Mind Potion Network
Thursday, 13 February 2014
Climate Scientist Who Got It Right
Mood:  mischievious
Topic: Global Warming


Dr. Don Easterbrook - a climate scientist and glacier expert from Washington State who correctly predicted back in 2000 that the Earth was entering a cooling phase - says to expect colder temperatures for at least the next two decades.

Easterbrook's predictions were "right on the money" seven years before Al Gore and the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for warning that the Earth was facing catastrophic warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide, which Gore called a "planetary emergency."

"When we check their projections against what actually happened in that time interval, they're not even close. They're off by a full degree in one decade, which is huge. That's more than the entire amount of warming we've had in the past century. So their models have failed just miserably, nowhere near close. And maybe it's luck, who knows, but mine have been right on the button," Easterbrook told CNSNews.com.

"For the next 20 years, I predict global cooling of about 3/10ths of a degree Fahrenheit, as opposed to the one-degree warming predicted by the IPCC," said Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and author of 150 scientific journal articles and 10 books, including "Evidence Based Climate Science," which was published in 2011.

In contrast, Gore and the IPCC's computer models predicted "a big increase" in global warming by as much as one degree per decade. But the climate models used by the IPCC have proved to be wrong, with many places in Europe and North America now experiencing record-breaking cold.

Read More - sott.net


Posted by mindpotion Network at 00:01 CET
Updated: Thursday, 13 February 2014 01:12 CET
Tuesday, 8 October 2013
Don't Recycle: Throw It Away!
Mood:  mischievious
Topic: Global Warming


By Roy E. Cordato

Recycling has a high moral status, mostly because kids come home with bad information from schools and, in turn, use it to intimidate their parents. One poll revealed that 63% of kids have told Mom or Dad to recycle.

Parents, be ashamed no more! Throw that trash away. There's no virtue in recycling trash that the market won't pay you for. What our kids are learning is grounded in left-wing ideology, not fact or science.

One argument for recycling is that we are running out of landfill space. A "public service" advertisement on Nickelodeon shows images of a city being buried in its own trash. This is typical of what passes for environmental education. Just as hysterical are American Education Publishing's "Comprehensive Curriculum" series and 50 Simple Things Kids Can Do To Save the Earth.

In fact, there is no landfill shortage. If all the solid waste for the next thousand years were put into a single space, it would take up 44 miles of landfill, a mere .01% of the U.S. landspace.

How about the claim that recycling paper saves trees? Every school kid knows it does. Paper is made from trees. Why not make new paper from old paper and save more trees from being cut down?

Actually, that doesn't work. Supply meets demand. If tomorrow we suddenly stopped making bread from wheat, there would be less wheat in the world one year from now. The supply would have fallen drastically. If everyone stopped eating chicken, the chicken population would not grow but fall.

The same logic applies to the relationship between paper and trees. If we stopped using paper, there would be fewer trees planted. In the paper industry, 87% of the trees used are planted to produce paper. For every 13 trees "saved" by recycling, 87 will never get planted. It is because of the demand for paper that the number of trees has been increasing in this country for the last fifty years. The lesson is this: if your goal is to maximize the number of trees, don't recycle.

Others assertions made by recycling advocates are equally problematic. Recycling doesn't save resources. In general, recycling is more expensive than landfilling, with the only exception being aluminum. As former EPA official J. Winston Porter admitted, "trash management is becoming much more costly due to...the generally high cost of recycling."

Children are also told that recycling will reduce pollution. They are not told that the recycling process itself generates a great deal of pollution. Recycling newspapers requires old ink to be bleached from the pages. This is a chemically intensive process that generates large amounts of toxic waste, as opposed to the benign waste that would result from simply throwing the papers away.

Also, curbside recycling programs require more trash pickups per week. This means more trucks on the road generating more air pollution. Due to mandatory recycling, New York City had to add two additional pickups per week and Los Angeles has had to double its fleet of trash trucks.

The recyclers have a much more ambitious agenda than they admit to children in public schools. In Waste Management: Towards a Sustainable Society, O.P. Kharband and E.A. Stallworthy even complain that builders throw away bent nails and that hospitals use disposable syringes. "The so-called 'standard of living,'" they conclude "has to be reduced."

Here we have the real goal of the recycling elite. And tragically this reduction in living standards has been achieved in the many cities that bought monstrously expensive recycling plants leading to fantastic waste, high taxes, and financially crippled local governments.

