme in the 1960s and `70s was not "global freezing" shows a deep ignorance of the times or the purposeful intent to deceive, or perhaps both. Of course, if I were a Warmer today, I wouldn't want anyone to know that the people I'm listening to have been all over the board with their claims and predictions, and not one has come true. Thus, such mistakes have forced them to become Changers — no way to lose with that phrase.
But they have only recently begun to claim that global warming is bringing about both cold and hot weather and lower and higher temperatures. So there are plenty of their mendacious predictions to mine as proof they can’t predict anything.
That's why the Warmers have to distort data and research, remove weather stations from cooler areas, and in general put out the largest mass of bogus material ever cast on the world — in an attempt to scare people into believing their crappy non-science. One thing the Left has done is to figure out that fear sells.
The Left's crises of the day were three: global freezing; natural resource depletion (in the main, oil); and overpopulation. My friends and I researched these things very well and debated against the former two many times in both formal and informal situations.
The overpopulation concept was so far out of the realm of reality we didn't bother, though we did challenge their result claims in a couple of double debates. There were between 2.8 to 3.7 billion people on the planet in 1970 (according to each extreme) — with the anti-human Left predicting the most dire results imaginable over the next twenty-years. The population had either doubled or was up by over 50% by 1990 — and not one of their predictions had come true. Another far-left wing-nut Hoax.
Richard Nixon was a Freezer in those days, and that's part of the reason he created the EPA. He wanted the first EPA to declare C02 a pollutant and to figure ways to control its issue into the atmosphere. They refused to declare it a pollutant. No subsequent EPA would do that until the most radical of all the EPAs came along under Obama.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were Freezers when they returned to Arkansas to run for governor in the late 1970s. After the Freezers became Warmers in the 1980s, Slick Willie seemed to back away from the Left’s climate claims — not being one to get caught in the same scam twice. But Hillary — far more ideological than he — followed right along with the Warmers and is now a devoted Changer, though she's rarely brought it up since the cold spell crashed onto the planet in the late `90s.
The proof is overwhelming that the Left was promoting menacing climate change, in this case, “global freezing,” for the express purpose of creating more government — and in that they succeeded.
This government report by the CIA, which came out in August, 1974, showed that the impetus for creating more centralized government to study and predict world climate came from a major study by the University of Wisconsin which concluded “the world is returning to the climatic regime that existed from the 1600s to the 1850s called the neo-boreal or the “Little Ice Age.” (pg. 25)
Shortly before this report, the Nixon Administration assigned several new departments to deal with future forecasting and planning for climate and weather — which the CIA considered security risks — and for the purpose of coming up with a National Climatic Plan.
This report — very optimistic of central planning — hopes that weather forecasters would be able to predict the weather five-years out.
Though the whole report is worth getting a better understanding beliefs of the period, for those who simply want to know that “global freezing” was indeed the serious climate issue of the day, pgs. 7, 25, & 28-31 may be the more informative in the paper.
You will find that there were numerous papers from the era predicting doom and gloom brought about by "global cooling." You will find no mention in this report about "global warming."
During the late `60s and most of the `70s, I assure you that the universities, colleges, all left-wing teachers and professors, the Hippies, climatologists (what few of them there were), and some meteorologists were all adamant about the planet's heading for another ice age because of human's using natural earth fuels: coal, gas, and oil.
Thus, to claim that no one took “global freezing” seriously because there were no peer-reviewed papers is again either purposely deceitful or banefully ignorant of the times — or both. After the brutal winters of the early 1970s in North America, climatologists began creeping out of the shadows — making predictions that the weather would get even colder. These claims, according to many meteorologists of the day, dismissed hundreds of years of cycles of warmer than normal and then colder than normal weather. Climate change, in simpler words.
Besides, peer-reviewed articles by the Warmers simply mean that one Warmer wrote a paper and another bunch of Warmers reviewed it — anything that follows their politicized course gets a thumbs up. In fact, "buddy review" came into being because the Warmers needed fellow travelers to approve their nutty claims.
**********************... Walter Sullivan of the NY Times took up the mantel for the Freezers early on. He later became a wild-eyed Warmer.
Article: "Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May be Ahead" Go here and read the first two paragraphs, and you'll get the gist of what the far-left wing-nuts were promoting back in the late 1960s through the 1970s. http://bit.ly/RpmVTk
**********************...
"University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row." See pics of magazine cover here: http://bit.ly/VswHBn Here you can find the full text of the “Time” article: http://bit.ly/RpmWq9 ********************** This article from 1973 is most interesting, because it quotes 46 scientists from the National Science Foundation, who said that warming periods were very short in earth's history and that they all agreed "there was evidence of ominous world-wide cooling of temperatures in the last two decades." http://bit.ly/12N1kJY
**********************... This from a Washington Post article warning of the global freezing to come: "Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters — the worst may be yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by `climatologists,' the people who study very long-term world weather trends."
Colder Winters Hail Dawn of New Ice Age Scientists See Ice Age In the Future Publication : The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973)- Washington, D.C. Author : Washington Post Staff Writer; By David R. Boldt Date : Jan 11, 1970
Or this one from the LA Times Article: Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age? http://bit.ly/RpmWqb
**********************... Or this one from Britain British Climate Expert Predicts New Ice Age The Christian Science Monitor (1908-Current file) - Boston, Mass. Date: Sep 23, 1972
********************** The Chicago Tribune Piles On, Which at the Time was No Left-Wing Tabloid Ice Age, Worse Food Crisis Seen Chicago Tribune (1963-Current file) - Chicago, Ill. Author: Ronald Yates Date: Oct 30, 1974
And again from the Chicago Tribune in 1975: "In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice." http://bit.ly/13glBmJ ********************** Article from the Washington Times regarding an article they found in the Library of Congress in 2007 showing that it was James Hansen's climate models that predicted the upcoming global freezing back in the late 1960s & `70s. Hansen is today a dye-in-the-ozone Warmer, and as far as we find is the first to start the name-calling and slandering of opponents of much of what is his consensus-created science. http://bit.ly/12N1l0i
*********************** Nice, short Utube video showing how the Warming Changers have been all over the map for decades. http://bit.ly/VswKgx
*********************** Clearly, it is disingenuous to claim “global freezing” was not the regnant cry of the Left in the `60s & `70s. I know so because I lived through those times, and the above records of that era also prove it.
But the tale that only a few loudmouth quacks believed in “global freezing” and the media pumped that view for whatever reason serves the leftist Warmers’ purpose. For if not exposed it puts a smokescreen over their meandering claims and false predictions so that young and unsuspecting people can be more easily deceived into believing in their latest yarn: global warming and that global warming causes both cold and hot weather and temperature.
And so, the predictions of consensus science of the 1960s and `70s failed, and the Freezers became Warmers, and declared "global warming" a consensus science, and now that that claim has failed, they have become Changers — with a brand new non-refutable definition of what "global warming" truly is: Anything the Changers can convince people is negative, "global warming" did it.
Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
Back When the Ominous-Warning Warmers were Ominous-Warning Freezers: Newsweek's 1975 Article Warning of the Dangers of a Cooling World!
Introduction Although they strongly deny it today (due to their propensity to refuse to admit their own errors), as I have noted many times, the current Warmers were once Freezers. Yet, for both cooling and warming, they predict the same doom for humans and the planet. They must expect us suckers to believe that the weather ought not wax and wane. Just as statists want the government to restrict the ups and downs of a capitalist economy, I suppose they want it to try to restrict weather extremes — even though it’s not possible.
In those days we challenged their claims that the earth was quickly running out of natural resources and that C02 emissions were causing the planet to go into a deep freeze.
We also challenged their claims that over-population was going to cause the destruction of the planet and the rape of its most valuable resources. It's quite simple today to see how crazy they were then. Well, you're seeing the Warmers of today, who are the ideological offspring of the Freezers of yesterday, making very similar claims, especially regarding climate and weather.
These cynical wing-nuts have never been right! Don't forget that when you hear their gloomy predictions, purposely ominous to scare people and politicians into creating more government, with more rules and regulations to restrict the lives and freedoms of what the Warmers see as the unwashed masses who must be controlled.
Compared to many of the articles and statements regarding the coming "global freeze" (often called the "nuclear freeze" in the `60s and `70s), this article is very mild, though still quite threatening.
Look at these six doomsday jewels, all stated about 42-years ago; they are typical of the Changers' claims and predictions:
1) “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” (Life Magazine, January 1970; this is all supposed to be due burning oil and coal which was to cause a "global freezing.")
2) "We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.” (Martin Litton, Sierra Club director, 1970)
3) "Air pollution brought about by the business industry is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” (Paul Ehrlich, an early Freezer and Overpopulation freak, and Al Gore's main mentor, 1970)
4) “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” (New York Times editorial, May 3, 1970)
5) “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” (Denis Hayes, Freezer, then Warmer, now Changer; Senator Gaylord Nelson chose him to be the chief organizer for the celebration of Lenin's birthday in 1970; as director of the Solar Energy Research Institute, 1979-1981, he was an early proponent of selling the feasibility of solar energy to the US. A great idea! Sadly, solar power is in about the same viability and feasibility shape that it was back in 1980. In 1999, Time Magazine named Hayes as "Hero of the Planet"; the Sierra Club has also awarded him its highest honors. One thing: these phonies give each other plenty of awards. To the dupes and fools they play to, honors, even self-given ones, provide them with credibility. Which — when one takes into account their wandering, error-ridden past predictions — they need.)
6) "I don't see how the earth can last must past 1980." ("The Late Great Planet Earth," by Hal Lindsey; from one of the numerous doomsday scientists interviewed by Lindsey)
Having debated the Warmers many times over the years, you can see from these few crazy, failed predictions (and there are many more) why I have, over the years, brutally belittled them — and still do. Knowing what their failed predictions are, the origin of their wild claims, how far off they've been, how they've changed their philosophy with the wind (and weather), all to restrict and/or eliminate the use of the earth's natural fuels, coal, gas, oil, certainly destroys any respect one might have for them.
Though the Warming Changers have failed to predict any future event, they doggedly hang onto their ridiculous belief that the earth is at the brink of falling off into the abyss, barring taxing Americans into poverty, putting them in cars that they should be wearing rather than driving, and restricting and regulating their lives from morning until night.
And so, I can honestly call them frauds and liars or either dupes and fools for positing the nonsense they espouse regarding the imminent demise of the planet, wildlife, plants, sealife, coral reefs, and humans, because of the use of the earth's natural fuels. For the frauds and liars know better and the dupes and fools are too lazy to research the origin and the history of the Changers' predictions and claims.
For the truth: The ArtfulDodger
The Cooling World From the April 28, 1975 (pg. 64) of Newsweek Magazine
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.
But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
The One Move You Must Prepare To Take - While Others Are Wringing Their Hands [View article]
JS:
Bad inference, because not predicting market direction does not imply a buy & hold strategy. There are reasons independent of whole markets to buy or sell stocks.
While I do try to buy in downturns and sell in upturns (if I have a reason to buy or sell a stock), I think from all the empirical evidence we have it is unreasonable to put more than a hair's breath of time into predicting market direction — for "defensive thinking" or otherwise. For I've certainly not seen any good come from it in over forty-years of observing markets.
But, as I always say, I wish you well in that endeavor, if you are determined to persist.
I still have you on my read list — but won’t be paying any attention to whole market predictions.
Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
Over 130 German Scientists Publically Reject Global Warming Claims: Write Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel Urging Her to `Strongly Reconsider' Her Position on Global Warming
"A growing body of evidence shows humans have had no measurable effect on climate change through C02 emmissions." (Public letter from over 130 German scientists to German Chancellor Angela Merkel)
More than 130 German scientists publicly declare their dissent from man-made global warming claims in an open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Several UNIPCC scientists are among the signers.
These scientists are from numerous disciplines, which include chemistry, geology, meteorology, and physics.
These scientists state that global warming has become a "pseudo religion." Indeed! In America, the US Government is the church — paid through taxation to keep the myth alive. The leaders of the two parties, Democrat and Republican, and leaders of the various groups that call themselves environmentalists are the propagandists of the faith, along with a large majority of the media. The congregation is made up of perhaps 70-95% of Democrat politicians and maybe 40-75% of Republican politicians. The sponsors are billionaires and millionaires in Hollywood, along with Big Oil and Big Business.
See here where Chevron believes in and promotes "global warming": http://bit.ly/12mnLoW
See here where BP supports "global warming" initiatives: The Carbon Mitigation Initiative, which developed a set of 15 "stabilization wedges" to sharply curb C02 emissions, has had a research partnership with BP since 2000 and receives $2 million each year from the company. In October of `09, BP announced that it would extend the partnership by five years — which had been scheduled to expire in 2010. http://bit.ly/XQua69
These scientists note that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions and that the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.
Perhaps most important, they state unequivocally that the "UN-IPCC has lost its scientific credibility." The UNIPCC is the source of the majority of the more recent failed predictions and some of the more stridently negative propaganda regarding the earth's climate and weather.
The whole warming Hoax is reminiscent of the doomsday claims that proliferated after a series of inclement weather struck North America in the 1920s — resulting in preachers and diviners predicting "the end of the world" by 1930. When nothing occurred at that point, they rehashed their con and began pointing to 1940 as the end.
The Warmers not only change their dates and predictions; they change their name, from Global Freezers in the 1960s and `70s, to Warmers from the early `80s through 1998 — and then to Climate Changers, which is a term that is impossible to make an argument against because it covers heat, cold, snow storms, drought, etc.
A preponderance of empirical evidence is the catalyst for the letter — their irritation with doom-mongering propaganda has been another. Not to mention a host of scientists now rejecting the Warmers’ claims, a series of new studies rejecting C02 warming, real world data versus the UNIPCC’s sham data, and the earth's stubborn refusal to warm as the Master Warmers predicted.
The letter urges Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming. A physical chemist herself, Merkel should have known better than to accept such sloppy science and fear-mongering claims regarding the earth's climate.
The climate changes as it has always done — whether humans were here or not. Temperatures fluctuate — as they have since the old gal came into existence. And they will continue to do so — with our without human help or interference.
The Artful Dodger
**********************... Open Letter – Regarding Global Warming
Bundeskanzleramt Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1 10557 Berlin
Vizerprasident Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg 14476 Grob Glienicke Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a
To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time.
Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.
Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.
A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.
Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.
More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.
The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.
In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.
The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.
Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.
2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland
3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf
4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH - Environmental Services
5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck
6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist
7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party
8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist
9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.
10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics
11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist
12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert
13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR
14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist
15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist
16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUISSE
17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay
18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist
19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist
20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch
21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist
22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical Chemistry
23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist
24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler
25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker
26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist
27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig
28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH
29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster
30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist
31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science journalist
32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist
33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew
34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and business of Saarland
35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and Climatology / Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the University of Berlin
36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist
37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta
38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological-
Paleolontology Museum of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster
47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor
48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Geologist
49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist
50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator
51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist
52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor
53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment Meteorologist
54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for Energy
Leipzig
55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS
56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist
57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist
58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist
59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences
60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist
61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist
Additional German Scientists: Dipl. Ing Paul Allenspacher Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. Dipl. Ing M.G. Bury Elektroingenieur Dipl. Ing Peter Dettmann technischer Umweltschutz Dipl. Ing Jürgen Seesselberg Dipl. Ing Georg Völlink Energie- und Verfahrenstechnik Dipl. Ing. Klaus Bark E-Technik Dipl. Ing. Edgar Bätz EVU Leipzig & Institut für Energetik Dipl. Ing. Marco Bernardi Kfz-Sachverständiger Dipl. Ing. Leonhard Bienert Entwicklung Kernenergie ex DDR Dipl. Ing. Paul Bossert Architekt Dipl. Ing. Andreas Demming Selbstständiger Ingenieur, Dipl. Ing. Hakola Dippel Förster Dipl. Ing. Johannes Drosdeck Maschinenbau Automotive Dipl. Ing. Klaus Emmerich Heizungsbau Dipl. Ing. Konrad Fischer Architekt Dipl. Ing. Jürgen Fuchsberger Architekt Dipl. Ing. Horst Gampper Dipl. Ing. Pierre Gosselin Übersetzer Technisches Übersetzungsbüro Dipl. Ing. Wilfried Heck Elektrotechnik Dipl. Ing. Bernd Heinmüller Elektrotechnik Dipl. Ing. Andreas Kaluza Bergbau Ing. Metallurge Dipl. Ing. Peter Krah MinR a.D. Dipl. Ing. Raimund Leistenschneider Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg; electrical engineering, control technology, Vizepräsident Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie Dipl. Ing. Hainer Müller Dipl. Ing. Hans-Jörg Oehm Regierungsbaumeister für Städtebau Dipl. Ing. Jürgen Roesicke Dipl.- Ing. Industrielle Mikrobiologie Dipl. Ing. Markus Rustemeier Dipl. Ing. Michael Schneider Energie + Verfahrenstechnik Dipl. Ing. Jørgen Sørensen Energieberater Dipl. Ing. Eberhard C. Stotko Präsident VDSt-Akademie Dipl. Ing. Erhard Thilo Geschäftsführer a.D Dipl. Ing. Horst Trippe Entwicklung Automotive Dipl. Ing. Walter Vollert Dipl.-Ing. Maschinenwesen Dipl. Ing. Günter Weber Herausgeber Verlagsgruppe 'markt intern' Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer Systemadministrator Dipl. Ing. (FH) Gerd Zelck Dipl. Ing. Dipl-Inform. Ewald Gleixner Software-Entwicklung Dipl. Ing. FH Johannes Schlorke Elektroniker i. R. Dipl. Ing. FH. Burckhard H. Adam Energie- und Bauberatung Dipl. Ing. M.A. Enno Dittmar Dipl. Ing.oec. Horst Jungnickel ehemals leitender Mitarbeiter in der Energiewirtschaft Ing. grad. Peter Orth Entwicklung Automotive i.R. Ing. grad. Christian Ziekow Ingenieur Jacob Brandt Obering. i.R. Ludwig Lenniger Dr. Ing. Richard Bock Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Brune Energiewirtschaftler Dr. Ing. Adolf Gärtner Dr. Ing. Peter Geier Ernergiewirtschaftler Dr. Ing. Herbert Heuser Dr. Ing. Dietrich E. Koelle Ingenieurbüro für Systemanalysen Dr. Ing. Arman Nyilas Ingenieurbüro Dr. Ing. Friedrich Wilhelm Peppler Kernreaktorsicherheits... Dr. Ing. Helmut Pöltelt Energieexperte TETRA Energie GmbH Kernenergie Dr. Ing. Roland Richter Nuklearservice bei der K.A.B. AG Berlin Dr. Ing. Christian Thoma Dr. Ing. Dipl.Ing. Oswald Kreitschitz Physiker und Unternehmen Dr. Ing. Kurt Honrath Technischer Vorstand i.R. Prof. a.D. Dr.-Ing. Eberhard Rauschenfels Prof. Dr. Ing. Helmut Keutner TFH Berlin FB-VI Prof. Dr.-Ing. Heiko Hofmann Berufsakademie Dresden Prof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Direktor des DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung i.R. Prof. Dr.Ing. Dieter Ameling Präsident Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl a. D. Prof. Dipl. Ing. Michael Otto
Note One: Ing. stands in german for engineer, (Dipl. Ing or Ing. etc) Dr. Ing ist an engineer with a PhD. - Prof. Dr. Ing has taught as a Professor at a University.
Note Two: Not listed are over 200 concerned citizens, most with distinguished professional titles, who volunteered to sign the letter.
Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
Al Gore and the Media Claims that Global Warming Caused January's Heavy Snows Refuted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
This info is not new — but it's worthwhile for anyone who may have missed it. Nevertheless, even after this put down of Gore’s claims over the last few years, he’s been on the talk shows pumping his new book — and still claiming that AGW is causing this type of weather.
Again, it shows what a joke Albert Gore & Co. truly are. AD
The sycophantic Warmers’ illustrious hero and mentor, Albert Gore himself, poked his head out of his hiding hole back to tell another tale similar to the others he’s told: the recent heavy snows and wintry weather is caused by “global warming.”
A very surprising statement from Al — logical and sensible cat as he is. Ahem!
Still trying to use the majority opinion to back up his story, Albert said that "the majority of the scientific community" agreed with him that the recent heavy snowfalls were completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of "manmade global warming."
Of course, this makes about as much sense as Gore’s many other phony claims. One wonders if the man actually believes these goofy claims or he is totally deranged.
No matter. Another of his ridiculous contentions proven false. Yet the Warmers continue flailing away everyday — diving deeper and deeper into the leader of the Global Warming Pack’s craziness.
Due to pressure for the NOAA to agree or disagree with Gore, the NOAA’s “climate investigators” reluctantly took up the quest — no doubt hoping to find some way to back up the lead Warmer. Don’t think because they refuted Gore’s crazy claim that the Master Warmers at NOAA have repented from their wild-eyed claims of the past regarding “global warming.” They have not; they have actually gotten more radical — but not telling the truth here would have caused a true ruckus. So they had to acquiesce to the truth. A rare act indeed for the Warmers.
In the days when few people challenged the Warmers (back in the late 1980s and 1990s), they had no reason to explain extreme cold spells — but when North America turned cold in the late `90s they began getting heat for their warming claims. So, they came up with a piece that claimed “global warming” and extreme cold spells can coexist. The Warmers love terms like coexist — it’s part of their makeup.
But it’s also a fact that if something is truly global, such as “global warming,” then it must be occurring similarly around the globe. That fact alone is enough to refute the Warmers’ phony claims.
Another fact you’ll see from the Master NOAA Warmers’ own writing is that C02 truly has little (if any) affect on the climate.
From their own site: “Here [the NOAA Climate Scene Investigators (CSI) team] have been called to the scene again, but now to explain cold, snowy conditions, and to reconcile those with a warming planet. After a series of record-setting snowstorms hit the mid-Atlantic region this winter, some people asked NOAA if humans could somehow be to blame. Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.
The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human `fingerprints’ — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall. Nor did the CSI team find any indication of an upward trend in winter precipitation along the eastern seaboard.
The CSI team turned its attention to natural factors that control the ordinary ups and downs of weather. Many extreme weather events are due to cyclical, large-scale anomalies in air pressure and sea surface temperature across large tracts of ocean. Such fluctuations spawn weather systems that can cause droughts, floods, and massive snowstorms. While El Niño is the most famous, scientists have identified other climate anomalies throughout Earth’s climate system as well. Their names may seem unimpressive — the Arctic Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, to name a few — but they can pack quite a punch!” See the above from the NOAA’s own site here: http://1.usa.gov/12NcTR0
Gore rambled on claiming that FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Wall Street Journal were conspiring to mislead the nation regarding the dangers of "global warming." Oh sure, they really believe the planet is heating up to the point of exploding and humans are causing it, but nevertheless they misinform people about the danger because they don't want anything done to stop the coming big explosion. Doesn't that make a lot of sense? What else? What a crackpot!
Compiled by Candy Goldstein, Tilly Rae Frederick, and Strasen Gildeen
Alteva: A Double-Digit Dividend Yield, Growth And A Cheap Valuation [View article]
Very insightful piece. I'll give ALTV a look see and will put you on my read list. Thanks!
Damned If You Do, More Damned If You Don't [View article]
Why Protective Life Is A Buy [View article]
That’s a very good analysis of PL. I’ll take a further look see for myself. Thanks for the piece.
I like your investing goals, and I’m going to put you on my read list. Keep up the good work. Thanks again.
Do you invest for yourself? For me, an author who has skin and blood on the battle field — along with my own — adds credit to his work.
Intel's Mobile Transition Is Impressive [View article]
I don't know a damn thing about those charts you put up, but what INTC is actually doing as a company is (I agree) impressive.
Good conclusion. Thanks.
