“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”[4] Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment
"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: 'Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?...Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.... To what were its foundations fastened?... Or who shut in the sea... when I said, ‘This far you may come, but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!’" Job 38:1-6, 8, 11
--------------------
In spite of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth," there's no scientific consensus on human-caused global warming! His claim that Greenland's ice will melt, causing oceans to rise twenty feet, is science fiction, not reality. Unadulterated scientific facts show us that, since 2005, Greenland's ice mass has been growing, not shrinking! So has its population of polar bears.
During a medieval period of global warming (warmer than now), Norwegian explorers settled on Greenland's grassy coast. But the climate cooled, and by 1350 AD, ice covered their fields and coastal waters. That "Little ice age" -- a natural shift in the revolving cycles of nature -- wiped out the entire community. However, during that warming period -- almost a millennium before the media would blame SUVs for warm days -- the Atlantic coasts were not buried by rising oceans. In fact, any slight variation in ocean levels are naturally moderated by increased evaporation during warmer cycles. Our Maker planned His creation well!
Full presentation here:
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/earth-day.htm
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on April 25, 2007]
Note: http://www.crossroad.to...
Green Lies And Amazing Truths
Posted on Tuesday, April 24 at 10:43 by rearguardContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
<br />
Let's start with the outright lies. For info on the Greenland ice sheet you can believe this guy, or you can believe NASA scientists as published in the journal "Science" (of course that just proves the theory because of course NASA and the science publications are part of this grand UN conspiracy right? )<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/">http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/</a><br />
greenland_slide.html<br />
<br />
From the encyclopedia: <br />
<br />
"The most recent research using data from 1996 to 2005 shows that the ice sheet is thinning even faster than supposed in [IPCC, 2001]....in 1996 ...losing about 96 km3 per year in mass from its ice sheet. In 2005, this had increased to about 220 km3 while in 2006 it was estimated at 239 km3 per year. <br />
<br />
The melt zone, where summer warmth turns snow and ice into slush and ponds of meltwater, has been expanding at an accelerating rate in recent years. "<br />
<br />
<br />
As for the UN, ask yourself this: how much general sway does the United Nations have in the world? Because some person in a think tank that may be 'associated' with the UN said this would be a good 'globalizing' issue means nothing.<br />
<br />
Yes, I mean there's nothing like the environment to 'unite' people of the world. Perhaps if everybody can get on board with this then there will next be, I don't know, perhaps trade treaties where economies are more closely linked. Perhaps they can then call this trend 'globalization' and maybe it will catch on. But Lord knows it won't happen without stressing the environment!<br />
<br />
And quoting some Stanford Professor? Yes, I hear that the New York Times gets their lead in copies from California profs. A lot of people don't know this but Rupert Murdock is actually a composite of geeky microclimatologists who control that vast media empire. <br />
<br />
Of COURSE there is no consensus on the relation of human industry to global warming, didn't Bill O'reilly call himself a 'kind of scientist' just the other day and he doens't agree so there you go!<br />
<br />
As for 'making things simple', lets try this. We know there is global warming and that it is accelerating. Its not the same all over and varies widely but lets even assume that its 'natural'.<br />
<br />
Now let's look at human industry that basically coats the earth with emissions. We know the ozone is thinner, we know that CFC's had an impact, so SOME human pollutants had an affect.<br />
<br />
That's not rocket science. We've gone from 'natural' to 'may have had some impact' to 'definitely has SOME kind of impact' in two paragraphs based on facts we know. So to say 'hey, we're polluting at such a massive rate this could exacerbate the problem even more' is not such a stretch. <br />
<br />
What there is is overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming exists, and there is a growing body of evidence that supports the model of human impact. That's of course why Bush and Harper have been firing scientists and gutting environmental research. It's also why the main polluters have started their own 'research', which, surprise surprise, they won't provide data on to be verified and which supports their conclusions. Heck, if you can't trust SHELL who can you trust? They have such nice commercials.<br />
<br />
But thats the latest 'tactic'. For a long time it was 'everything is fine', but now that nobody believes that, its time to preach fatalism and there's nothing that can be done about it. It's 'natural', which means according to the above article its God's will that human cities get wiped out and hundreds of thousands of people die in famines, floods, and hurricanes in this place that supposedly "God created so well". <br />
<br />
If he created it well it wouldn't have had people in it.
