Truth on Global WARMING .. It's about time!!
There are MANY articles on global warming on this blog,
simply run a search in the search box

Eileen,
I enjoy arguing this one because it is simply hard science vs. political
science. The Global Warming alarmists claim added legitimacy for their
position because their predictions are so dire. First, let me say that the
evidence that the planetary mean temperature is changing and has changed in
the past is overwhelming.

The hard science available to track correlations between human activity and
mean global temperature is more than you might expect. For example, certain
deep fjords off the coast of British Columbia have been gathering sediment
for tens of thousands of years. Each year you get a light band for summer
sediment and a dark band for winter sediment. The result reads something like
tree rings. A warm year has a fat summer band and a cold year has a thin
summer band. A 50,000 year core sample tracks sun spot activity almost
exactly with no divergence in recent decades. Geological evidence of CO2
levels in the atmosphere shows no such correlation.

Recent temperature gains on Earth have been accompanied by similar
temperature gains on all the other planets in the solar system. Evidence is
that there is no industrial or vehicular activity on any of the other planets.

Volcanic activity under the Arctic is increasing at a dramatic pace, causing
liquid CO2 to bubble up from the ocean floor in amounts that dwarf the output
of all our SUV's.

The thermal mass, the capacity to hold heat, of the land and water is
hundreds of times higher than the thermal mass of the air. Compare a forced
air heating system with radiant heat and you can understand the difference.
Hot air does not lead to hot water or hot soil.

The bottom line is that the mean temperature of something so massive and
complex as the earth is not likely to be dramatically changed by surface
activity that is largely restricted to the atmosphere.

That said, we have a history of increased efficiency and reduced pollution as
a side effect of the use of energy. The steam locomotive ran at 4% efficiency
and showered the passengers and countryside with coal cinders. A typical
automobile runs at 35% efficiency and a hybrid at twice that. Certain cutting
edge technologies promise to organize energy by understanding quantum
geometry rather than burning fuel.

Why am I going on like this? Because the side of reason is at a disadvantage
in this argument and has to educate to make its case. The thing that makes
the global warming movement so dangerous is that it makes its case by fear
and exaggeration without any scientific rigour.

The guy who put that video on YouTube left a lot of assumptions unexplored in
his doomsday scenario. He poisons the well by inferring that we can't know
the full extent of the impending disaster because it might happen suddenly.
How convenient! How convenient to the politicians that the proposed solutions
all involve government monopoly control of energy.

Beware of any argument driven by fear that would increase government control.
My take on this is that the global warming crusade will end abruptly when
certain politicians stop exhaling.

Peace,
Richard

Eileen,

in my opinion we should be cutting the polluting output of our industrial activities, but it is not CO2 we should concentrate on. There are many pollutants such as heavy metals, ultrafine particles (nor called nanoparticles) from combustion both in motors and in incinerators, that are actually bad for our health and we should stop emitting those.

CO2 does not precede global warming, it FOLLOWS the warming trend, at least historically, so it is not a cause, merely a correlated event. Even if there IS going to be global warming - a thing that is by no means sure - it may not even be a bad thing at all. Should there be a sea level rise, which so far there hasn't been (and remember it isn't human activity that will cause it if it does happen) we will have time to retreat to higher land.

So I agree action should be taken, but it should not be a blind anti-CO2 campaign, but a campaign to cut pollution across the board, to get off hydrocarbons as an energy source (they are polluting and they are in the hands of a global monopoly which has been the cause of wars and starvation) and use renewable and non-polluting sources. That also excludes biomass, which not only will be processed into similarly polluting hydrocarbons but which is already driving food prices up world wide.

We should rationally look at the situation we are in and see what we are doing that makes life difficult, and remedy what we find. The CO2 scare is driving us in a wrong direction.

So action yes, but let's go in the right direction. Cut all pollution, gain energy independence, gain food independence, and finally turn the ship around politically.

The CO2 scare is a red herring that serves the same monopolistic interests that now supply our hydrocarbons. They are aiming to keep us hooked to hydrocarbons, whether the old kind (oil) or the new kind, CO2 neutral "bio-fuels".

Kind regards

Sepp

Jane: Thanks for your considered response. I will send it around to a few people interested in getting more responses on the subject. With all the "signs of the times" including the National Animal Identification System, RFID chip healthcare and financial implants in humans justifiable called the Mark of the beast considering the advancement of NAIS.... sure seems like end times to me whether Al and the UN is in charge or nature...or both. Massive deaths and grinding poverty seems to be the destiny of this epoch according to living saints as well as scientists.

So, we all need to activate and stand up for what we resonate with (even if we are wrong or blindsided by deception) so that, at the very least, our good intention is in accordance with our highest purpose. I personally meditate (TM) for 33 years...taking my endless thoughts to the unified field. I know that this is the very and foundational action I can take in order to be clear on a very refined and subtle level as to what the Truth actually feels like. Thanks again. Eileen

Not as good a propagandist as Al Gore. And though he looks like a nerd, he's not much of a thinker: he's simply accepting without question the massive lies in the Gore movie.

Here's where he's dangerously wrong: global energy rationing under a tyrannical U.N. bureaucracy would spell massive death and grinding poverty . The action planned is not changing out a few light bulbs but shutting off 75% of the U.S. energy supply. Nothing else would make any significant difference if the radical environmentalists' climate change model is correct. It's not.

The experiment has actually already been tried, and no catastrophe resulted. Instead, there were vineyards in England and relatively benign climate. The only way CO2 can affect the climate is by increasing the temperature. The earth's temperature is now a little below the 3,000 year average. The increasing absorbance of infrared with increasing CO2 levels is logarithmic, so at least 40% of it has already happened.

The earth's rising temperature is not correlated either with CO2 levels or combustion of hydrocarbons. Correlation doesn't prove causality. Lack of correlation disproves it. Whatever caused the earth's emergence from the devastating Little Ice Age, it was natural in origin.

The only world catastrophe is in column A: taking "action." The action is the catastrophe. The effects of CO2 are benign. Its effect on temperature is at best trivial, and its effect on plant growth is highly significant. There are more plants and animals on earth as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution.

See www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600.pdf

With the time spent on is Gore right or wrong on Global Warming...here is the simple version....by some youtube guy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI