Jump to content

Climate Change Consensus?


Recommended Posts

Another moronic addition to the debate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/campbell-blames-climate-change-for-spring-games/article1486344/

Campbell :m: blames climate change for 'Spring Games'

JUSTINE HUNTER

VICTORIA — From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Published on Tuesday, Mar. 02, 2010 3:55AM EST

Last updated on Tuesday, Mar. 02, 2010 3:59AM EST

The record-breaking warm weather that made a soggy mess of Cypress Mountain, forcing Olympic organizers to truck snow to the slopes, was caused by climate change, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell says.

And witnessing the "Spring Olympics" has convinced Mr. Campbell he must accelerate his campaign against global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

Unbelievable. The greenies will come up with any excuse and ignore the obvious common sense. That is...that this is an El Nino year so it was always going to be warm. El Nino has been around for thousands of years...just like blatent lies as the man-made global warming types have perfected.

"How Met Office blocked questions on its own man's role in 'hockey stick' climate row

The Meteorological Office is blocking public scrutiny of the central role played by its top climate scientist in a highly controversial report by the beleaguered United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Professor John Mitchell, the Met Office’s Director of Climate Science, shared responsibility for the most worrying headline in the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning IPCC report – that the Earth is now hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years.

And he approved the inclusion in the report of the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a steep 20th Century rise.

By the time the 2007 report was being written, the graph had been heavily criticised by climate sceptics who had shown it minimised the ‘medieval warm period’ around 1000AD, when the Vikings established farming settlements in Greenland.

In fact, according to some scientists, the planet was then as warm, or even warmer, than it is today.

Early drafts of the report were fiercely contested by official IPCC reviewers, who cited other scientific papers stating that the 1,300-year claim and the graph were inaccurate.

But the final version, approved by Prof Mitchell, the relevant chapter’s review editor, swept aside these concerns.

Now, the Met Office is refusing to disclose Prof Mitchell’s working papers and correspondence with his IPCC colleagues in response to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The block has been endorsed in writing by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth – whose department has responsibility for the Met Office.

Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.

Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled that scientists from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – the source of the leaked ‘Warmergate’

Some of the FOI requests made to them came from the same person who has made requests to the Met Office.

He is David Holland, an electrical engineer familiar with advanced statistics who has written several papers questioning orthodox thinking on global warming.

The Met Office’s first response to Mr Holland was a claim that Prof Mitchell’s records had been ‘deleted’ from its computers.

Later, officials admitted they did exist after all, but could not be disclosed because they were ‘personal’, and had nothing to do with the professor’s Met Office job.

Finally, they conceded that this too was misleading because Prof Mitchell had been paid by the Met Office for his IPCC work and had received Government expenses to travel to IPCC meetings.

The Met Office had even boasted of his role in a Press release when the report first came out.

But disclosure, they added, was still rejected on the grounds it would ‘inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the free and frank provision of views’.

It would also ‘prejudice Britain’s relationship with an international organisation’ and thus be contrary to UK interests.

In a written response justifying the refusal dated August 20, 2008, Mr Ainsworth – then MoD Minister of State – used exactly the same language.

Mr Holland also filed a request for the papers kept by Sir Brian Hoskins of Reading University, who was the review editor of a different chapter of the IPCC report.

When this too was refused, Mr Holland used the Data Protection Act to obtain a copy of an email from Sir Brian to the university’s information officer.

The email, dated July 17, 2008 – when Mr Holland was also trying to get material from the Met Office and the CRU – provides clear evidence of a co-ordinated effort to hide data. Sir Brian wrote:

‘I have made enquiries and found that both the Met Office/MOD and UEA are resisting the FOI requests made by Holland. The latter are very relevant to us, as UK universities should speak with the same voice on this. I gather that they are using academic freedom as their reason.’

At the CRU, as the Warmergate emails reveal, its director, Dr Phil Jones (who is currently suspended), wrote to an American colleague:

‘[We are] still getting FOI requests as well as Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions – not to respond.’

Last night Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the affair further undermined the credibility of the IPCC and those associated with it. He said:

‘It’s of critical importance that data such as this should be open. More importantly, the questions being raised about the hockey stick mean that we may have to reassess the climate history of the past 2,000 years.

‘The attempt to make the medieval warm period disappear is being seriously weakened, and the claim that now is the warmest time for 1,300 years is no longer based on reliable evidence.’

Despite repeated requests, the MoD and Met Office failed to comment."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249035/How-Met-Office-blocked-questions-mans-role-hockey-stick-climate-row.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm not a huge fan of the National Post, but the last line in this story "says it all" about Earth Hour:

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/27/national-post-editorial-board-leave-your-lights-on.aspx

National Post editorial board: Leave your lights on

Posted: March 27, 2010, 9:30 AM by NP Editor

Editorial, Canadian politics

Earth Hour starts tonight at 8:30 p.m. EST. The event, which began in 2007, calls for everyone in the world to turn off their electric lights until 9:30 p.m., to raise awareness of climate change.

The Earth Hour website claims that last year, “Hundreds of millions of people in more than 4,000 cities and towns across 88 countries switched off their lights for one hour, creating a visual mandate for action on climate change.” The website also offers this frightening warning: “New economic modelling indicates the world has just five years to initiate a low carbon industrial revolution before runaway climate change becomes almost inevitable.”

But Earth Hour is not designed to be scientific, rational, or even constructive. It is designed to inspire fear and assuage guilt.

Feel-good activities such as Earth Hour primarily appeal to three constituencies: the young, the idealistic and those who would prey on their ignorance. The latter category includes politicians, climate change activists and people with other agendas, specifically anti-capitalist, anti-growth and anti-prosperity.

Indeed, the idea that we will progress by regressing is not only at the core of Earth Hour, but of the entire anti-climate-change movement. If we lived simpler, more frugal (translation less comfortable, less productive) lives, the thinking goes, we could take the planet back to a pristine state. Man is the problem, and he should scale back his activities.

This rationale ignores the fact that for every environmental concern humanity has experienced or engendered, it has also found a solution. Scrubbers remove particulate from smokestacks. Laws penalize and discourage water pollution. Private property ownership helps conserve wetlands. More efficient engines replace less efficient ones, saving fuel and reducing emissions.

These advances are not driven by regression; rather, they are driven by technological innovation, consumer demand, and the rule of law. Ironically, it is the countries that lack these things which are unable to celebrate Earth Hour. Their citizens haven’t achieved the prosperity necessary to benefit from an innovation that we in the First World take for granted — universal electric light. Most people in the Third World will spend Earth Hour in darkness, as they do every day.

Earth Hour has it backwards; it’s the light that saves us, not the dark.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/27/national-post-editorial-board-leave-your-lights-on.aspx#ixzz0jONOCGcb

The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

Meanwhile, the socialists continue their plot quietly.....

"Trillion-dollar green troughs

Green TSX Index, an IMF Fund, the Globe confab: The Green Juggernaut rolls on

By Peter Foster

Unfortunately, I had to miss this week’s biennial Globe Foundation conference on business and the environment. Set in Vancouver, Globe is the greatest show on Earth (or at least in North America) for green policy wonks, eco consultants, aggressively growth-oriented NGOs and corporate rent seekers (all delegates carbon-neutralized). There’s no more beautiful place to bask in the notion that the world is going to environmental hell without more government regulation and subsidy, or to reflect on how much money is to be made from promoting and exploiting undefinable “sustainability.”

I attended my first Globe shindig ten years ago. The highlight (at least for me) was the announcement by Alberta utility TransAlta that it would be seeking carbon dioxide emission credits by corking cattle farts in Uganda.

Two items conspicuously absent from the agenda were whether climate science was sound and whether Kyoto commitments to slash emissions (none more rigorous and unreachable than those made by Canada) made any sense.

A decade on, with frantic attempts to shove Climategate under the carpet, and after the collapse of the Kyoto process in Copenhagen, those questions would seem even more relevant, and yet I could find only one session on this year’s Globe programme devoted to the implications of Copenhagen. I suspect little or nothing will be heard about Climategate, except to suggest that it is a storm in a teacup manufactured by immoral “Deniers.”

There can be no doubt that the alternative energy industry has boomed over the past ten years, but neither can there be any doubt that this boom has been based almost entirely on government subsidy. Now it is foundering, not only because governments are cash-strapped, but because they are all subsidizing the same dead-end technologies. Meanwhile President Obama’s cap-and-trade bill is likely to be sequestered deep underground in the wake of the bitter health-care battle.

The Green Juggernaut likely has many more wheels to come off before it collapses. And if Globe is based on anything, it is based on faith in the ability of policy to ignore reality, or else to shape reality via the promotion of public hysteria. Unfortunately for Globesters, that’s another strategy that seems to be foundering as public skepticism about the climate change/sustainability scam grows.

Two announcements yesterday indicated that the Juggernaut’s burden of big policy inertia and Stepford Wives’ conformity is still trundling on. The first was a study from the IMF that laid out the stunning costs of the climate agenda’s planned transfers to developing countries. The second was the launch of an S&P/TSX “Clean Technology Index,” which has been masterminded by Jantzi-Sustainalytics, a typical servant of wonky green metrics. Among the score or so companies on the index is Ballard Power, once the shining light of government-selected and -subsidized green champions (Just where are those fuel cell-powered Amory Lovins-mobiles?) Ten years ago Ballard briefly traded above $200. Now it’s a tad above $3, although it added 22 cents yesterday, presumably as a result of being put on the index! It will be fascinating to see how the index fares, particularly since that will depend significantly on the kind of monstrous initiatives outlined by the IMF. The new index may in fact be a reverse indicator of economic health, since a dollar of profit within it likely costs several — if not numerous — dollars to the public purse.

The IMF paper fleshed out details of the US$100-billion a year “Green Fund” for developing countries promised at Copenhagen. One might note the implications of a figure so remarkably large and so remarkably round. In any sane world, say the world of commercial enterprise, you would specify and cost any project. In the world of government-funded screw-the-expense global salvationism, all is Red Queen logic: massive financial commitment first; work out what we want to spend it on later.

In fact, the Green Fund is not simply a matter of doling out cash, it proposes a vast Rube Goldberg-style bureaucratic money pit that would require millions of bureaucrat and consultant hours. The scheme would involve both farcically-named “equity,” since it represents money squeezed from taxpayers, plus “bonds” that would no doubt be effectively guaranteed by the same taxpayers and thus particularly attractive to the likes of Goldman Sachs. The money would flow not only through existing bureaucratic channels, of which you might think there are already enough, but also though “newly created special-purpose disbursement facilities.”

Were there ever sweeter words to bureaucratic ears?

And what would be the overall cost of this scheme? According to the study, to belly up to the high bar set in Copenhagen, the fund would have to issue — wait for it — US$1-trillion of bonds (another beautifully round figure) over thirty years. To ensure the Goldman Sachs crowd that their bond holdings were secure, “Rough calculations by the authors suggest than an equity endowment of around $120 billion would be sufficient.” But I wouldn’t be too sure that ensuring bondholders’ security wouldn’t cost more. When the eco bubble pops, who do you think will be on the hook for bailing out green investors (but only really big ones) who are perhaps dubbed “too benign to fail”?

Is that the end of the taxpayers’ commitment under the Green Fund? You wish! After all, this money isn’t going to be invested in anything likely to earn a return. According to the IMF authors, “Since much of the financing would need to be provided ultimately as grants or highly-concessional loans, the Green Fund would also need to mobilize resources from contributors for subsidies.” Get it? That US$120 billion merely buys you a no-choice option to kick in further subsidies.