In this article she quotes the Bible, not surprising since she runs the Kjos Ministries, leaving me to wonder if her attempts to discredit global warming science are based in funadamentalist religious beliefs instead of scientific reality.
The sources she quotes, including the apparently fraudulent Oregon Petition, have been discredited time and again.
I'm kind of torn over whether articles like this should appear here. On one hand, the almost complete non-factual nature of the article could leave some believing the things Kjos says. On the other hand, it offers an opportunity to reply to her bizarre claims.
These kinds of articles can only sway those that are fairly new to, or are uniformed concerning research on climate change/global warming. I no longer have the energy to respond to such willful ignorance, but I’m glad someone has. Thanks
A lot of people who are on the Global Warming bandwagon have been "infected" with religion as well.
As Marcarc wrote above: "But Lord knows it won't happen without stressing the environment!"
I think it's best to only agree or disagree with the evidence at hand.
In any debate, the only people who are left uniformed are those who hear only one side of the argument. These "kinds of articles" can only inform because I have to assume if it's a load of nonsense, then it won't hold up to criticism - something that has been in short supply with comments such as this one:
"I no longer have the energy to respond to such willful ignorance."
Do you lack energy, or the ability to make a convincing case?
I am overflowing with apathy. Can't speak for Mike though.
Seeing "See also Local Agenda 21- The U.N. Plan for Your Community" on that page, just seems to me that some people cannot be convinced their opinion is based on so many fallicies. I don't have the energy to cut down every single thing they believe in, in order to build them back up with the facts. I've been down that road too many times to be bothered doing someone elses homework for them.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
In a debate, there's at least two opposing sides, and both sides can take on the exact same position that you have.
As for the other links, not that I'm going to put much stock in what a novelist says, but I thought it was very appropriate that a committee from the UN would say this: But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that "the largest public health problem created by the accident" is the "damaging psychological impact to a lack of accurate information… as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state."
Of course that's bullshit, the maritimes have a 'high dependance on the state' in fact CANADA has a 'high dependance on the state'-exactly what ecological disaster affected us to make us so dependant?
However, for global warming we don't need 'projections'. It's been over a decade since some of the first projections came out, things like more intense hurricanes and more of them, more intense movements in the earth structure, tidal waves, etc. So if Michael Crichton is so brain dead that while he's combing the stacks looking for something gruesome to kill people off with to make a few more bucks that he hasn't noticed New Orleans, India, Japan, France, etc., where in the past five years close to a million people have died because of weather related deaths then I'm certainly not going to give him much credence.
'Fear' can be a healthy thing, it tells you to move your ass before you bite it. In the case of global warming the response has NOT been like he states of Chernoybl where people are 'scared to death', it has been for millions of people to demand their governments smarten the *&^^% up and stop handing out cheques to oil companies and get some policies that help people do what they've been doing for decades-try to clean up the environment. It is the other side, the 'its all natural, there's nothing you can do' that is looking at the highlights and waiting for the bang.
Odd how they listen to the science over a literal interpretation of the Bible though. Also odd how I mentioned a fundamentalist belief and you interpreted it to mean all relgious belief.
"What was said about Greenland is not exactly a lie..."
A misleading statement based on a misrepresentation of fact is still a lie.
Anybody who has lived in a cold climate understands that it doesn't snow when it is very cold out, there simply isn;t enough moisture in the air, so the increase in precipitation at the centre of the glacier is actually a sign that temperatures there have warmed.
The Greenland glacier is melting faster at its edges than it is growing at its centre, another sign of warming, and is in fact losing both mass and volume at an accelerated rate. That means that any claim that the glacier is actually growing is...ready for it...a lie.
So here you have three misrepresentations (lies) supporting a larger lie. The next Kjos gets her Bible out, she oughtta read the Ten Commandments. I think the priests used to give us about six "Hail Marys" and four "Our Fathers" for a lot less than this.
I totally support Kyoto, not because I think we can make any difference with it, but because we should do something to enhance the environment. We should leave as little a footprint as we can.
