Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Global warming sect vs. Science

Just as the CFC fraud, did you know that science has never ever proven man-induced Global Warming?

That's why the worshipers of the "green godess Gaia" changed the name to "Climate change".

For a balanced opinion, you'd better watch 2 excellent scientific documentaries:

Global cooling: a scientific fact

Global warming: Do we have any information?

Why are serious scientists censored by UN Climate panel? Check this interview:

You deal with the Geophysical Institute of inertial motion sun. English SIM (Solar Inertial Motion). Can you tell what it is?
It is the movement of the Sun around the center of gravity (barycentre) solar system, which is due to the changing distribution of planets, especially the giant planets.  Already Sir Isaac Newton wrote, intuitively, in his Principia (1687) the following sentence: "As the focus of the solar system is constantly at rest , the influence of the sun transforming the distribution of planets constantly move, but never from the center of gravity too much farther. "This is not negligible, the Sun moves in the area with a diameter of 4.3 solar radii, ie 0.02 AU or 3,000,000 km . It is interesting that the average speed of the sun is around 50 km / h. As cars in the village. The first paper on the subject written by SIM PD Jose in 1965.
You are the author of a breakthrough in this field. What?
In 1987 I began to notice after periodicity and geometry of movement and I managed to split the movement of the sun into two basic types, the trio arranged in accordance with the Jupiter-Saturnian system and disordered (chaotic). This created a precise, homogeneous base, to which it has become possible to study solar-terrestrial and climatic variability. Reassuring is that whether the sun spinning however, returns to three-leaf path always for 179 years. And the important thing is that the chaotic movement of the sun agrees to long-term lows in solar activity such as the minimum Wolf (1270-1350), Spörerovo (~ 1430-1520), Maunder (~ 1620-1710) and Dalton (~ 1790-1840 ). During shamrocks are ST-stable phenomena - solar cycles have a length of 10 years, volcanic activity is muted amid trefoil is thermal maximum.  Later I found in the movement of the sun and cycle 2402 years. With this step, the sun enters the interval when, after a period of almost 370 years after the three-leaf still moving path. It was in the last 158 years BC. to 208.5 AD. In this period, the natural condition stable, the long-term thermal maximum. Symmetry of movement is trefoil in 25 AD. Scientists from NASA named cycle 2402 years as "Charvátová cycle." Movement of the sun can be calculated in the future (celestial mechanics), it opened and use predictive capabilities. Meanwhile predict behavior based on the same events with the same movement of the sun. (Weather height of solar cycle 23 came from all over the world just me.) Own physical mechanisms are not yet known.
UN panel whole research is not taking into account or solar-terrestrial phenomena (ie solar, geomagnetic, volcanic activity, etc.) and takes into account only the temperatures since 1860. In Europe, we have a number of continuous instrumental temperature series, which dates back to the mid-18th century. These ranges we worked with a colleague, to show their relationship to the movement of the sun, and published an article about it in the journal Climatic Change, Stanford University. The temperature in the mid-18th century was as high as in 1940 (both middle trefoil). Where was he when what industry fumes? Neither the reconstruction of climate (temperature proxy data) widths of tree-ring isotopes 18 O and 10 Be in ice layers, etc., which are already at the disposal of very deep into the past, at least for good quality Holocene." 
File:Sunspot Numbers.png 
studies say that the present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the Sun's output or, more speculatively, by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation. Solanki and co-workers suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years

Internal radiative forcing

Roy Spencer hypothesized in 2008 that there is an "internal radiative forcing" affecting climate variability,[128][129]
[...] mixing up of cause and effect when observing natural climate variability can lead to the mistaken conclusion that the climate system is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than it really is. [...] it provides a quantitative mechanism for the (minority) view that global warming is mostly a manifestation of natural internal climate variability.
[...] low frequency, internal radiative forcing amounting to little more than 1 W/m2, assumed to be proportional to a weighted average of the southern oscillation and Pacific decadal oscillation indices since 1900, produces ocean temperature behavior similar to that observed: warming from 1900 to 1940, then slight cooling through the 1970s, then resumed warming up to the present, as well as 70% of the observed centennial temperature trend.
700 scientist's research contradicts human caused global warming: 
List of scientists with study citations 

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming


Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

History, Ideology, and U.S. Climate Policy: Beyond the Orthodoxies of Left and Right

Climate Policy Holy Wars 

UN Climate Panel and 'Extreme Weather'

Unknown Volcanoes Caused the Little Ice Age 

A Call For Light Bulb Sanity

Two Climate Change Wrongs Don't Make a Right

New Study Affirms Natural Climate Change

Why Not the Sun?

Germans Tried To Warn Us of Climate Fraud

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years 
Climate Alarm
Presentation on Climate v. Climate AlarmRichard S. Lindzen, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abstract: The public perception of the climate problem is somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, the problem is perceived to be so complex that it cannot be approached without massive computer programs. On the other hand, the physics is claimed to be so basic that the dire conclusions commonly presented are considered to be self-evident.  Consistent with this situation, climate has become a field where there is a distinct separation of theory and modeling. Commonly, in fluid mechanics, theory provides useful constraints and tests when applied to modeling results. This has been notably absent in current work on climate.

Climate Models
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
NIPCC vs. IPCC Addressing the Disparity between Climate Models and Observations: Testing the Hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia and chairman of the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
Abstract: This booklet updates NIPCC report Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (2008) and contains new results: 1. It defends NIPCC against false claims that IPCC climate models are "consistent" with observed temperature trends. The central issue is the cause of global warming: Is it natural or is it manmade? [This issue is of crucial importance for both climate science and for climate policy.] 2. It demonstrates that because of their chaotic character none of IPCC's climate models can be validated against observations and used to predict future temperatures. 3. It presents new thinking on Climategate, Hockeystick graph -- and multiple evidence against the claimed surface warming underlying the IPCC conclusion of AGW. [Is the reported 1979-1997 warming real?]

Chaotic Behavior
Overcoming Chaotic Behavior of Climate ModelsS. Fred Singer and Christopher Walter Monckton of Brenchley
Abstract: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC: Meehl et al., 2001) acknowledges that, mathematically speaking, the climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic object and that, therefore, the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The parameters describing the model's initial state must be known to a precision that is unattainable in practice. Accordingly, any comparison of modeled with observed temperature trends cannot be done satisfactorily without an understanding of the chaoticity of a climate model. A synthetic experiment, using two distinct procedures, demonstrates that no fewer than about 20 simulations run on a typical IPCC general-circulation model are a prerequisite for determining useful constraints upon chaos-induced climatic uncertainties.

Temperature Trends
Modeled v. Observed
Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature TrendsS Fred Singer (USA)
Abstract: The US Climate Change Science Program [CCSP, 2006] reported, and Douglass et al. [2007] and NIPCC [2008] confirmed, a potentially serious inconsistency between modeled and observed trends in tropical surface and tropospheric temperatures. However, Santer et al. [2008: hereafter Santer ], though sharing several co-authors with CCSP [2006], offered new observational estimates of [tropical] surface and tropospheric temperature trends , concluding that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends. Santer s key graph [shown here as Fig. 5] misleadingly suggests an overlap between observations and modeled trends. His new observational estimates conflict with satellite data. His modeled trends are an artifact, merely reflecting chaotic and structural model uncertainties that had been overlooked. Thus the conclusion of consistency is not supportable and accordingly does not validate model-derived projections of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
The Recent Temperature and CO2 Disconnect
Huge swings in temperature show no correlation with CO2. 

Is Only Nation Where Climate Scientists Face Organized Harassment 

Criticism of theories of anthropogenic global warming

Klaus, second president of the Czech Republic, is a vocal critic of the theories that any global warming is anthropogenic. He has also criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a group of politicized scientists with one-sided opinions and one-sided assignments. He has said that some other top-level politicians do not expose their doubts about global warming being anthropogenic because "a whip of political correctness strangles their voices."[39]
In addition he says, "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences" along with other "isms" such as communism, feminism, and liberalism. Klaus said that "environmentalism is a religion" and, answering questions of U.S. Congressmen, a "modern counterpart of communism" that seeks to change peoples' habits and economic systems.[40]
In a June 2007 Financial Times article, Klaus called ambitious environmentalism "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, market economy and prosperity". He hinted at present political and scientific debates on environment issues as a design to suppress freedom and democracy, and asked the readers to oppose the term "scientific consensus", adding that "it is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority".[41] In an online Q&A session following the article he wrote "Environmentalism, not preservation of nature (and of environment), is a leftist ideology... Environmentalism is indeed a vehicle for bringing us socialist government at the global level. Again, my life in communism has made me oversensitive in this respect."[42] He reiterated these statements at a showing of Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle organised by his think tank CEP in June 2007.[43]
In November 2007 BBC World's Hardtalk Klaus called the interviewer "absolutely arrogant" for claiming that a scientific consensus embracing the bulk of the world had been reached on climate change. He added that he was "absolutely certain" that in 30 years people would look back and express their thanks to him for his stands.[44]
At a September 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference, Klaus spoke of his disbelief in global warming, calling for a second IPCC to be set up to produce competing reports, and for countries to be left alone to set their priorities and prepare their own plans for the problem.[45]
In 2007, Klaus published a book titled Modrá, nikoli zelená planeta (literally "Blue planet – not green"). The book has been translated from the Czech into various languages.[46] The title in English, which is not a direct translation, is "Blue Planet in Green Shackles". It claims that "The theory of global warming and the hypothesis on its causes, which has spread around massively nowadays, may be a bad theory, it may also be a valueless theory, but in any case it is a very dangerous theory."
At the September 2009 UN Climate Change Conference, Klaus again voiced his disapproval, calling the gathering "propagandistic" and "undignified."[47]
On 26 July 2011 at the National Press Club Address, Klaus pronounced himself again against global warming calling it "a communist conspiracy".[48]
On 21 May 2012 Klaus addressed the climate sceptic Heartland Institute’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7).[49]
And how about the Climategate email scandal?
Who is making money out of this?
Government contractors! 
Do politicians get some kick backs? Are thay freemasons as well as the contractors?
Why is there so much Government and Corporate money for grants in this particular shaky field?
An image is worth a thousand words:

CO2 up, NOT temperature
Doesn't it ring a bell? Remember the CFC fraud on the ozone layer:

The scam is getting worse. And it will cost us billions of dollars, jobs, health plans, education, etc.
Before it was the commies. Now, the greenies are comin!


No comments:

Post a Comment