Long INTC
Vale: Brazil's Rising Star [View article]
Vale: Brazil's Rising Star [View article]
Overall a good piece. Thanks. Have you taken into consideration the type of government that is now running Brazil?
From what I understand the danger of nationalization and more socialization comes if the economy turns down. That would give the government a excuse to exercise such power.
Where do you stand on this subject?
I'm adding you to my read list. Keep up the good work.
Start Investing Now For Retirement Wealth [View article]
Your comparing a penny doubled every day for a month to long term DG investing is a huge stretch, and truly is a false comparison; but you do make plenty of good points in your piece.
Thanks.
Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
After attempting to smear and belittle the signers of the numerous letters sent to the UN, NASA, and the US Congress, you will hear the Warmers make the spurious claim that there is no science behind the charges in those letters and petitions. More prevarication and fabrication from the Warmers!
Anything whatever to evade having to discuss content.
For example, for the purpose of smearing and discrediting the Petition against AGW signed by over 30,000 scientists with university degrees in various scientific disciplines, about 9,000 of those having earned Ph.Ds, the Warmers sent in fake names, of which one slipped in, and then immediately pointed that one out after publication. They also picked out people with names like Perry Mason and Michael Fox and claimed they were fake, but they are real scientists whose names happen to match a famous fictional character and a well-known actor.
The principal statement regarding that Petition and the beliefs of the signers is this: “From the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not `skeptics.’ These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.” See here for this statement, the list of signers, and their qualifications: http://bit.ly/15bWfcg
At this date there are 15-times the number of Ph.Ds who have signed the Petition than are involved with the UN-IPCC. Stick that majority in your pipes and smoke it — Warmers.
The work listed here on this post is the major work behind the charges against AGW by the Petition signers and other groups, and it successfully challenges and refutes each and every one of the Warmers’ claims.
The report called "Climate Change Reconsidered" can be found here: http://bit.ly/Ra9ZAr
I have read this work, and I found that I enjoyed Chapter 7 the most: “Biological Effects of Carbon Dioxide Enrichment.” Which tells us that, even if these deceitful ideologues are correct about the earth’s warming (and they most certainly do not know and are most likely wrong because they’ve been wrong since the 1960s in their extremely negative predictions), we will be better off in respect to food production than we are at this point.
The study of soybeans under higher C02 conditions is most interesting. You will find conclusions and statements such as these in Chapter 7:
"Under all environmental circumstances studied, enriching the air with an extra 300 ppm of CO2 increased the total isoflavone content of soybean seeds. In addition, the percent increases measured under the stress situations investigated were always greater than the percent increase measured under optimal growing conditions."
"In conclusion, as the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, soybeans will likely respond by displaying significant increases in growth and yield, with possible improvements in seed quality; these beneficial effects will likely persist even if temperatures rise or soil moisture levels decline, regardless of their cause. Additional information on this topic, including reviews on sorghum not discussed here, can be found at http://bit.ly/15bWfZX under the main heading Agriculture, sub heading Soybean."
Being a lover of strawberries, these studies about strawberry growth at higher C02 levels I particularly like:
"In the open-top chamber study of Bunce (2001), strawberry plants (Fragaria x ananassa) exposed to air containing an extra 300 and 600 ppm CO2 displayed photosynthetic rates that were 77 and 106 percent greater, respectively, than rates displayed by plants grown in ambient air containing 350 ppm CO2. Similarly, Bushway and Pritts (2002) reported that strawberry plants grown at atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 700 and 1,000 ppm exhibited photosynthetic rates that were consistently more than 50 percent greater than rates displayed by control plants."
"In addition, Bushway and Pritts (2002) reported that a two- to three-fold increase in the air’s CO2 content boosted strawberry fruit yield by 62 percent.
As the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, strawberry plants will likely exhibit enhanced rates of photosynthesis and biomass production, which should lead to greater fruit yields.”
Additional information on this topic, including reviews of newer publications as they become available, can be found at http://bit.ly/UVU1Mp."
Remember, the wild-eyed Warmers have claimed that if we don’t stop spewing C02 into the atmosphere, the earth will begin to lose its wheat crops and that will disable us from being able to make pasta. So then, they warn, if you love pasta, you better get behind legislation to stop polluting the atmosphere with C02.
But see here:
Wheat
“In one study, Dijkstra et al. (1999) grew winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in open-top chambers and field-tracking sun-lit climatized enclosures maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of ambient and ambient plus 350 ppm CO2 for two years, determining that the elevated CO2 increased both final grain yield and total above-ground biomass by 19 percent. In another study, Masle (2000) grew two varieties of wheat for close to a month in greenhouses maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 900 ppm, finding that the CO2-enriched plants exhibited biomass increases of 52 to 93 percent, depending upon variety and vernalization treatment.”
“Based on a plethora of experimental observations of this nature, many scientists have developed yield prediction models for wheat. Using the output of several such models, Alexandrov and Hoogenboom (2000) estimated the impact of typically predicted climate changes on wheat production in Bulgaria in the twenty-first century, finding that a doubling of the air’s CO2 concentration would likely enhance wheat yields there between 12 and 49 percent in spite of a predicted 2.9° to 4.1°C increase in air temperature.”
Note: Notice that these researchers use the predictive temperature models designed by the Warmers at the UN-IPCC — which have been wrong and will continue to be wrong. That’s using your opponents’ own exaggerated claims and still besting them — which makes for a powerful argument. AD
And this conclusion on the Warmers’ glacier melting claims: "Global data on glaciers do not support claims made by the UNIPCC that most glaciers are retreating or melting. Additional information on this topic, including reviews of newer publications as they become available, can be found at http://bit.ly/15bWg01.”
The Warmers who have taken the “consensus” view of science seriously and the theoretical predictive models from the UNIPCC as absolutes (and most have) — and have run with these as if “consensus” is the only science and all else is quackery, and that these models are accurate forecasters, must read Chapter 1, “Climate Models and Their Limitations.”
You will find statements such as this one:
“In 2007, Armstrong and Kesten C. Green of Monash University conducted a `forecasting audit’ of the UN-IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Green and Armstrong, 2007). The authors’ search of the contribution of Working Group I to the UNIPCC `found no references … to the primary sources of information on forecasting methods’ and `the forecasting procedures that were described [in sufficient detail to be evaluated] violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical.’”
After this and other non-publicized crushing blows to their theoretical predictive models, the UNIPCC immediately claimed that it now has “greatly improved methods of predicting future climate” — and then shortly stated that their new theoretical predictive models came up with the same predictions as the old ones that contained so many “critical violations” of “forecasting procedures.”
It’s very difficult at this point in the Hoax for the Warmers to get out of the sludge they’ve piled around themselves without stinking up the whole scientific community. That occurs when dogma trumps reason and truth. So they have to pretend they get the same results no matter what method or data they use.
And then there’s this:
“[Study results show that] forecasts by scientists, even large numbers of very distinguished scientists, are not necessarily scientific forecasts.”
And finally, this:
“One principle of scientific forecasting Green and Armstrong say the UNIPCC violated is `Principle 1.3: Make sure forecasts are independent of politics.’ The two authors write, `this principle refers to keeping the forecasting process separate from the planning process. The term ‘politics’ is used in the broad sense of the exercise of power.’ Citing David Henderson (Henderson, 2007), a former head of economics and statistics at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), they say `the UNIPCC process is directed by non-scientists who have policy objectives and who believe that anthropogenic global warming is real and a danger.’”
In other words, their models and their predictions are purely political — as every unbiased, non-dogma-driven person who has studied the issue already knows. AD
They conclude:
“The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics
and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainty and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.”
The above is a small sample of what you will find that convicts the Warmers for their political non-science — and condemns their baleful predictions as bunk. But be sure to read it for yourselves, and enjoy, because it’s clear and easily readable.
Although the study contains citations and source notes from hundreds of scientific studies and scientists (respectively), Sherwood Idso headed up the work.
Short bio of Sherwood Idso:
Sherwood Idso is the author or co-author of over 500 scientific publications including the books “Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe?” and “Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition.” He served on the editorial board of the international journal Agricultural and Forest Meteorology from 1973 to 1993 and since 1993 has served on the editorial board of Environmental and Experimental Botany. Over the course of his career, he has been an invited reviewer of manuscripts for 56 different scientific journals and 17 different funding agencies, representing an unusually large array of disciplines.
He has been Research Physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona, where he began working in 1967. He has been closely associated with Arizona State University over most of this period, serving as an Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Botany, Geography, Geology, and Microbiology.
As a result of his early work in the field of remote sensing, Idso was honored with an Arthur S. Flemming Award, given in recognition of "his innovative research into fundamental aspects of agricultural-
climatological interrelationships affecting food production and the identification of achievable research goals whose attainment could significantly aid in assessment and improvement of world food supplies." He continues his research into the biospheric consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.
Sherwood’s Idso’s website will keep you up to date better than any other on the latest science regarding C02 and its affect on the planet and the atmosphere. It is of the highest quality — and is an easy read. See here: http://bit.ly/15bWfci
Now, quite naturally, the Warmers have attempted to shoot the messenger by slandering the entire Idso family (a whole group of scientists) — yet never in not one instance that we can find do they argue against the content of their work. Their biggest knock is that Big Oil (in particular, Exxon) funds their work. Exxon in fact slings money across the board in the “global warming” war, and I have shown where BP and Chevron provide millions in funding every year for the Warmers — and not just for studies and research as Exxon does, but to promote “global warming” around the globe.
See here where Chevron believes in and promotes "global warming": http://bit.ly/12mnLoW
See here where BP supports "global warming" initiatives: http://bit.ly/XQua69
Exxon gives money to hundreds of groups and far more leftist, pro-global-warming ones than not. In 2002, ExxonMobil announced an investment of $100 million in Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project (C-CEP). This 10-year project, which will eventually total $225 million in donations, is cosponsored by a group of global companies who often sponsor and promote “global warming” groups. In addition to ExxonMobil, those companies include GE, Toyota, and Schlumberger.
The Stanford Global Climate Project already believes that C02 is a problem and in the “greenhouse theory” — the organization began with that bias, because this is their own stated mission: “Our mission is to conduct fundamental research on technologies that will permit the development of global energy systems with significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions.”
See here: http://stanford.io/UVU22H
See here for Exxon’s sponsorship of C-CEP: http://bit.ly/11zgnmY
The sycophantic Warmers don’t seem to understand that oftentimes large businesses seek to shut out smaller ones, thereby creating monopolies for themselves. So naturally, you’re going to find some oil companies who want the world’s ample supply of oil partially shut off from drilling — for the less the supply, the greater the price they can obtain for their product. That’s the reason that for years the oil companies tried to hide what their geologists were telling them: there is oil all over the world and plenty of it.
But none of that means a damn thing. What counts is the quality and content of the work itself no matter who funds it or creates it — each side’s work should stand or fall on its own value.
And this the Warmers do all they can to evade having to do — they simply will not debate content. They misdirect and change the subject. If they are not changing the subject entirely, if the topic point is general, they switch to the specific. If it is specific, they switch to the general.
They slander authors and shoot the messenger; they distort the data and conclusions from opposing studies and their own; they ignore quality work that goes against their views; they use guilt by association to destroy the reputations of opponents, thereby shooting the messenger; they twist their message to suit the empirical evidence as soon as that evidence shows they are wrong; they often take empirical evidence that is local and extrapolate it into a universal claim; and their media consistently ask those who reject “global warming” who funds their work rather than focusing on the work itself. All this they do to discredit opponents and their work — without having to mention the content or quality of that work.
Sherwood Idso speaks to the constant question of funding here: http://bit.ly/UVU22O
Here’s the way the Master Warmers work — and it’s an easy sell to the sycophantic Warmers who troll the Web. They first demonize an outfit or person, as they have the Koch brothers, for example, by calling them something evil, such as “conservative” (a term leftists have already demonized among their own) when they are truly Libertarian and are actually very “green,” or the Heartland Institute, which is also Libertarian yet has sponsored and published articles intended to expose the “global warming” Hoax.
They then — often in the most extraneous stretch imaginable — tie authors whose work exposes the “Global Warming” Hoax to people and groups they have demonized. This method of destroying your opponent obviously works with semi-literate to illiterate people, because the Master Warmers have surely scammed multitudes using it.
Another example of how they work is here: The Warmers intend for this allegedly leaked email from the hated Heartland Institute to condemn Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who rejects AGW and runs this website: http://bit.ly/15bWfcj
“We [the Heartland Institute] have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”
Well, let’s hope that happens, because the more people checking behind the Warmers’ so-far mendacious claims the better. This shows how truly silly the sycophant Warmers are — that the Master Warmers can use such sophomoric tricks to deceive them.
The work noted here exposes just how many wrongs the Warmers promote and proves their claim a fabrication that there is no science behind charges in the letters and petitions sent to various governments around the world.
Moreover, as noted above, this report successfully challenges and refutes each and every one of the Warmers’ claims.
The report called "Climate Change Reconsidered" can be found here: http://bit.ly/Ra9ZAr
Note: As always, thanks to the girls who did the grunt work. I edited. The ArtfulDodger
Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
"... the Leftist press continues to quote bug and flower scientists about global warming — including doomsayers who three decades ago were predicting a fast-approaching, planet-freezing ice age. I should know, being author of the 1976 Prentice-Hall bestselling climate book, "The Cooling." (Lowell Ponte in the 1990s, author of the 1976 hot-book for Freezers, "The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun?")
“Predictions of future climate trends by Stephen Schneider and other leading climatologists, based on the prevailing knowledge of the atmosphere in the early 1970s, gave more weight to the potential problem of global cooling than it now appears to merit.” (“Betrayal of Science and Reason,” 1996, p. 34, by Paul and Anne Ehrlich; Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore's main mentor, wrote "Overpopulation" in 1968; he also founded Zero Population Growth "to save the earth from overpopulation"; in those books he predicted the disappearance of England and that 65-million Americans would die of starvation during the 1980s)
Stephen Schneider died in 2010, but he became a full-blown Warmer long before. By 1977, even with cold weather blustering across North America like nobody’s business, mainly because his predictions were not even close to coming true, Schneider straddled the fence as any good leftist would do when in trouble and stated this in “Nature”: “we just don't know enough to choose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling — or when.” (“Nature,” 12-77)
This was one of the first signs that the Freezers’ cold feet were warming. And why? Not only were their predictions failing to come about — but the rest of the world was not going through the same brutal cold that North America was. And for “global” anything to be absolute — then if a thing is occurring in one place it better be occurring in the other.
The Freezers had made the same mistake — some surely did it on purpose as they do today — that we had watched them make on so many other occasions, and it’s still one of their more common errors (and methods of deception): to extrapolate a local into a universal. This deceitful trick the Master Warmers have used to deceive hordes of lay people in America, to aid them in their quest to stop the use of natural earth fuels: oil, coal, and gas.
"The worriers about cooling included `Science,' the most influential scientific journal in the world, quoting an official of the World Meteorological Organization; the National Academy of Sciences worrying about the onset of a 10,000 year ice age; “Newsweek” warning that food production could be adversely affected within a decade; the `New York Times' quoting an official of the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and `Science Digest,' the science periodical with the largest circulation.” (“The State of Humanity”: Part VII, final chapter: “What Does the Future Hold? The Forecast in a Nutshell,” by Julian Simon, 1995, p. 646)
For someone to claim that the Left’s central climate theme in the 1960s and `70s was not "global freezing" shows a deep ignorance of the times or the purposeful intent to deceive, or perhaps both. Of course, if I were a Warmer today, I wouldn't want anyone to know that the people I'm listening to have been all over the board with their claims and predictions, and not one has come true. Thus, such mistakes have forced them to become Changers — no way to lose with that phrase.
But they have only recently begun to claim that global warming is bringing about both cold and hot weather and lower and higher temperatures. So there are plenty of their mendacious predictions to mine as proof they can’t predict anything.