My whole post is pointing my finger at the foilers at crossroads.to, and laughing.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
If the Greenland ice field is growing, then to say that it's growing is not a lie. To say that the ice will begin to shrink because of a warming trend is a projection based on an educated guess that may or may not be correct.
"Keep in mind also that a time span since 1991 isn't particularly significant."
I agree, but all of the measurements that support the global warming hype are based on insignificant time spans as well.
"Global warming isn't just 'warming'. Here in southern ontario we had a VERY cold winter. Do we then run around saying 'there can't be any such thing as global warming because it was pretty damn cold this winter'?"
By the same argument, the current warming trend represents an infinitesimal blip in time relative to the earth's history, so we also cannot say that because the last few decades seem to be warming up that the trend won't eventually reverse itself.
"more intense movements in the earth structure, tidal waves, etc."
Are you suggesting that global warming is responsible for movements in the earth's structure and tidal waves???
"he hasn't noticed New Orleans, India, Japan, France, etc., where in the past five years close to a million people have died because of weather related deaths"
People die from weather related events all the time. Some years are worse than others, and some decades are worse than others, and some centuries are worse than others, etc.
"'Fear' can be a healthy thing, it tells you to move your ass before you bite it."
False fears however can be very damaging.
"get some policies that help people do what they've been doing for decades-try to clean up the environment."
I'm all for policies that actually make sense.
"It is the other side, the 'its all natural, there's nothing you can do' that is looking at the highlights and waiting for the bang."
When waiting for the bang is all we can do, then that's all we can do, like it or not pretty darn close to everything in this universe is beyond the control of humanity.
It is NOT growing, that is the point, it said it was 'spreading at high altitudes', yet hardly any of Greenland is at high altitudes. Even the article says that the ice sheet is melting.
Are you suggesting that global warming is responsible for movements in the earth's structure and tidal waves???
Absolutely. No, I should change that, because that doesn't come from ME, that comes from professional climatologists and researchers. The earths structure of course is extremely susceptible to weather patterns, everybody in Canada knows that, especially if you work construction and know anything about permafrost. EXTREME weather changes have been predicted by the pioneers of global warming, and now much of them are coming true. In France although we never hear of it, tens of thousands of people died two summers ago because of the extreme heat which France never faced before.
"People die from weather related events all the time."
People die from car related deaths all the time, some times are worse than others. That doesn't mean you accept it and move on, it means you make seat belt laws, safer cars, traffic laws, drinking and driving laws, etc.
Lots of things in the UNIVERSE are beyond our power, most of the things on EARTH are not. We are talking about ecological footprints here, therefore it is ALL within 'our power'. We can't do anything about wind erosion on mars, but we can certainly do something about human industry on earth, in fact MOST of the world is ready and willing to do that, it is primarily governments who are not. Go check pollution stats, since the seventies individual pollution levels have dropped radically. The rise has been in industry. So its correct that that's where the focus has been.
There is a BIG difference between 'false fears' and 'worst case scenarios'. In scientific terms when they use worse case scenarios it may sound like hyperbole, but it means that it COULD happen. If something CAN happen and its avoidable then its worth looking at. For example, if you watch Jurassic Park you see genetic clones of dinosaurs. IF the weather is getting warmer what happens if reptiles grow to ten times their size? Or insects? But who out there in the scientific community is saying "oh my god we'll be eaten by giant crocodiles and spiders!" THAT would be a 'false fear', but nobody is stating that. Instead they are stating that when 'and if' the ice sheets melt, and even high altitudes will eventually be susceptible - (imagine an ice cube melting, since heat rises the top of that ice cube may get colder over the minutes, but once everything around it is melted, its going down too), then water levels will rise 20 feet (I think is the 'worst case scenario' number) which will wipe out many islands and a good percentage of most seaport cities.
But obviously if people think all the science is wrong and we're all getting scammed then you can't change their minds. It's like telling a conspiracy theorist that maybe 911 happened just the way they say. There are now thousands of articles on global warming in scientific journals, everybody at this website knows the mainstream media is full of crap with most things, so I'd simply recommend stop listening to it and read up on some science. Then post the specific policies that 'don't make sense'. In Canada, its pretty hard to argue about Kyoto since it was never even tried.