The View From 1776

No More Than Could Be Expected

More revelations of fraud by the UN’s IPCC.  But why should we be surprised?  Liberal-progressive-socialism is a founded upon a giant fiction, and the UN is one of the principal propaganda organs for the socialist international.

Read reports from the UK Telegraph and from the London Times.


Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/07 at 11:36 AM
  1. I am amazed how quick conservatives have been to jump on the issue of environmental facts being skewed while letting a far more serious skewing of facts go so long unchecked, Sadden Hussein's so-called weapons of mass destruction.

    I think conservatives have let the false facts of WMDs in Iraq go unchallenged because of their peculiar sensibilities towards patriotism and their distain for nuance. In their warped sense of patriotism they easily accepted, gullibly, the facts about WMDs because they wanted revenge and satisfaction for 9/11 against any significant target in the Muslim world that who would give it to them. The argument of WNDs being in Iraq fit the bill perfectly even though it was a lie.

    In comparison, the falsifying of environmental facts on glacier melting is conservative nitpicking. It also plays right into conservative shallowness and penchant for only scratching the surface. They tend to jump and expound on simplicity and shook, without digging deeper or appreciating the broader, more complicated picture.

    Lets agree the facts about the glacier melting is not accurate. However, that still does not mitigate or alter the fact that climate change is occurring and that we humans should develop policies that will help counter its effects. The conservative attitude, though, is to throw the baby out with the bath water because the water does not square with their staunch, myopic sensibilities
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/07  at  03:07 PM
  2. David,

    I think it would be more precise to say that the glacier melting information was "unsubstantiated," rather than inaccurate. I agree that the glacier item should not have been included in the report as though it was based on solid evidence.

    However, you find the view taking this mistake and opining that the opposite is therefore true, that the glaciers are not, in fact, melting! The glaciers in question are poorly studied because of their remote location, so there is not hard data to measure the rate of melting, but anecdotal evidence (much loved by most conservatives as equal to "fact") is that the glaciers world wide are receding at an alarming rate.

    You are correct, however, that the flat-earthers are having a great time nitpicking a few inconsistencies out of a 3000 page compilation of many scientific reports.

    If a baseball player can manage to get a hit at one third of his at bats, he is considered a wizard and paid millions of dollars. In science, anything short of 100% perfection is evidence of deliberate fraud and willful conspiracy, it seems.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/07  at  03:56 PM
  3. Well said JJ, especially with the baseball analogy.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/07  at  05:40 PM
  4. science ain't your forte boys. baseball is not the right analogy.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/07  at  11:35 PM
  5. We probably face 30 years of global cooling and then will warm again as we have for thousands of years with cooling periods in them. We have just entered the 30 year "cool mode" for the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and there is a similar oscillation in the Atlantic that also has a huge impact on warming and cooling.

    Global temperatures are falling and that is normal for this period in the cycle and warming is much better than cooling for crops. Warming causes huge problems as does cooling. In the past, warming has caused oceans to be much, much higher and we can expect that again whether man is here or not. Also, we can expect cooling that may totally destroy the ability of Northern and Southern Hemisphere marginal regions to grow crops.

    We should be focused on pollutions and CO2 is not pollution as without it we all die just as we would without O2.

    Man contributes less than 1/2 of one percent to greenhouse gases. Water vapor, mostly from the warming of oceans account for well over 90% of greenhouse gas. Volcanoes, plate shifts, and even termites account for a lot more. Methane that is naturally released from animals like termites and methane fields in the oceans, breaks down into C02 and other elements but, the CO2 remains in the air just like C02 does from any other source.

    The focus should be on clean rivers, non-toxic land, eliminating SO2 and N02 from our air as well as other toxins we are exposed to. Wasting billions on something we can't control instead of spending it on what we can control is foolish.

    Even those that say man's 1/2 percent is the tipping point also admit that there is virtually no chance of that changing as the emerging markets emit more every day than we reduce emissions and have no intention of threatening their growing economies by doing anything like is being called for.

    Even in the nations that are saying they want to reduce emissions, they do little and some have lost ground as they buy the right to emit instead of reducing them and new business added increases emissions more than those that do reduce them.

    If man is the cause then we have no chance. We will probably know within five years now that the oceans and sunspots are contributing so much data that wasn't available before.

    By the way David, Iraq had 550 tons of yellowcake that Canada bought from the allied forces and new government for their nuclear reactors. If you studied the cease fire agreement from the first war you would know why WMD was a big concern of the U.N. which had required all WMD (tons that they actually saw and documented) be destroyed only if they were present and they weren't.

    Your ignorance on that subject is typical of those who jump to conclusions on the right and left instead of seeking the truth. Was WMD why we went to war? Of course not. We had dealt with that for a decade and knew all along he was violating the cease fire. But, when he started selling oil in Euros and adding risk to the dollar, he had to go.