Recyclers are not better citizens. They are just ill-informed. Save the earth, save the trees, stop pollution, and this holiday season, unwrap those presents, stuff the paper in a big plastic bag, and throw it all away.

Source - mises.org


Posted by mindpotion Network at 00:01 MEST
Updated: Tuesday, 8 October 2013 01:04 MEST
Tuesday, 1 October 2013
MIT scientist ridicules IPCC climate change report
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: Global Warming


Not all experts agree with the latest United Nations report on global warming, some are even amused by its findings.

A climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has come out blasting the report for blaming humans for a global warming trend that appears to have cooled in recent decades – and then glossing over the warming slowdown.

‘I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,’ Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot – a site known for questioning the theory of global warming.

Dr Linzen’s amusement from the lack of correlation between predictions and actual conditions.
‘They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase,’ Dr Linzen continued.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserted in the report that it is 95 per cent sure humans’ use of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming.

The report also provided what Dr Linzen felt was a shoddy explanation for the lack of warming over the past 17 years.

‘Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,’ the amused scientist said. ‘However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.’

This slapdash explanation for the lack of warming, Dr Linzen stressed, is proof the IPCC knows little about what is actually happening.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk


Posted by mindpotion Network at 00:01 MEST
Updated: Tuesday, 1 October 2013 01:26 MEST
Monday, 23 September 2013
Climate scientists told to cover up the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
Mood:  cool
Topic: Global Warming


Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.

A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.

Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.

The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies.

But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.

Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.

The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.

The last IPCC ‘assessment report’ was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the embarrassing claim that the Himalayas would melt by 2035.

It was then engulfed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal surrounding leaked emails allegedly showing scientists involved in it trying to manipulate their data to make it look more convincing – although several inquiries found no wrongdoing.

The latest report, which runs to 2,000 pages, will be shown to representatives from all 195 governments next week at a meeting in Stockholm, who can discuss alterations they want to make.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk


Posted by mindpotion Network at 00:01 MEST
Updated: Monday, 23 September 2013 02:05 MEST
Monday, 9 September 2013
Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year
Mood:  mischievious
Topic: Global Warming


A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.

The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter  climate change.

Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk


Posted by mindpotion Network at 00:01 MEST
Updated: Monday, 9 September 2013 01:50 MEST
Saturday, 20 April 2013
'Man-made global-warming hypothesis' is dead in the water
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: Global Warming

• European Parliament, Strasbourg, 15 April 2013

• Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincolnshire), Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group - http://www.godfreybloommep.co.uk

• Debate: Timing of auctions of greenhouse gas allowances
Report: Matthias Groote (A7-0046/2013)
Report on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC clarifying provisions on the timing of auctions of greenhouse gas allowances
[COM(2012)0416 - C7-0203/2012 - 2012/0202(COD)]
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

 


Posted by mindpotion Network at 00:01 MEST
Updated: Saturday, 20 April 2013 01:13 MEST
Thursday, 4 April 2013
CO2 myth busted: Why we need more carbon dioxide!
Mood:  d'oh
Topic: Global Warming


If you talk to the global warming crowd, carbon dioxide -- CO2 -- is the enemy of mankind. Any and all creation of CO2 is bad for the planet, we're told, and its production must be strictly limited in order to save the world.

But what if that wasn't true? What if CO2 were actually a planet-saving nutrient that could multiply food production rates and feed the world more nutritious, healthy plants?

CO2 is a vital nutrient for food crops

As it turns out, CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to maximize plant growth.

The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

If you want to understand why CO2 is an essential nutrient for food crop growth, check out this informative slide show. It explains that "CO2 may be repidly depleted during crop production" daylight hours, because the plants pull all the CO2 out of the air and use it in photosynthesis.

The CO2 found in modern-day atmosphere is 340ppm. But food crops would grow far faster if the concentration of CO2 were closer to 1000ppm, or roughly 300% higher than current levels. In fact, most greenhouse plant production causes a "CO2 depletion" to happen, shutting down photosynthesis and limiting food production. As the "Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses" fact sheet explains:

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm.

Thus, greenhouse plants are "running out" of CO2. They are starving for it. And when you add it to food crops, you get higher yields, improved taste, shorter flowering times, enhanced pest resistance and other benefits.

Why we should pump carbon dioxide into greenhouses

This brings up an obvious answer for what to do with all the CO2 produced by power plants, office buildings and even fitness centers where people exhale vast quantities of CO2. The answer is to build adjacent greenhouses and pump the CO2 into the greenhouses.

Every coal-fired power plant, in other words, should have a vast array of greenhouses surrounding it. Most of what you see emitted from power plant smokestacks is water vapor and CO2, both essential nutrients for rapid growth of food crops. By diverting carbon dioxide and water into greenhouses, the problem of emissions is instantly solved because the plants update the CO2 and use it for photosynthesis, thus "sequestering" the CO2 while rapidly growing food crops. It also happens to produce oxygen as a "waste product" which can be released into the atmosphere, (slightly) upping the oxygen level of the air we breathe.

This is a brilliant solution because humans want to live on a world with low CO2 that supports frozen ice caps in order to keep ocean water levels low, but they want to eat a volume of food that requires high CO2 for production. The answer is to concentrate CO2 into greenhouses where food production is multiplied by CO2 nutrition.

I'll bet you've never heard Al Gore talk about CO2 as "nutrition." He declares it a pollutant and wants to tax you for producing it. But CO2 is actually a key nutritive gas for food crops. Without carbon dioxide, we would all have starved to death by now.

Shutting down power plants to destroy America's power infrastructure

The U.S. government's solution to power plant emissions, however, is to just shut down coal-fired power plants, causing rolling blackouts across the USA, especially during hot summer days. The EPA has forced hundreds of power plants to shut down across the USA, achieving a loss of power infrastructure that vastly exceeds what would even be possible by an enemy invasion of high-altitude warplanes dropping bombs.

The EPA, under the excuse of "saving the planet," is destroying America's power infrastructure and leading our nation into a third-world scenario where power availability is dicey and unsustained. It seems to be just one part of the overall plan to gut America's economy, offshore millions of jobs, put everybody on welfare and destroy small businesses.

But what if we harnessed coal-fired power plants instead of shutting them down? What if we used them as "CO2 generators" that fed CO2 into vast greenhouse operations that produced organic, high-growth foods that could feed the nation? Coal-fired power plants can produce both electricity and food nutrition at the same time.

Better yet, if you combine this concept with aquaponics, you get simultaneous production of plants and fish while using no soil, no GMOs and one-tenth the water of conventional agriculture.

See, the solutions to all our problems already exist. The only reason we are suffering as a nation is because political puppets try to brainwash us into believing complete falsehoods like, "carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant" or "the people don't need healthy foods; they need medications and vaccines." When societies believe falsehoods, they crumble and collapse.

That's where America is headed, of course. And it's all being accelerated by deceptive bureaucrats who want to convince you that growing real food is bad and we should all be punished for exhaling carbon dioxide, an essential nutrient for food crops. Carbon dioxide is not the enemy it's been made out to be. It's actually plant nutrition that helps regrow rainforests, food crops and wetlands. In fact, higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere would make the planet more lush and abundant in terms of plant life, forests, trees and food crops.

Learn more: naturalnews.com


Posted by mindpotion Network at 01:01 MEST
Updated: Thursday, 4 April 2013 02:26 MEST
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Wind farms are net carbon dioxide emitters
Mood:  d'oh
Topic: Global Warming


Large British wind farms will actually release as much carbon dioxide as fossil-fuel power plants, according to a study conducted by researchers from Aberdeen University and published in the journal Nature.

The source of the emissions is not the windmills themselves, but the land on which they are being constructed.

"Much of the cheap land being targeted by developers desperate to cash in on wind farm subsidies is peat land in remote wild land areas of the UK," said Helen McDade of the John Muir Trust.

"This [study] is a timely reminder that we must have independent and scientific assessment of the effects of policy and subsidies."

The uplands of Great Britain, where conditions are generally thought to be ideal for wind farms, consist largely of peat soil; indeed, two-thirds of Scottish onshore wind farms (and half of those in Great Britain) are slated for bogs and other peat land.

The peat contained in these areas hold at least 3.2 billion tons of carbon, making it one of the most important carbon sinks on the planet.

"The world's peat lands have four times the amount of carbon than all the world's rainforests," said peat scientist Richard Lindsay of the University of East London, who was not involved in the study.

"But they are a Cinderella habitat, completely invisible to decision- makers."

Peat retains its carbon only when kept in its natural damp, boggy condition. But the development that goes along with big energy projects, from roads and rails to the windmills themselves, damages the peat and disrupts the flow of water, causing massive carbon dioxide release.

And while the wind industry claims that it constructs "floating roads" (made of rocks piled atop fabric) to prevent just such degradation, scientists dismiss such measures as symbolic.

"Peat has less solids in it than milk," Lindsay said. "The roads inevitably sink, that then causes huge areas of peat land to dry out and the carbon is released."

"Devastating blow" to wind boom

The study is considered a major setback to the British wind industry, as it was conducted by the very same researchers who developed the method - now the industry standard - for calculating how long it will take a wind farm to produce carbon savings if constructed on peat soils.

When the researchers designed the "carbon payback time" equation in 2008, they estimated that a wind farm on peat soil would take 23 years to produce carbon savings, even though the average life of a wind farm is only 25 years.

But the new report is even more severe, concluding that such wind farms will never produce carbon savings at all.

"This is a devastating blow for the wind factory industry from which I hope it will not recover," said Struan Stevenson, a Scottish Member of the European Parliament.

"The Scottish government cannot realize their plans for wind farms without allowing the ruination of peat bogs, so they are trying to brush this problem under the carpet. This is just another way in which wind power is a scam."

Learn more: naturalnews.com


Posted by mindpotion Network at 01:01 MEST
Updated: Wednesday, 20 March 2013 02:25 MEST
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
David Bellamy reveals why you don't see him on TV any more
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Global Warming


During his heyday as a conservationist and TV personality in the Eighties and Nineties, David was everywhere — peering through palm trees, wading through marshlands and delivering wonderful rambling monologues illustrated with madly windmilling hands.

‘I never used a script. I didn’t have people sitting in branches for six months to get a shot. I just talked and talked. It was wonderful.’

He made all those TV programmes, wrote more than 45 books, inspired comedian Lenny Henry’s ‘grapple me grapenuts’ catchphrase and starred in a Ribena commercial.

Bellamy also set up endless charities and campaigning groups (he was patron of more than 400 at one time — ‘I helped to start conservation’) and was never afraid to get stuck in (‘I used to play rugby and I’ve always liked a punch-up’), speak his mind  or live with the consequences.

He spent his 50th birthday in prison in Tasmania after blockading the Franklin River in protest against a proposed dam — ‘I had so many letters from all around the world, it was amaaazing!’

And in 1996 he let rip against wind farms (‘because they don’t work’) during one of his regular appearances on Blue Peter: ‘That was the beginning really. From that moment, I was not welcome at the BBC.’

But it was his global warming comments in 2004 that really cut him adrift. The killer blow came when he was dropped by The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts, of which he was president. ‘I worked with the Wildlife Trusts for 52 years. And when they dropped me, they didn’t even tell me.

They didn’t have the guts. I read about it in the newspapers. Can you believe it? Now they don’t want to be anywhere near me. But what are they doing? The WWF might have saved a few pandas, but what about the forests? What have Greenpeace done?’

Read more: dailymail.co.uk


Posted by mindpotion Network at 01:01 CET
Updated: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 01:28 CET
Friday, 11 January 2013
Global warming has STALLED since 1998
Mood:  cool
Topic: Global Warming


The Met Office has admitted that global warming has stalled.

Officials say that by 2017, temperatures will not have risen significantly for nearly 20 years.

They concede that previous forecasts were inaccurate – and have come under fire for attempting to ‘bury bad news’ by publishing the revised data on Christmas Eve.

Now a press release, published yesterday, has confirmed that over the next five years temperatures will be 0.43 degrees above the 1971-2000 average, instead of the previously forecast 0.54 degrees – a 20 per cent reduction.

This rise would be only slightly higher than the 0.4-degree rise recorded in  1998, an increase which is itself attributed by forecasters to an exceptional weather phenomenon.

With all but 0.03 degrees of the increase having occurred by 1998, the revision means that no further significant increases to the planet’s temperature are expected over the next few years.

The figures have been seized on by sceptics of man-made climate change, who claim that global warming has flatlined despite a large rise in greenhouse emissions in recent decades.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk


Posted by mindpotion Network at 01:01 CET
Updated: Friday, 11 January 2013 01:01 CET

Newer | Latest | Older

« April 2014 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in