XPost: alt.global-warming, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: zinn@reno.us   
      
   THE global warming crisis is now being rebranded as a climate change   
   crisis because it seems that instead of getting warmer, we may actually be   
   getting colder.   
      
      
   Ryle Dwyer   
   Social share   
   Some years ago the New Scientist published a report based on an interview   
   with an Indian glaciologist who predicted that the glaciers in the   
   Himalayas would disappear by 2035 as a result of global warming.   
      
   This could have catastrophic water implications for people living in some   
   of the most densely populated areas. As many as half-a-billion people are   
   dependent on water from the Himalayas.   
      
   The new data, released in recent weeks, indicates that 30 of the 96   
   glaciers in the Himalayas actually increased in mass during 2007-2008.   
   Glaciers are also expanding in the Antarctic, New Zealand, and Norway.   
      
   Scientists who have been questioning the whole global warming hysteria   
   have been largely ignored because what they have been saying does not suit   
   what is essentially a political agenda.   
      
   We are being told that anthropogenic global warming (AGW), which is   
   “global warming caused by man,” is going to have catastrophic   
   consequences. AGW alarmists claim that manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) is   
   causing the globe to heat up, thereby putting life as we know it at risk.   
   Is the earth really warming?   
      
   The warmest year in the 20th century was 1934 and it was followed by five   
   of the coldest years in the century. While 1998 was the second warmest   
   year of the century, temperatures have flattened since then. The hysteria   
   is as unconvincing as the science behind it.   
      
   In 1975, climatologists were warning that the earth was entering a new ice   
   age. Some desperate solutions were advocated, such as coating the North   
   Pole with soot to absorb solar energy to prevent the anticipated global   
   cooling.   
      
   Bert Bolin, a Swedish climatologist, advocated that people burn more coal   
   and oil in order to generate greenhouse gas to stave off the anticipated   
   ice age. The same Bert Bolin became the first chairman of the UN’s   
   Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been warning   
   of impending doom due to AGW.   
      
   The first IPCC report in 1991 included a graph of temperature over the   
   last 1,000 years. It depicted the medieval warm period from 900 to 1300   
   AD, followed by the little ice age, which lasted from 1300 to 1850.   
      
   An IPCC report in 2001, however, included a new graph which showed the   
   global temperature on a relatively flat line from 1000 to 1850, with a   
   dramatic spike up after that. This graph, which ignored both the medieval   
   warm period and the little ice age, has been totally discredited.   
      
   The earth has gone through cycles of global warming and cooling even   
   within recorded history. From 200BC to 600AD was known as the Roman   
   warming period, from 600 to 900 was the cold period of the Dark Ages, and   
   from 900 to 1300 was the medieval warming period. During the latter   
   period, which was before Christopher Columbus “discovered” America, the   
   Vikings settled in Greenland.   
      
   The remnants of some of their farms have been found. One farm had barns   
   capable of holding about 160 cows, while the barns at two other farms   
   could hold between 30 and 50 cows each.   
      
   Where did they get the hay to feed the cows in winter? Clearly, Greenland   
   was able to grow the grass for winter feed for the cattle and must have   
   been much warmer then than it is today.   
      
   How could the IPCC have got its 2001 report so wrong? It certainly raises   
   serious questions about its science. Dissenting scientists contend, for   
   instance, that the IPCC reports were to serve a political agenda rather   
   than science.   
      
   Contributing scientists were told their dissenting commentaries were   
   deleted from the final report of 1996 “in order to ensure that it   
   conformed to the policymakers’ summary”. The policymakers’ summary should   
   be based on the report, not the other way around.   
      
   This was not the way a scientific report should be written. They came up   
   with a phoney consensus by ignoring the dissenting views of participating   
   scientists.   
      
   Last autumn the so-called Climategate scandal erupted following the   
   unauthorised release of emails and other documents from the climate   
   research unit at the University of East Anglia. The scandal exposed   
   arbitrary manipulation of climate data in order to fit preconceived   
   hypotheses.   
      
   When the Journal of Climate Research published papers challenging the   
   notion that the temperatures in the late 20th century were warmer than a   
   millennium earlier, for instance, the author of the discredited 2001 graph   
   essentially suggested trying to put that journal out of business.   
      
   “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research   
   community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” he   
   wrote in one of the emails. “We would also need to consider what we tell   
   or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the   
   editorial board.”   
      
   The arrogance and the distortion of both the scientific methods and   
   ethics, which the emails revealed, was nothing short of astounding. Why   
   would any reputable scientist do that? East Anglia University announced a   
   wide-ranging probe into allegations that its scientists manipulated data   
   about global warming. This review will examine all the email exchanges to   
   check for evidence that data were manipulated or suppressed in ways that   
   are “at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call   
   into question any of the research outcomes”, according to the university.   
      
   AGW alarmism has been be serving a number of agenda. The motives include   
   environmentalism, ego, greed and political goals that span the spectrum.   
      
   SOME authorities argue that the focus on biofuel has actually increased   
   the amount of oil used and greenhouse gas generated. Following studies at   
   Princeton University, for instance, Prof Tim Searchinger reported in 2008   
   that substituting biofuels for petrol will nearly double emissions of   
   greenhouse gases when all the carbon costs of producing the biofuel and   
   the lower energy content of the biofuel are taken into account.   
      
   In its cover story on April 7, 2008, Time magazine described how turning   
   crops into fuel increases food prices. In the pursuit of biofuels the US   
   could for the first time actually become a grain importer, rather than   
   exporter. This could have disastrous implications for those areas of the   
   world where people are starving already.   
      
   The whole thing is not going to curb CO2 emissions, with the result that   
   the environmental justification for the biofuels is flawed. Maybe there   
   could be justification for using biofuels in order to cut down or   
   eliminate our dependence on imported oil, but let that be the reason for   
   doing so.   
      
   Careers, reputations, and bureaucracies now depend on there being a   
   climate crisis. Al Gore collects a $200,000 fee for presentations, and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)