And how would more blood be sucked from us tax-burdened serfs? Via carbon taxes and “expanded carbon-trading schemes.” Until then, the fund would just have to muddle through, scraping by on a billion here and a billion there, perhaps via “other innovative international tax schemes.”

There are signs that fiscal reality is indeed intruding on eco folly. French President Nikolas Sarkozy this week ditched a carbon tax (while calling on other nations to impose one!). But it is hardly encouraging that Stephen Harper, the man who once called climate change a “socialist plot,” is prominent in Globe’s conference program.

You can understand why nobody at Globe is interested in hearing that this potential multi-trillion dollar trough might be sitting atop scientific sand. Nor are they particularly keen that the word get out that the “benefits” of the Green Fund would not be, as the IMF suggests, “to the entire world” but rather to a self-selected group who have managed to build and corral a global process that serves nobody’s interest but their own.

Welcome to Globe 2010!"

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/03/25/peter-foster-trillion-dollar-green-troughs.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest woxof

This is fantastic news. What a great day. The majority of people have finally woken up to reality and the truth as explained so clearly by myself. It look s like even the biggest of the man -made global warming crowd are starting to wave the white flag :white:. Thank you's are accepted in advance for saving you so many dollars.

Here is another article on how the so-called scientists who supposedly settled the science really worked...

"Benny Peiser: Climate libel chill

When asked for the data behind one study ‘proving’ global warming, CRU scientists instead planned to sue. Following the release of the Climategate emails from East Anglia University`s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the U.K.’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee decided to investigate its implications “for the integrity of scientific research.” Benny Peiser of the Faculty of Science at Liverpool John Moores University submitted a memorandum, which appears below in edited form.

I am the editor of CCNet and the co-editor of the journal Energy & Environment (E&E).

I will outline the chronology of the CRU-Keenan affair as documented in the published CRU emails and according to unpublished email correspondence between me and Dr. Jones. [at CRU].

On Aug. 29, 2007, I received an email from Doug Keenan with his paper titled “The Fraud Allegations against Wei-Chyung Wang.” In this paper, Keenan accused Wei-Chyung Wang (State University of Albany, SUNY, New York) of scientific fraud. In his paper, Keenan documented evidence that Wang had fabricated information about Chinese meteorological weather stations. His allegations concern two publications, one by Jones et al (1990) that has been a cornerstone in multiple IPCC reports about the allegedly minimal role of the effect of urban heat islands on the global temperature record. One of the key papers to underpin this conclusion is the study by Jones et al. To refute Keenan’s claims of scientific fraud would have only required the release of documentary information about the Chinese weather stations in question which Wang has long claimed to possess.

In the afternoon of the same day (Aug. 29) I sent Phil Jones [then-director of the CRU] an email with a copy of Keenan’s paper attached. In my email, I asked Jones whether he would be prepared to comment on the content and factual accuracy of the Keenan paper.

Later that day, Jones circulated the paper to Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang and Dr. Tom Wigley (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), informing both his colleagues that he “won’t be responding” to my request, but that he would be prepared to do so if his colleagues thought he should.

The next day, Aug. 30, Wang emailed Jones to say that Jones needed to respond “by providing E&E with a simple answer of ‘false’ to Keenan’s write-up, based on the communication with me.[...] We are facing a tricky person and group, and the only way to do it is to follow the procedure to drive them crazy. [...] We are not going to let Keenan doing things his way. [...] We should be thinking, after the whole odeal (sic) is over, to take legal (or other) actions against Keenan. [...]”

In his response to Wang on the same day, Jones wrote: “Libel is quite easy to prove in the U.K. as you’re not a public figure. Perhaps when you’re back you ought to consider taking some legal advice from SUNY. Assuming the paper is published that is. [...].”

Later the same day, Jones emailed Wang and Wigley to inform them that he would not respond to my request “until the SUNY process has run its course.”

Later still, Dr. Michael E. Mann (Pennsylvania State University) contacted Jones: “With respect to Peiser’s guest editing of E&E and your review, we think there are two key points. First, if there are factual errors (other than the fraud allegation) it is very important that you point them out now. If not, Keenan could later allege that he made the claims in good faith, as he provided you an opportunity to respond and you did now. Secondly, we think you need to also focus on the legal implications. In particular, you should mention that the publisher of a libel is also liable for damages — that might make Sonja B-C be a little wary. Of course, if it does get published, maybe the resulting settlement would shut down E&E and Benny and Sonja all together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way its (sic) actually win-win for us, not them. Lets (sic) see how this plays out...”

On Aug. 31, Tom Wigley (a former CRU director) emailed Jones to notify him that he believed Keenan’s paper raised a valid issue: “Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WCW at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect. Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.” Jones was now in possession of authoritative information that undermined his claims about the integrity of CRU data products for which he is responsible. Confronted with the evidence from Keenan, and, most importantly, Wigley’s advice that Keenan appeared to have a point, Jones should have been insistent on getting the data and facts out rather than keeping them secret.

In response to Wigley’s warning, Jones now counselled him to suppress and conceal his concerns and acted as an advocate for Wang’s defence despite the “valid” evidence against his claims. In an email, Jones appealed to Wigley to “keep quiet” about his apparent backing for Keenan’s concern. In order to obviate any further critique or action by Wigley, Jones speciously told him that SUNY was about to take action against Keenan: “Just for interest! Keep quiet about both issues. In touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. Just agreed with him that I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan has gone to SUNY. Keenan’s about to be told by SUNY that submitting this has violated a confidentiality agreement he entered into with SUNY when he sent the complaint. WCW has nothing to worry about, but it still unsettling!”

On Sept. 5, Jones emailed me a list of objections to the Keenan paper. Ignoring the expert advice he had received from Wigley, Jones called on me to reject the paper: “My view is that the claims are unsubstantiated.”

I informed Jones that I would forward his objections to Keenan and stressed: “I know this is a very sensitive matter and I will not rush any decision. I will keep you updated and informed.”

On Sept. 10, I received Keenan’s response which I forwarded to Jones on the same day. I emailed Jones: “As far as I can see, his [Keenan’s] basic accusation seems unaffected by your criticism. Unless there is any compelling evidence that Keenan’s main claim is unjustified or unsubstantiated, I intend to publish his paper in the forthcoming issue of E&E. Please let me know by the end of the week if you have any additional arguments that may sway me in my decision.”

On the same day, Jones forwarded my email to Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, concluding: “It seems as though E&E will likely publish this paper.”

The following day, (Sept. 11), Michael Mann responded to the new development. In an email to Jones, he suggested that Wang should threaten E&E with a libel suit: “Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If he doesn’t, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him in touch w/ anleading (sic) attorney who would do this pro bono. Of course, this has to be done quickly. The threat of a lawsuit alone my (sic) prevent them from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please feel free to mention this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I think he needs to pursue a legal course her independent of whatever his university is doing. He cannot wait for Stony Brook to complete its internal investigations! If he does so, it will be too late to stop this.”

Later that day, I received three emails by Phil Jones with additional references and objections to the Keenan paper. Jones put additional pressure on by stressing: “I don’t see how any journal would ever contemplate publishing such a paper. I hope you’ll reconsider.”

After minor revisions of the paper following peer review, I informed Keenan on Oct. 8 that I had accepted his paper for publication with the modified title “The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang.” It was published in E&E volume 18, number 7-8, pp. 985-995 in December, 2007.

The concerted efforts by a group of eminent climate scientists to prevent the publication of the Keenan paper had been unsuccessful. However, this was mainly due to the fact that I was prepared to resist peer pressure and to be open-minded regarding Keenan’s evidence and argumentation. I doubt that mainstream science editors would have dared to reject the opposition by leading climate scientists who had targeted an amateur researcher. As Phil Jones fittingly put it to me in an email: “How would any journal ever contemplate publishing such a paper?”

On Feb. 1, 2010, The Guardian reported that Doug Keenan’s E&E paper “may yet result in a significant revision of a scientific paper that is still cited by the UN’s top climate science body. [...] The [CRU] emails suggest that [Phil Jones] helped to cover up flaws in temperature data from China that underpinned his research on the strength of recent global warming. The Guardian has learned that crucial data obtained by American scientists from Chinese collaborators cannot be verified because documents containing them no longer exist. And what data is available suggests that the findings are fundamentally flawed.”

At no time since Keenan and Wigley raised significant doubts about the reliability of Chinese climate data has Jones taken public steps to clear up the discrepancies regarding Wang’s claims and data. It is unacceptable that the scientist who disseminates a data product on which international treaties are based, as well as IPCC reports and countless government policies, should actively seek to suppress information that calls the quality of the data into question, especially after one [of] his colleagues and a leading authority has advised him that Keenan’s evidence about the data appeared to be legitimate. Comparable behaviour in the private sector would be subject to severe sanction.

The revelations exposed by the CRU emails require the full disclosure of all documents and correspondence in this alleged fraud case. Until the whole affair is fully and publicly investigated, the reputation and integrity of leading climate scientists will remain to appear tainted and discredited".

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/03/12/benny-peiser-climate-libel-chill.aspx

Woxof...you're welcome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest woxof

Another global warming claim down the drain. Remember the disappearing countries in the South Pacific and Indian Oceans? One of them even held a parliamentary meeting underwater.

"Low-lying Pacific islands 'growing not sinking'

BBC News, Sydney

Low-lying Tuvalu is one of many Pacific states worried by climate change A new geological study has shown that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.

The islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, because of coral debris and sediment.

The study, featured in the magazine the New Scientist, predicts that the islands will still be there in 100 years' time.

However it is still unsure whether many of them will be inhabitable.

Prognosis 'incorrect'

In recent times, the inhabitants of many low-lying Pacific islands have come to fear their homelands being wiped off the map because of rising sea levels.

But this study of 27 islands over the last 60 years suggests that most have remained stable, while some have actually grown.

Using historical photographs and satellite imaging, the geologists found that 80% of the islands had either remained the same or got larger - in some cases, dramatically so.

They say it is due to the build-up of coral debris and sediment, and to land reclamation.

Associate Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University, who took part in the study, published in the journal Global and Planetary Change, says the islands are not in immediate danger of extinction.

"That rather gloomy prognosis for these nations is incorrect," he said.

"We have now got the evidence to suggest that the physical foundation of these countries will still be there in 100 years, so they perhaps do not need to flee their country."

But although these islands might not be submerged under the waves in the short-term, it does not mean they will be inhabitable in the long-term, and the scientists believe further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia.

One scientist in Kiribati said that people should not be lulled into thinking that inundation and coastal erosion were not a major threat."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10222679.stm

Woxof...vindicated again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest woxof

Seems that things happening in the high Arctic may weaken WOXOF's case.

Well why don't you tell us what you think "Woxof's case" is and how it is wrong. Then I will tell you what my case actually is. Hint...the reality of global warming is part of my case.

Seeing as we are back on this thread......

"The master of green socialism

Maurice Strong has been central to reformulating socialisms grand narrative in radical environmental terms

There is nothing that aspiring global governors love so much as recognition of their vast good intentions. Today, octogenarian citizen of the world Maurice Strong receives one of this years Four Freedoms Awards, established by the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and the Roosevelt Stichting in the Netherlands.

The Four Freedoms are those relating to speech and religion, and from want and fear, and are at the root of the United Nations charter. Mr. Strongs award comes under the want category. The citation notes his modest role as the foremost guardian of the worlds environment. Also his commitment to social justice. Inconveniently, that latter commitment has recently come to the attention of Fox News Glenn Beck, who is not the first to notice that social justice actually means forced redistribution, which means socialism, which has created more want than any system devised by man.

Mr. Strong has been central to reformulating socialisms grand narrative in radical environmental terms. He was the mastermind of the seminal UN environmental conferences at Stockholm in 1972 and Rio in 1992. He is a key promoter of the subversive anti-market concepts of sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. He is the godfather of climate-change hysteria.

Mr. Beck fingers Mr. Strong as part of a cabal (exotically dubbed Crime Inc.) that wants to take down the global economy en route to taking global control.

Mr. Strong has posted a brief article on his website (www.mauricestrong.net) in which he responds to misinformation, misinterpretation and outright lying by my critics. The only critic he mentions is not Glenn Beck, but yours truly. Nor does he deal with the points raised by Mr. Beck, who, on his TV show, brought up an interview that Mr. Strong gave almost 20 years ago in which he opined on a novel he was thinking of writing. It would involve a cabal of concerned citizens taking control of the globe. Mr. Beck noted that Mr. Strong had not found time to write such a novel. Rather, he seemed to be living the plot himself.

In his website defence, Mr. Strong cites a particularly dishonest statement by long-time critic, Peter Foster (a description which I must admit gave me a warm glow). This statement was to his own editor, citing a fictional account which was clearly stated to be an extreme scenario of what might happen by the year 2030 if we failed to act.

My dishonesty apparently consisted in quoting Mr. Strong verbatim from his autobiography, Where on Earth are We Going? My main point was not his ghastly, and ridiculous, scenario, but his clearly stated opinion that the possibility of billions of people being wiped out by eco-apocalypse represented a glimmer of hope for civilization. Where my editor came in, I wrote, was that he didnt believe that anybody could write such a thing. But its right there on page 22. For the record, here is the reference, which takes the form of a report to shareholders of Earth Inc.:

1 January 2031

Report to the Shareholders, Earth Inc.

ome areas of our planet have been almost entirely depopulated. More people are dying, and dying younger birth rates have dropped sharply, while infant mortality increases. At the end of the decade, the best guesstimate of total world population is some 4.5 billion, fewer than at the beginning of this century. And experts have predicted that the reduction of the human population may well continue to the point that those who survive may not number more than the 1.61 billion people who inhabited earth at the beginning of the 20th century. A consequence, yes, of death and destruction but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.

Like Lewis Carrolls Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Strong seems to believe that words should mean whatever he wants them to mean. Orwell pointed out that the totalitarian instinct for obfuscation naturally seeks to reverse meaning (War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength). And in his self-exoneration, Mr. Strong seeks to squirm around his own frequent assertions that he is a socialist. What he really believes in is responsible capitalism. He writhes that his call for modifications of ballot box democracy has been woefully misconstrued.

Not.

In fact, Mr. Strong has for decades masterminded a strategy to outflank democracy both from above via UN organizations and from below, through well-funded radical NGOs that are sold as the voice of civil society. When Mr. Strong avers that he wants more, not less, democracy, what he means is more control by NGOs. In a recent article, he wrote that since governments might not like his proposals for a new economic paradigm, then political priority had to be given to the organizations and people participating in this dialogue. That is, the kind of organizations he allowed into Rio to browbeat delegates.

The terminally leftist Guardian newspaper reflexively leapt to the defence of Mr. Strong, criticizing attacks against him as ideological. (Mr. Strong has, I am proud to say, called me an ideologue. My favourite definition of the term is the name you call somebody whos ideas you cant refute.). Mr. Strong liked The Guardian piece so much he posted it on his website. The piece suggested, tediously, that Mr. Strong was merely being made a bogeyman. How ridiculous that people should take what he says in plain English and imagine that he really means it! How bizarre to believe that he wants global government, and to control peoples lives, just because he says so!

I cant afford, or indeed be bothered, to sue Mr. Strong for his libels against me, but then fortunately I still possess that key freedom that enables me to point out that Chairman Mos brand of Freedom from Want is merely a cover for destructive top-down development planning that wont be any more effective for being painted green. But Im pretty sure I wont get any awards for writing that."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/27/1927/

Edited by woxof
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that things happening in the high Arctic may weaken WOXOF's case. stirthepot.gif

and add support to those who feel we are going though a climate change. Probably more to do with solar & Volcanic activity than actions by mankind though. ninja.gif

At the risk of sounding like I'm defending woxof, I think your choice of smilies was a good one ;)

However, nowhere in this article does it refer to "climate" or more accurately "weather" except for this one brief statement:

"In May, Arctic air temperatures remained above average, and sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace," the Colorado-based centre said in its June 8 report."

Two or maybe three months of above zero temperatures out over the ice-pack, where over-water temps PEAK at +10 close to shore, in no way accounts for the 9-10 months of temperatures well below zero over the entire Arctic Ocean. Those temps do indeed impact the ice. It creates the ice.

But the multi-year ice being referred to is not melting by way of contact with the atmosphere; it is melting FROM BELOW. From the relatively warm water upwelling from the Atlantic. Remember too that the ice pack around the pole rotates against the earth's rotation. So every year, a different series of floes are exposed to this warm water, from underneath.

Over the period of even one hundred years, we are seeing this impact. Not to mention we are paying more attention to it these past 10 years.

Nobody knows what the ice pack coverage was like 50 years ago. We had no way of accurately measuring it except in spot-check coverage by the hundreds of scientific teams that have spent time floating around on it. Now we have RADAR SAT 1 & 2. And of course the Ice Recconnaissance aircraft :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

Woxof, my view of your viewpoint on Global warming was that of one who was in denial (period), but of course if you do believe in climate change / global warming (not necessarily caused by humans) then as has happened in the past, I stand to be corrected. Infallible is not part of my name. Cheers

You are corrected. Global warming is reality. I have never denied that because of course, it would be illogical. If you read through all my posts on the subject, which everyone should do repeatedly of course, you will see that my opinion is that of reality. The reality that there is no proof that global warming is man-made.

We have had global warming and cooling over and over again. One of the more recent periods, which the enviro-freaks want to erase from history, is the medeival warm period. A period when it was even warmer than it is now. A little fly in the ointment of a plan by the socialists to hoodwink the western world into foolishly believing that humans cause global warming and that we should spend trillions supposedly fighting it while it really just furthers their agenda. Quite a few fell for it.Quite a few still believe it.

But much of the world has caught on though. Now the media hardly even covers it anymore. Suzuki, Gore, Dyer and all the others with their little but different agendas will have to try something new. No doubt they will.

And yours truly, Woxof helped expose it as the Scam of the Century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

While I admit that I have played up some my statements for entertainment purposes, I am quite comfortable in saying that, compared to the direct and indirect insults that were thrown at skeptics on this thread and by big names in the bigger debate around the world, I have been quite modest in the whole debate.

I guess many have conveniently forgotten all the invective thrown our way. However, now that the air has been cleared so to speak on this debate....feel free to do as is obviously appropriate. :icon_pray::icon_pray::icon_pray:

Edited by woxof
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

Going back to the ice thing that was brought up a few days ago....

"Scan of Arctic ice dispels melting gloom. International team uncovers plenty of old, thick ice in extensive survey

An electromagnetic "bird" dispatched to the Arctic for the most detailed look yet at the thickness of the ice has turned up a reassuring picture.

The meltdown has not been as dire as some would suggest, said geophysicist Christian Haas of the University of Alberta. His international team flew across the top of the planet last year for the 2,412-kilometre survey.

They found large expanses of ice four to five metres thick, despite the record retreat in 2007.

"This is a nice demonstration that there is still hope for the ice," said Haas.

The survey, which demonstrated that the "bird" probe tethered to a plane can measure ice thickness over large areas, uncovered plenty of resilient "old" ice from Norway to the North Pole to Alaska in April 2009.

The thickness had "changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability," the team reports in the Geophysical Research Letters.

There is already speculation about how the ice will fare this summer, with some scientists predicting a record melt.

Haas said he doesn't buy it.

He said the ice is in some ways in better shape going into the melt season than it has been for a couple of years. "We have more thick ice going into the summer than we did in 2009 and 2008," he said.

Much will depend on the intensity of the winds, and how the ice fractures and is blown around, he said. "But any talk about tipping points, a sudden drop and no recovery ... I don't think it is going to happen."

The more likely scenario is that the ice will continue a decline that has been under way for at least 30 years, he said. There is likely to be plenty of variability in that decline, he added, with "extreme" melts in some years, followed by "significant recoveries like we saw last year."

Part of the problem with ice forecasting is that it is based largely on data from satellites. They are good at measuring the size of an area that is covered by ice, but tell little about the thickness of the ice -- which can measure in mere centimetres in the case of new ice, or metres in the case of ice that is several years old.

"That makes a big difference in terms of how well it will survive the summer," said Haas.

His international team, supported largely by the German government, is adding a much-needed "third dimension" to the picture, by measuring ice thickness over large swaths of the Arctic.

Instead of manually drilling cores into ice, they've taken to the air with a probe that dangles beneath a plane and can make thousands of measurements a day.

Last year's survey was the most extensive yet, and entailed towing the scanner beneath a DC-3 aircraft refitted as a flying laboratory. The Germans picked up the $300,000 cost of flying the plane across the Arctic.

The 100-kilogram instrument, a 3.5-metre-long white cylinder with a yellow tip, was cradled under the plane for takeoff and landing. Then it was lowered with a winch until it was just 20 metres above the surface, as the plane cruised along 100 metres above the ice at 240 kilometres an hour.

Every five metres along the 2,412-kilometre survey route, it emitted low-frequency electromagnetic signals. The signals penetrate the ice and propagate another signal when they hit liquid water, reflecting the thickness of the ice.

The survey showed the technique works on the large scale, the scientists report. And it gave an unprecedented view of the resilient metres-thick ice between Ellesmere Island and the North Pole, northeast of Greenland and into the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in the Western Arctic.

The team is planning more surveys for 2011 and 2012 as part of a program to check observations made with Europe's new "CyrosSat" satellite, launched this spring to study the world's ice.

Haas said he would like to see a more co-ordinated international effort -- ideally with Canada taking a lead role -- to survey ice thickness across the Arctic in both the spring and fall to complement satellite data.

He said a more detailed read of the ice is needed not only to better understand the changing climate, but to forecast the ice oil rigs and drill ships will be up against in the Arctic.

"They'll need real-time information on ice thickness, which can only come from airborne measurements," said Haas."

Woxof...another panic situation calmed down.

Edited by woxof
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

Another pillar of the man-made argument crumbles.

"The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The climate climate: cool, getting colder

Financial Post · Friday, Aug. 13, 2010

Terence Corcoran

And now for the climate weather: It may be hot outside, but the political environment for climate science is in a deep freeze. In Washington, plans for a national carbon-trading system are colder than the ice in the mint juleps at the Round Robin Bar. The economy comes first in the U.S. Senate, where a new climate bill ran into a brick wall, putting an end to environmentalists' hopes for a national cap-and-trade system any time in the next few years. "We fell victim to much broader politics that were beyond our control," said a leading green activist.

In Bonn last weekend, climate politics got so cold that negotiators working on a new global climate treaty to replace the soon-to-expire Kyoto Protocol walked away from the talks, saying that the policy direction was going backward rather than forward. As part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Control, the Bonn talks were aiming at recovering from last year's Cop-out in Copenhagen. "These negotiations have if anything gone backwards," said Connie Hedegaard, the EU's climate action commissioner. The world is still divided over — among other issues — carbon-emission reduction targets, without which any convention would be useless. Another attempt to regroup will take place in China in October in preparation for a grand Meeting of the Parties in Cancun, Mexico, in December.

Forecast for sunny Cancun in December: Pack a parka.

'A cap-and-trade regime between B.C. and Ontario that damaged Alberta's industrial development would be highly divisive, if not legally suspect.'

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 3 years later...

To bad Woxof isn't around to voice his / her opinion on the following article which appears to blow a hole in his / her previous position regarding Ocean Levels etc. Whatever the cause change is happening.

NASA Zeroes in on Ocean Rise: How Much? How Soon?
by Staff Writers
Pasadena CA (JPL) Aug 27, 2015



Watch the video "Watching Rising Seas From Space".

Seas around the world have risen an average of nearly 3 inches (8 centimeters) since 1992, with some locations rising more than 9 inches (25 centimeters) due to natural variation, according to the latest satellite measurements from NASA and its partners. An intensive research effort now underway, aided by NASA observations and analysis, points to an unavoidable rise of several feet in the future. The question scientists are grappling with is how quickly will seas rise?

"Given what we know now about how the ocean expands as it warms and how ice sheets and glaciers are adding water to the seas, it's pretty certain we are locked into at least 3 feet [0.9 meter] of sea level rise, and probably more," said Steve Nerem of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and lead of the Sea Level Change Team. "But we don't know whether it will happen within a century or somewhat longer."

Team scientists will discuss a new visualization based on 23 years of sea level data - the entire record of available satellite data - which reveals changes are anything but uniform around the globe. The record is based on data from three consecutive satellite missions; the first a collaboration between NASA and the French space agency, Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), launched in 1992. The fourth in the series will be Jason-3, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with participation by NASA, CNES and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT).

In 2013, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued an assessment based on a consensus of international researchers that stated global sea levels would likely rise from 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meter) by the end of the century. According to Nerem, new research available since this report suggests the higher end of that range is more likely, and the question remains how that range might shift upward.

The data reveal the height of the sea surface is not rising uniformly everywhere. Regional differences in sea level rise are dominated by the effects of ocean currents and natural cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. But, as these natural cycles wax and wane, they can have major impacts on local coastlines.

"Sea level along the west coast of the United States has actually fallen over the past 20 years because long-term natural cycles there are hiding the impact of global warming," said Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "However, there are signs this pattern is changing. We can expect accelerated rates of sea level rise along this coast over the next decade as the region recovers from its temporary sea level 'deficit.'"

Scientists estimate that about one-third of sea level rise is caused by expansion of warmer ocean water, one-third is due to ice loss from the massive Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and the remaining third results from melting mountain glaciers. But the fate of the polar ice sheets could change that ratio and produce more rapid increases in the coming decades.

The Greenland ice sheet, covering 660,000 square miles (1.7 million square kilometers) - nearly the area of Alaska - shed an average of 303 gigatons of ice a year over the past decade, according to satellite measurements. The Antarctic ice sheet, covering 5.4 million square miles (14 million square kilometers) - larger than the United States and India combined - has lost an average of 118 gigatons a year.

"We've seen from the paleoclimate record that sea level rise of as much as 10 feet [3 meters] in a century or two is possible, if the ice sheets fall apart rapidly," said Tom Wagner, the cryosphere program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "We're seeing evidence that the ice sheets are waking up, but we need to understand them better before we can say we're in a new era of rapid ice loss."

Although Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise currently is much smaller than that of Greenland, recent research indicates this could change in the upcoming century. In 2014, two West Antarctica studies focused on the acceleration of the glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector showed its collapse is underway.

East Antarctica's massive ice sheet remains the primary unknown in sea level rise projections. Though it appears to be stable, a recent study found under a major glacier two deep troughs that could draw warm ocean water to the base of the glacier, causing it to melt.

"The prevailing view among specialists has been that East Antarctica is stable, but we don't really know," said glaciologist Eric Rignot of the University of California Irvine and JPL. "Some of the signs we see in the satellite data right now are red flags that these glaciers might not be as stable as we once thought. There's always a lot of attention on the changes we see now, but as scientists our priority needs to be on what the changes could be tomorrow."

One of the keys to understanding future rates of ice loss is determining the role ocean currents and ocean temperatures play in melting the ice sheets from below their edges. A new, six-year NASA field campaign took to the waters around Greenland this summer to probe how warming ocean waters are triggering Greenland glacier degradation. The Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project is taking coastal ocean temperature measurements, observing glacial thinning at the ice's edge, and producing the first high-resolution maps of the seafloor, fjords and canyons in the continental shelf surrounding Greenland.

NASA uses the vantage point of space to increase our understanding of our home planet, improve lives and safeguard our future. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems with long-term data records. The agency freely shares this unique knowledge and works with institutions around the world to gain new insights into how our planet is changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...
On 8/27/2015 at 9:07 AM, Guest said:

To bad Woxof isn't around to voice his / her opinion on the following article which appears to blow a hole in his / her previous position regarding Ocean Levels etc. Whatever the cause change is happening.

NASA Zeroes in on Ocean Rise: How Much? How Soon?
by Staff Writers
Pasadena CA (JPL) Aug 27, 2015

 


Watch the video "Watching Rising Seas From Space".

 

Seas around the world have risen an average of nearly 3 inches (8 centimeters) since 1992, with some locations rising more than 9 inches (25 centimeters) due to natural variation, according to the latest satellite measurements from NASA and its partners. An intensive research effort now underway, aided by NASA observations and analysis, points to an unavoidable rise of several feet in the future. The question scientists are grappling with is how quickly will seas rise?

"Given what we know now about how the ocean expands as it warms and how ice sheets and glaciers are adding water to the seas, it's pretty certain we are locked into at least 3 feet [0.9 meter] of sea level rise, and probably more," said Steve Nerem of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and lead of the Sea Level Change Team. "But we don't know whether it will happen within a century or somewhat longer."

Team scientists will discuss a new visualization based on 23 years of sea level data - the entire record of available satellite data - which reveals changes are anything but uniform around the globe. The record is based on data from three consecutive satellite missions; the first a collaboration between NASA and the French space agency, Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), launched in 1992. The fourth in the series will be Jason-3, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with participation by NASA, CNES and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT).