    However, you can't get public support for that reason so you go with what you can get public support for. Wars are the tools of the international power brokers and few wars have ever been fought for the reasons that were used to get public support, including our civil war.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  02/08  at  09:53 AM
  6. WMDs were found in Iraq on several occasions, and briefly reported by even the MSM. But then after a bit, they started weaseling. "Oh, they were old." "There weren't very many." "We only found the parts to make them at this site." "They weren't as powerful as we expected." and then finally, the assertions that they had never been found.

    Yes, CO2 is a pollutant. No plant or animal can thrive in an environment saturated with their waste products. But it's part of a very flexible cycle.

    If you want to assert that all, or nearly all, glaciers are melting, then show us the evidence to support your hair-brained claims. Then, we can argue over whether there are normal cycles at play, etc.

    When it comes to the environment, I'd be happier if they removed the aspirin and birth control hormones from US water supplies and added some to the water supplies in India and Red China just to help them out.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/08  at  10:20 AM
  7. Oxygen is a pollutant by your standard then as we can't survive if there is too much oxygen. Something that is required, like CO2 and Oxygen were never considered pollutants until the global warming hype was trying to stir up people to support global agendas like a global tax and global government and global oversight by the international banking cartel's minions.

    All plants would die without CO2 and then we would die. Greenhouses buy CO2 or have equipment to produce CO2 for plant growth. Plants consume the CO2 and produce the oxygen we need for life.

    C02 is not a pollutant..... It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die.

    This year, mostly due to the Pacific Cool Mode shifting moisture and temperature patterns, Canada had record filings for crop failures for both record cold and drought. We could see this pattern continue to varying degrees in many places in the world for the next few decades and during that time, the world population is expected to add one billion more mouths to feed.

    Warming and more CO2 could help alleviate that problem but, at the same time cause many problems too, especially if ocean levels rise near low lying cities.

    What we are lucky to have this time, is a lot of new equipment in place to monitor the oceans.

    NASA is spending around 20 million dollars a year to deploy and monitor 3000 robot buoys around the worlds oceans and the data coming in doesn't support their theory on global warming, in fact it turns out the world has cooled slightly in the last five years.

    It's surprising the mainstream media hasn't picked up on this, you would think the fact that the earth is cooling would be front page news.

    Wondering what we get for 20 mil per year? Here is a brief description from the Argo home page.

    Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. This allows, for the first time, continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean, with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours after collection.

    Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete. Today's tally of floats is shown in the figure above.While the Argo array is currently complete at 3000 floats, to be maintained at that level, national commitments need to provide about 800 floats per year (which has occurred for the past three years).

    NPR has the money quote from Josh Willis at NASA: (emphasis added)

    Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

    In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans. "There has been a very slight cooling..."

    The ability to monitor thousands of places, use satellite technology, and better computer models using more and better data will tell us much in the next few years.

    If man is the tipping point, I believe it will be revealed but that also means there is no hope of ending it in our or our children's, or grandchildren's lifetimes. The emerging markets are just not going to stall their economies to lengthen lifespans in nations that already have too many people in poverty whether they live long or not.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  02/08  at  11:25 AM
  8. Mr. Jay:

    Once again. Glaciers do not melt at all. They are at such high altitudes that the air temperature never goes above zero degrees F. Global warming, up until ten or twelve years ago when a period of global cooling set in, had no direct role in glacial retreats.

    Glacier ice is sublimated into a gaseous state when absorbing energy from the sun's radiation, a process unrelated to warming or cooling at lower altitudes. Glaciers retreat when there is a prolonged decrease of precipitation at their locations. The notorious Kilimanjaro ice cap was at a high point when first observed by Europeans, following an unusual, years-long, heavy rainfall period in the Indian Ocean.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/08  at  01:39 PM
  9. Mr. Brewton,

    I find it astounding that you think that glaciers never melt, and that where they exist, temperatures never rise above 0 degrees F.

    The headwaters of some of the world's major rivers, including the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Yangtze flow from the melt water of Himalayan glaciers.

    You can see side by side "before and after" photographs of the following disappearing glaciers:

    Ururashraju (Peru)
    Grinell (Glacier National Park)
    Rhone (Kanton of Valais, Switzerland)
    Pasterze (Austria)
    Portage (Alaska)

    at the web site:
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/08  at  05:28 PM
  10. Manhattan island was under a mile of ice at one time.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/09  at  01:55 PM
  11. Yes, there was an ice age 10,000 years ago. How is that pertinent to this discussion?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/09  at  02:01 PM
  12. Climate, like glaciers, is a dynamic phenomenon. It changes. You believe otherwise yet you have no proof.You massage 'evidence' to fit your predeterminations. Believe what you want but it ain't science, it's religion.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/09  at  06:44 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.