Its not a matter of getting over it.
We have a Prime Minister who would have set us up for a great New world
order it seems, with a neat taxation system, without informing us and
using climate warming as an excuse.
The system seems like it was a scam and its becoming more and more clear.
The world does appear to be warming, especially locally, but some of the
places they mentioned, are not so much a problem as an excuse for
exaggerated claims, based on interpretations of people who are sadly not
capable of getting the facts straight.
The IPCC, and WWF seemed to accept whatever what was put in front of
them, based on this.
Yet a few year ago the IPCC were awarded a Nobel prise for impeccable
research and methods of presentation.
So was President Obama, who has done little except be the first non
white president, promising world peace. That was before he did anything.
So we now have people, who are seen by the Nobel peace prize who can do
no wrong..... Setting us up for the worlds greatest scam, it seems.
We needs to ask questions, and if they are the good guys, as they say,
they will come out smelling like roses.
Otherwise they will smell like fertiliser.
Whether the world climate can be changed by the human race, after so
many years of industrialisation remains to be seen.
The methods proposed however appear to be fertiliser based.
That is enough cause for concern.
Its not just a matter of doing something, its a matter of doing the
right thing, to correct it, if we can.
Mother Nature doesn't give up her secrets so easily.
CO2 isnt the immediate problem. The problem is, what is the best manner
of fixing it.
And can they fix it?
I know over population is the biggest problem.
Too many Christians and others trying to annihilate each other by the
population bomb.
That doesn't make sense to me either.
I haven't got an answer, ands If I haven't, and you haven't.
The politicians and the scientists are not filling me with faith by
their behaviour.
There are people reading this, and while some may think its crap, others
aren't so sure.
Lets hope they can present the truth in an acceptable way, without the
shoddy methods they have used so far.
I may not be a scientist, but wont be blinded by science, when other
scientist,s who are not toeing the Government line, are sacked.
Especially whne they have doubts.
Yep its all too complicated. Since when have politicians been able to
decide which science is right?
Oh yes, since they held the purse strings....
On 1/02/2010 8:50 PM, Loosecanon wrote:
>
>> More flaws emerge in climate alarms
>>
>> * Jonathan Leake
>> * From: The Australian
>> * February 01, 2010 12:00AM
>>
>> A STARTLING report by the UN climate watchdog that global warming might
>> wipe out 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest was based on an
>> unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had no scientific
>> expertise.
>>
>> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark
>> report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swaths of the
>> rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.
>>
>> The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure
>> group, which was written by two green activists. They had based their
>> "research" on a study published in the science journal Nature, which did
>> not assess rainfall but looked at the impact on the forest of human
>> activity such as logging and burning. WWF said on Saturday it was
>> launching an internal inquiry into the study.
>> The IPCC has been put on the defensive as well over its claims that
>> climate change may be increasing the severity and frequency of natural
>> disasters such as hurricanes and floods.IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri
>> was fighting to keep his job over the weekend after a barrage of
>> criticism. Scientists fear the controversies will be used by climate
>> change sceptics to sway public opinion to ignore global warming - even
>> though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world,
>> remains strong.
>>
>> Comment:
>> The idea of using a CO2 carbon tax and carbon sinks is shown to not
>> increase the effect any further, as a window exists where further CO2 does
>> not lead to increased planet heating. We have already reached this level.
>> It may even create the effect that vegetation will grow faster, creating
>> cooling areas. So trees and grasses and all manner of vegetation will grow
>> better. Ask anyone with a commercial greenhouse what the benefits of
>> increasing hothouse CO2 has and you will get the idea.
>> The ocean will certainly be the first to benefit (if that's the word) from
>> increased CO2 as most of the worlds CO2 is stored and used there (as well)
>> by vegetation.
>>
>> Looks like the enquiry is going to replace a few dogged scientists.
>> Didnt they want their research flaws exposed?
>>
> Get over it! Scientists will write whatever you want if it fills their bank
> account!
>
--
XML site map
>> More flaws emerge in climate alarms
>>
>> * Jonathan Leake
>> * From: The Australian
>> * February 01, 2010 12:00AM
>>
>> A STARTLING report by the UN climate watchdog that global warming might
>> wipe out 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest was based on an
>> unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had no scientific
>> expertise.
>>
>> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark
>> report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swaths of the
>> rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.
>>
>> The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure
>> group, which was written by two green activists. They had based their
>> "research" on a study published in the science journal Nature, which did
>> not assess rainfall but looked at the impact on the forest of human
>> activity such as logging and burning. WWF said on Saturday it was
>> launching an internal inquiry into the study.
>> The IPCC has been put on the defensive as well over its claims that
>> climate change may be increasing the severity and frequency of natural
>> disasters such as hurricanes and floods.IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri
>> was fighting to keep his job over the weekend after a barrage of
>> criticism. Scientists fear the controversies will be used by climate
>> change sceptics to sway public opinion to ignore global warming - even
>> though the fundamental science, that greenhouse gases can heat the world,
>> remains strong.
>>
>> Comment:
>> The idea of using a CO2 carbon tax and carbon sinks is shown to not
>> increase the effect any further, as a window exists where further CO2 does
>> not lead to increased planet heating. We have already reached this level.
>> It may even create the effect that vegetation will grow faster, creating
>> cooling areas. So trees and grasses and all manner of vegetation will grow
>> better. Ask anyone with a commercial greenhouse what the benefits of
>> increasing hothouse CO2 has and you will get the idea.
>> The ocean will certainly be the first to benefit (if that's the word) from
>> increased CO2 as most of the worlds CO2 is stored and used there (as well)
>> by vegetation.
>>
>> Looks like the enquiry is going to replace a few dogged scientists.
>> Didnt they want their research flaws exposed?
>>
> Get over it! Scientists will write whatever you want if it fills their bank
> account!
>
--