That's why the Warmers have to distort data and research, remove weather stations from cooler areas, and in general put out the largest mass of bogus material ever cast on the world — in an attempt to scare people into believing their crappy non-science. One thing the Left has done is to figure out that fear sells.
The Left's crises of the day were three: global freezing; natural resource depletion (in the main, oil); and overpopulation. My friends and I researched these things very well and debated against the former two many times in both formal and informal situations.
The overpopulation concept was so far out of the realm of reality we didn't bother, though we did challenge their result claims in a couple of double debates. There were between 2.8 to 3.7 billion people on the planet in 1970 (according to each extreme) — with the anti-human Left predicting the most dire results imaginable over the next twenty-years. The population had either doubled or was up by over 50% by 1990 — and not one of their predictions had come true. Another far-left wing-nut Hoax.
Richard Nixon was a Freezer in those days, and that's part of the reason he created the EPA. He wanted the first EPA to declare C02 a pollutant and to figure ways to control its issue into the atmosphere. They refused to declare it a pollutant. No subsequent EPA would do that until the most radical of all the EPAs came along under Obama.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were Freezers when they returned to Arkansas to run for governor in the late 1970s. After the Freezers became Warmers in the 1980s, Slick Willie seemed to back away from the Left’s climate claims — not being one to get caught in the same scam twice. But Hillary — far more ideological than he — followed right along with the Warmers and is now a devoted Changer, though she's rarely brought it up since the cold spell crashed onto the planet in the late `90s.
The proof is overwhelming that the Left was promoting menacing climate change, in this case, “global freezing,” for the express purpose of creating more government — and in that they succeeded.
This government report by the CIA, which came out in August, 1974, showed that the impetus for creating more centralized government to study and predict world climate came from a major study by the University of Wisconsin which concluded “the world is returning to the climatic regime that existed from the 1600s to the 1850s called the neo-boreal or the “Little Ice Age.” (pg. 25)
Shortly before this report, the Nixon Administration assigned several new departments to deal with future forecasting and planning for climate and weather — which the CIA considered security risks — and for the purpose of coming up with a National Climatic Plan.
This report — very optimistic of central planning — hopes that weather forecasters would be able to predict the weather five-years out.
CIA Report: A Study of Climatological Research
http://bit.ly/VswHBi
Though the whole report is worth getting a better understanding beliefs of the period, for those who simply want to know that “global freezing” was indeed the serious climate issue of the day, pgs. 7, 25, & 28-31 may be the more informative in the paper.
You will find that there were numerous papers from the era predicting doom and gloom brought about by "global cooling." You will find no mention in this report about "global warming."
During the late `60s and most of the `70s, I assure you that the universities, colleges, all left-wing teachers and professors, the Hippies, climatologists (what few of them there were), and some meteorologists were all adamant about the planet's heading for another ice age because of human's using natural earth fuels: coal, gas, and oil.
Thus, to claim that no one took “global freezing” seriously because there were no peer-reviewed papers is again either purposely deceitful or banefully ignorant of the times — or both. After the brutal winters of the early 1970s in North America, climatologists began creeping out of the shadows — making predictions that the weather would get even colder. These claims, according to many meteorologists of the day, dismissed hundreds of years of cycles of warmer than normal and then colder than normal weather. Climate change, in simpler words.
Besides, peer-reviewed articles by the Warmers simply mean that one Warmer wrote a paper and another bunch of Warmers reviewed it — anything that follows their politicized course gets a thumbs up. In fact, "buddy review" came into being because the Warmers needed fellow travelers to approve their nutty claims.
**********************...
Walter Sullivan of the NY Times took up the mantel for the Freezers early on. He later became a wild-eyed Warmer.
Article: "Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May be Ahead"
Go here and read the first two paragraphs, and you'll get the gist of what the far-left wing-nuts were promoting back in the late 1960s through the 1970s.
http://bit.ly/RpmVTk
**********************...
"University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
See pics of magazine cover here:
http://bit.ly/VswHBn
Here you can find the full text of the “Time” article: http://bit.ly/RpmWq9
**********************
This article from 1973 is most interesting, because it quotes 46 scientists from the National Science Foundation, who said that warming periods were very short in earth's history and that they all agreed "there was evidence of ominous world-wide cooling of temperatures in the last two decades."
http://bit.ly/12N1kJY
**********************...
This from a Washington Post article warning of the global freezing to come: "Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters — the worst may be yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by `climatologists,' the people who study very long-term world weather trends."
Colder Winters Hail Dawn of New Ice Age
Scientists See Ice Age In the Future
Publication : The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973)- Washington, D.C.
Author : Washington Post Staff Writer; By David R. Boldt
Date : Jan 11, 1970
http://bit.ly/VswKgt
**********************...
Or this one from the LA Times
Article: Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age?
http://bit.ly/RpmWqb
**********************...
Or this one from Britain
British Climate Expert Predicts New Ice Age
The Christian Science Monitor (1908-Current file) - Boston, Mass.
Date: Sep 23, 1972
http://bit.ly/RpmWqd
**********************
The Chicago Tribune Piles On, Which at the Time was No Left-Wing Tabloid
Ice Age, Worse Food Crisis Seen
Chicago Tribune (1963-Current file) - Chicago, Ill.
Author: Ronald Yates
Date: Oct 30, 1974
http://bit.ly/VswKgv
And again from the Chicago Tribune in 1975: "In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice."
http://bit.ly/13glBmJ
**********************
Article from the Washington Times regarding an article they found in the Library of Congress in 2007 showing that it was James Hansen's climate models that predicted the upcoming global freezing back in the late 1960s & `70s. Hansen is today a dye-in-the-ozone Warmer, and as far as we find is the first to start the name-calling and slandering of opponents of much of what is his consensus-created science.
http://bit.ly/12N1l0i
***********************
Nice, short Utube video showing how the Warming Changers have been all over the map for decades.
http://bit.ly/VswKgx
***********************
Clearly, it is disingenuous to claim “global freezing” was not the regnant cry of the Left in the `60s & `70s. I know so because I lived through those times, and the above records of that era also prove it.
But the tale that only a few loudmouth quacks believed in “global freezing” and the media pumped that view for whatever reason serves the leftist Warmers’ purpose. For if not exposed it puts a smokescreen over their meandering claims and false predictions so that young and unsuspecting people can be more easily deceived into believing in their latest yarn: global warming and that global warming causes both cold and hot weather and temperature.
And so, the predictions of consensus science of the 1960s and `70s failed, and the Freezers became Warmers, and declared "global warming" a consensus science, and now that that claim has failed, they have become Changers — with a brand new non-refutable definition of what "global warming" truly is: Anything the Changers can convince people is negative, "global warming" did it.
The reeducation classes have already begun.
Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
Introduction
Although they strongly deny it today (due to their propensity to refuse to admit their own errors), as I have noted many times, the current Warmers were once Freezers. Yet, for both cooling and warming, they predict the same doom for humans and the planet. They must expect us suckers to believe that the weather ought not wax and wane. Just as statists want the government to restrict the ups and downs of a capitalist economy, I suppose they want it to try to restrict weather extremes — even though it’s not possible.
In those days we challenged their claims that the earth was quickly running out of natural resources and that C02 emissions were causing the planet to go into a deep freeze.
We also challenged their claims that over-population was going to cause the destruction of the planet and the rape of its most valuable resources. It's quite simple today to see how crazy they were then. Well, you're seeing the Warmers of today, who are the ideological offspring of the Freezers of yesterday, making very similar claims, especially regarding climate and weather.
These cynical wing-nuts have never been right! Don't forget that when you hear their gloomy predictions, purposely ominous to scare people and politicians into creating more government, with more rules and regulations to restrict the lives and freedoms of what the Warmers see as the unwashed masses who must be controlled.
Compared to many of the articles and statements regarding the coming "global freeze" (often called the "nuclear freeze" in the `60s and `70s), this article is very mild, though still quite threatening.
Look at these six doomsday jewels, all stated about 42-years ago; they are typical of the Changers' claims and predictions:
1) “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” (Life Magazine, January 1970; this is all supposed to be due burning oil and coal which was to cause a "global freezing.")