In 2013, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued an assessment based on a consensus of international researchers that stated global sea levels would likely rise from 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meter) by the end of the century. According to Nerem, new research available since this report suggests the higher end of that range is more likely, and the question remains how that range might shift upward.

The data reveal the height of the sea surface is not rising uniformly everywhere. Regional differences in sea level rise are dominated by the effects of ocean currents and natural cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. But, as these natural cycles wax and wane, they can have major impacts on local coastlines.

"Sea level along the west coast of the United States has actually fallen over the past 20 years because long-term natural cycles there are hiding the impact of global warming," said Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "However, there are signs this pattern is changing. We can expect accelerated rates of sea level rise along this coast over the next decade as the region recovers from its temporary sea level 'deficit.'"

Scientists estimate that about one-third of sea level rise is caused by expansion of warmer ocean water, one-third is due to ice loss from the massive Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and the remaining third results from melting mountain glaciers. But the fate of the polar ice sheets could change that ratio and produce more rapid increases in the coming decades.

The Greenland ice sheet, covering 660,000 square miles (1.7 million square kilometers) - nearly the area of Alaska - shed an average of 303 gigatons of ice a year over the past decade, according to satellite measurements. The Antarctic ice sheet, covering 5.4 million square miles (14 million square kilometers) - larger than the United States and India combined - has lost an average of 118 gigatons a year.

"We've seen from the paleoclimate record that sea level rise of as much as 10 feet [3 meters] in a century or two is possible, if the ice sheets fall apart rapidly," said Tom Wagner, the cryosphere program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "We're seeing evidence that the ice sheets are waking up, but we need to understand them better before we can say we're in a new era of rapid ice loss."

Although Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise currently is much smaller than that of Greenland, recent research indicates this could change in the upcoming century. In 2014, two West Antarctica studies focused on the acceleration of the glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector showed its collapse is underway.

East Antarctica's massive ice sheet remains the primary unknown in sea level rise projections. Though it appears to be stable, a recent study found under a major glacier two deep troughs that could draw warm ocean water to the base of the glacier, causing it to melt.

"The prevailing view among specialists has been that East Antarctica is stable, but we don't really know," said glaciologist Eric Rignot of the University of California Irvine and JPL. "Some of the signs we see in the satellite data right now are red flags that these glaciers might not be as stable as we once thought. There's always a lot of attention on the changes we see now, but as scientists our priority needs to be on what the changes could be tomorrow."

One of the keys to understanding future rates of ice loss is determining the role ocean currents and ocean temperatures play in melting the ice sheets from below their edges. A new, six-year NASA field campaign took to the waters around Greenland this summer to probe how warming ocean waters are triggering Greenland glacier degradation. The Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project is taking coastal ocean temperature measurements, observing glacial thinning at the ice's edge, and producing the first high-resolution maps of the seafloor, fjords and canyons in the continental shelf surrounding Greenland.

NASA uses the vantage point of space to increase our understanding of our home planet, improve lives and safeguard our future. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems with long-term data records. The agency freely shares this unique knowledge and works with institutions around the world to gain new insights into how our planet is changing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More recent and accurate data that shows that there has been an increase in sea rise:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level#:~:text=When averaged over all of,as the long-term trend.

Key Points

  • After a period of approximately 2,000 years of little change (not shown here), global average sea level rose throughout the 20th century, and the rate of change has accelerated in recent years. When averaged over all of the world’s oceans, absolute sea level has risen at an average rate of 0.06 inches per year from 1880 to 2013 (see Figure 1). Since 1993, however, average sea level has risen at a rate of 0.12 to 0.14 inches per year—roughly twice as fast as the long-term trend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, deicer said:

More recent and accurate data that shows that there has been an increase in sea rise:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level#:~:text=When averaged over all of,as the long-term trend.

Key Points

  • After a period of approximately 2,000 years of little change (not shown here), global average sea level rose throughout the 20th century, and the rate of change has accelerated in recent years. When averaged over all of the world’s oceans, absolute sea level has risen at an average rate of 0.06 inches per year from 1880 to 2013 (see Figure 1). Since 1993, however, average sea level has risen at a rate of 0.12 to 0.14 inches per year—roughly twice as fast as the long-term trend.

I guess I will have to make a choice on who's recent link to believe. That of a scientist and co-founder of Greenpeace or that of a baggage handler with a known socialist agenda.

It may take a while, I'll let you know when I come to my decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Junior said:

I guess I will have to make a choice on who's recent link to believe. That of a scientist and co-founder of Greenpeace or that of a baggage handler with a known socialist agenda.

It may take a while, I'll let you know when I come to my decision.

Who was the founder of Greenpeace?
 
 
Irving Stowe
 
Greenpeace was founded in 1971 by Irving Stowe and Dorothy Stowe, Canadian and US expat environmental activists.
 
Dr. Patrick Moore

Education

1964
Graduated from St. George's Private School, Vancouver.

1969
Honours B.Sc. in Forest Biology from University of B.C.

1969-1972
Ford Foundation Fellowship.

1972
Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Animal Resource Ecology University of B.C., 1972. Thesis title "The Administration of Pollution Control in B.C., A Focus on the Mining Industry."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.desmog.com/patrick-moore/

Moore is often incorrectly referred to as a founder of Greenpeace. According to a statement by Greenpeace, “Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace.” [49][4]

Although Moore worked with Greenpeace Canada and Greenpeace International between 1981 and 1986, he broke away from the organisation after he concluded that “the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” According to Greenpeace, “what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.” [2][5]

After he left Greenpeace, Moore began work with the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy). Moore stepped down from his leadership role at CASEnergy in January 2013, however said he would remain an active member[16][38][39],

Moore has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry, and in defense of biotechnology. Greenpeace issued a 2010 statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he “exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.” [5]

Moore has been criticized for his relations with “polluters and clear-cutters” through his consultancy. His primary income since the early 1990s has been consulting and publicly speaking for a variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute. [7], [8]

Edited by deicer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...