2) "We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.” (Martin Litton, Sierra Club director, 1970)
3) "Air pollution brought about by the business industry is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” (Paul Ehrlich, an early Freezer and Overpopulation freak, and Al Gore's main mentor, 1970)
4) “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” (New York Times editorial, May 3, 1970)
5) “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” (Denis Hayes, Freezer, then Warmer, now Changer; Senator Gaylord Nelson chose him to be the chief organizer for the celebration of Lenin's birthday in 1970; as director of the Solar Energy Research Institute, 1979-1981, he was an early proponent of selling the feasibility of solar energy to the US. A great idea! Sadly, solar power is in about the same viability and feasibility shape that it was back in 1980. In 1999, Time Magazine named Hayes as "Hero of the Planet"; the Sierra Club has also awarded him its highest honors. One thing: these phonies give each other plenty of awards. To the dupes and fools they play to, honors, even self-given ones, provide them with credibility. Which — when one takes into account their wandering, error-ridden past predictions — they need.)
6) "I don't see how the earth can last must past 1980." ("The Late Great Planet Earth," by Hal Lindsey; from one of the numerous doomsday scientists interviewed by Lindsey)
Having debated the Warmers many times over the years, you can see from these few crazy, failed predictions (and there are many more) why I have, over the years, brutally belittled them — and still do. Knowing what their failed predictions are, the origin of their wild claims, how far off they've been, how they've changed their philosophy with the wind (and weather), all to restrict and/or eliminate the use of the earth's natural fuels, coal, gas, oil, certainly destroys any respect one might have for them.
Though the Warming Changers have failed to predict any future event, they doggedly hang onto their ridiculous belief that the earth is at the brink of falling off into the abyss, barring taxing Americans into poverty, putting them in cars that they should be wearing rather than driving, and restricting and regulating their lives from morning until night.
And so, I can honestly call them frauds and liars or either dupes and fools for positing the nonsense they espouse regarding the imminent demise of the planet, wildlife, plants, sealife, coral reefs, and humans, because of the use of the earth's natural fuels. For the frauds and liars know better and the dupes and fools are too lazy to research the origin and the history of the Changers' predictions and claims.
For the truth: The ArtfulDodger
The Cooling World
From the April 28, 1975 (pg. 64) of Newsweek Magazine
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.
But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
—PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports
See Newsweek's 1975 Article, "The Cooling World," here: http://bit.ly/YjniCT
The One Move You Must Prepare To Take - While Others Are Wringing Their Hands [View article]
Bad inference, because not predicting market direction does not imply a buy & hold strategy. There are reasons independent of whole markets to buy or sell stocks.
While I do try to buy in downturns and sell in upturns (if I have a reason to buy or sell a stock), I think from all the empirical evidence we have it is unreasonable to put more than a hair's breath of time into predicting market direction — for "defensive thinking" or otherwise. For I've certainly not seen any good come from it in over forty-years of observing markets.
But, as I always say, I wish you well in that endeavor, if you are determined to persist.
I still have you on my read list — but won’t be paying any attention to whole market predictions.
Thank you for your reply.
The One Move You Must Prepare To Take - While Others Are Wringing Their Hands [View article]
To me, attempting to predict market direction is fruitless — perhaps 99% of the time.
I usually like your articles, but I'm sorry I didn't get much out of this one, because of its predictive nature.
Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
"A growing body of evidence shows humans have had no measurable effect on climate change through C02 emmissions." (Public letter from over 130 German scientists to German Chancellor Angela Merkel)
More than 130 German scientists publicly declare their dissent from man-made global warming claims in an open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Several UNIPCC scientists are among the signers.
These scientists are from numerous disciplines, which include chemistry, geology, meteorology, and physics.
These scientists state that global warming has become a "pseudo religion." Indeed! In America, the US Government is the church — paid through taxation to keep the myth alive. The leaders of the two parties, Democrat and Republican, and leaders of the various groups that call themselves environmentalists are the propagandists of the faith, along with a large majority of the media. The congregation is made up of perhaps 70-95% of Democrat politicians and maybe 40-75% of Republican politicians. The sponsors are billionaires and millionaires in Hollywood, along with Big Oil and Big Business.
See here where Chevron believes in and promotes "global warming": http://bit.ly/12mnLoW
See here where BP supports "global warming" initiatives: The Carbon Mitigation Initiative, which developed a set of 15 "stabilization wedges" to sharply curb C02 emissions, has had a research partnership with BP since 2000 and receives $2 million each year from the company. In October of `09, BP announced that it would extend the partnership by five years — which had been scheduled to expire in 2010. http://bit.ly/XQua69
These scientists note that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions and that the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.
Perhaps most important, they state unequivocally that the "UN-IPCC has lost its scientific credibility." The UNIPCC is the source of the majority of the more recent failed predictions and some of the more stridently negative propaganda regarding the earth's climate and weather.
The whole warming Hoax is reminiscent of the doomsday claims that proliferated after a series of inclement weather struck North America in the 1920s — resulting in preachers and diviners predicting "the end of the world" by 1930. When nothing occurred at that point, they rehashed their con and began pointing to 1940 as the end.
The Warmers not only change their dates and predictions; they change their name, from Global Freezers in the 1960s and `70s, to Warmers from the early `80s through 1998 — and then to Climate Changers, which is a term that is impossible to make an argument against because it covers heat, cold, snow storms, drought, etc.
A preponderance of empirical evidence is the catalyst for the letter — their irritation with doom-mongering propaganda has been another. Not to mention a host of scientists now rejecting the Warmers’ claims, a series of new studies rejecting C02 warming, real world data versus the UNIPCC’s sham data, and the earth's stubborn refusal to warm as the Master Warmers predicted.
The letter urges Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming. A physical chemist herself, Merkel should have known better than to accept such sloppy science and fear-mongering claims regarding the earth's climate.
The climate changes as it has always done — whether humans were here or not. Temperatures fluctuate — as they have since the old gal came into existence. And they will continue to do so — with our without human help or interference.
The Artful Dodger
**********************...
Open Letter – Regarding Global Warming
Bundeskanzleramt
Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel
Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1
10557 Berlin
Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a
To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time.
Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.
Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.
A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.
Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.
More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.
The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.
In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.
The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.
Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.
Respectfully yours,
Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE
Diplom-Geologe
Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)
Dr. Holger Thuß
EIKE President
European Institute for Climate and Energy
http://bit.ly/12mnLp0
Signed by
Scientists
1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel
2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland
3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf
4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH - Environmental Services
5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck
6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist
7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party
8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist
9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.
10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics
11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist
12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert
13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR
14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist
15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist
16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUISSE
17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay
18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist
19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist
20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch
21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist
22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical Chemistry
23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist
24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler
25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker
26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist
27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig
28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH
29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster
30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist
31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science journalist
32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist
33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew
34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and business of Saarland
35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and Climatology / Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the University of Berlin
36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist
37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta
38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological-
Paleolontology Museum of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster
39 Dr. Helmut Pöltelt Energy expert
40 Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls Meteorologist
41 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Polytechnic OWL Dept. Höxter
42 rof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Director of the DIN German Institute for Standards and Norms i.R.
43 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser University of Regensburg
44 Dipl. Physicist Wolfgang Riede Physicists ETH
45 Dipl.- Mineralogist Sabine Sauerberg Geoscientist
46 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemist
47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor
48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Geologist
49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist
50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator
51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist
52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor
53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment Meteorologist
54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for Energy
Leipzig
55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS
56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist
57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist
58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist
59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences
60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist
61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist
Additional German Scientists:
Dipl. Ing Paul Allenspacher Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V.
Dipl. Ing M.G. Bury Elektroingenieur
Dipl. Ing Peter Dettmann technischer Umweltschutz
Dipl. Ing Jürgen Seesselberg
Dipl. Ing Georg Völlink Energie- und Verfahrenstechnik
Dipl. Ing. Klaus Bark E-Technik
Dipl. Ing. Edgar Bätz EVU Leipzig & Institut für Energetik
Dipl. Ing. Marco Bernardi Kfz-Sachverständiger
Dipl. Ing. Leonhard Bienert Entwicklung Kernenergie ex DDR
Dipl. Ing. Paul Bossert Architekt
Dipl. Ing. Andreas Demming Selbstständiger Ingenieur,
Dipl. Ing. Hakola Dippel Förster
Dipl. Ing. Johannes Drosdeck Maschinenbau Automotive
Dipl. Ing. Klaus Emmerich Heizungsbau
Dipl. Ing. Konrad Fischer Architekt
Dipl. Ing. Jürgen Fuchsberger Architekt
Dipl. Ing. Horst Gampper
Dipl. Ing. Pierre Gosselin Übersetzer Technisches Übersetzungsbüro
Dipl. Ing. Wilfried Heck Elektrotechnik
Dipl. Ing. Bernd Heinmüller Elektrotechnik
Dipl. Ing. Andreas Kaluza Bergbau Ing. Metallurge
Dipl. Ing. Peter Krah MinR a.D.
Dipl. Ing. Raimund Leistenschneider
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg; electrical engineering, control technology, Vizepräsident Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie
Dipl. Ing. Hainer Müller
Dipl. Ing. Hans-Jörg Oehm Regierungsbaumeister für Städtebau
Dipl. Ing. Jürgen Roesicke Dipl.- Ing. Industrielle Mikrobiologie
Dipl. Ing. Markus Rustemeier
Dipl. Ing. Michael Schneider Energie + Verfahrenstechnik
Dipl. Ing. Jørgen Sørensen Energieberater
Dipl. Ing. Eberhard C. Stotko Präsident VDSt-Akademie
Dipl. Ing. Erhard Thilo Geschäftsführer a.D
Dipl. Ing. Horst Trippe Entwicklung Automotive
Dipl. Ing. Walter Vollert Dipl.-Ing. Maschinenwesen
Dipl. Ing. Günter Weber Herausgeber Verlagsgruppe 'markt intern'
Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer Systemadministrator
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Gerd Zelck
Dipl. Ing. Dipl-Inform. Ewald Gleixner Software-Entwicklung
Dipl. Ing. FH Johannes Schlorke Elektroniker i. R.
Dipl. Ing. FH. Burckhard H. Adam Energie- und Bauberatung
Dipl. Ing. M.A. Enno Dittmar
Dipl. Ing.oec. Horst Jungnickel ehemals leitender Mitarbeiter in der Energiewirtschaft
Ing. grad. Peter Orth Entwicklung Automotive i.R.
Ing. grad. Christian Ziekow
Ingenieur Jacob Brandt
Obering. i.R. Ludwig Lenniger
Dr. Ing. Richard Bock
Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Brune Energiewirtschaftler
Dr. Ing. Adolf Gärtner
Dr. Ing. Peter Geier Ernergiewirtschaftler
Dr. Ing. Herbert Heuser
Dr. Ing. Dietrich E. Koelle Ingenieurbüro für Systemanalysen
Dr. Ing. Arman Nyilas Ingenieurbüro
Dr. Ing. Friedrich Wilhelm Peppler Kernreaktorsicherheits...
Dr. Ing. Helmut Pöltelt Energieexperte TETRA Energie GmbH Kernenergie
Dr. Ing. Roland Richter Nuklearservice bei der K.A.B. AG Berlin
Dr. Ing. Christian Thoma
Dr. Ing. Dipl.Ing. Oswald Kreitschitz Physiker und Unternehmen
Dr. Ing. Kurt Honrath Technischer Vorstand i.R.
Prof. a.D. Dr.-Ing. Eberhard Rauschenfels
Prof. Dr. Ing. Helmut Keutner TFH Berlin FB-VI
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Heiko Hofmann Berufsakademie Dresden
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Direktor des DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung i.R.
Prof. Dr.Ing. Dieter Ameling Präsident Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl a. D.
Prof. Dipl. Ing. Michael Otto
Note One: Ing. stands in german for engineer, (Dipl. Ing or Ing. etc)
Dr. Ing ist an engineer with a PhD. - Prof. Dr. Ing has taught as a Professor at a University.
Note Two: Not listed are over 200 concerned citizens, most with distinguished professional titles, who volunteered to sign the letter.
Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
This info is not new — but it's worthwhile for anyone who may have missed it. Nevertheless, even after this put down of Gore’s claims over the last few years, he’s been on the talk shows pumping his new book — and still claiming that AGW is causing this type of weather.
Again, it shows what a joke Albert Gore & Co. truly are. AD
See Al Gore’s claim here: http://bit.ly/12NcTQX
ABC followed suit: http://bit.ly/YYViAG
Science Daily Jumped in: http://bit.ly/12NcRIQ
Of course, the Washington Post: http://wapo.st/YYViAJ
The NY Times too chimed in, but the link is dead.
The sycophantic Warmers’ illustrious hero and mentor, Albert Gore himself, poked his head out of his hiding hole back to tell another tale similar to the others he’s told: the recent heavy snows and wintry weather is caused by “global warming.”
A very surprising statement from Al — logical and sensible cat as he is. Ahem!
Still trying to use the majority opinion to back up his story, Albert said that "the majority of the scientific community" agreed with him that the recent heavy snowfalls were completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of "manmade global warming."
Of course, this makes about as much sense as Gore’s many other phony claims. One wonders if the man actually believes these goofy claims or he is totally deranged.
No matter. Another of his ridiculous contentions proven false. Yet the Warmers continue flailing away everyday — diving deeper and deeper into the leader of the Global Warming Pack’s craziness.
Due to pressure for the NOAA to agree or disagree with Gore, the NOAA’s “climate investigators” reluctantly took up the quest — no doubt hoping to find some way to back up the lead Warmer.
Don’t think because they refuted Gore’s crazy claim that the Master Warmers at NOAA have repented from their wild-eyed claims of the past regarding “global warming.” They have not; they have actually gotten more radical — but not telling the truth here would have caused a true ruckus. So they had to acquiesce to the truth. A rare act indeed for the Warmers.
In the days when few people challenged the Warmers (back in the late 1980s and 1990s), they had no reason to explain extreme cold spells — but when North America turned cold in the late `90s they began getting heat for their warming claims. So, they came up with a piece that claimed “global warming” and extreme cold spells can coexist. The Warmers love terms like coexist — it’s part of their makeup.
But it’s also a fact that if something is truly global, such as “global warming,” then it must be occurring similarly around the globe. That fact alone is enough to refute the Warmers’ phony claims.
Another fact you’ll see from the Master NOAA Warmers’ own writing is that C02 truly has little (if any) affect on the climate.
From their own site:
“Here [the NOAA Climate Scene Investigators (CSI) team] have been called to the scene again, but now to explain cold, snowy conditions, and to reconcile those with a warming planet. After a series of record-setting snowstorms hit the mid-Atlantic region this winter, some people asked NOAA if humans could somehow be to blame. Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.
The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human `fingerprints’ — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall. Nor did the CSI team find any indication of an upward trend in winter precipitation along the eastern seaboard.
The CSI team turned its attention to natural factors that control the ordinary ups and downs of weather. Many extreme weather events are due to cyclical, large-scale anomalies in air pressure and sea surface temperature across large tracts of ocean. Such fluctuations spawn weather systems that can cause droughts, floods, and massive snowstorms. While El Niño is the most famous, scientists have identified other climate anomalies throughout Earth’s climate system as well. Their names may seem unimpressive — the Arctic Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, to name a few — but they can pack quite a punch!”
See the above from the NOAA’s own site here:
http://1.usa.gov/12NcTR0
Gore rambled on claiming that FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Wall Street Journal were conspiring to mislead the nation regarding the dangers of "global warming." Oh sure, they really believe the planet is heating up to the point of exploding and humans are causing it, but nevertheless they misinform people about the danger because they don't want anything done to stop the coming big explosion. Doesn't that make a lot of sense? What else? What a crackpot!
Compiled by Candy Goldstein, Tilly Rae Frederick, and Strasen Gildeen
Edited by the ArtfulDodger
Advantage: Chevron Phillips Chemical Company [View article]