You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘The Environment’ category.

Why wouldn’t they use scare tactics and alarmism…it worked so well, again and again.

We have a long history of being manipulated by our governments, whether it was with semantics (changing the name of something we didn’t buy into) or on scientific speculation to down right lies. This article lists many of the treacherous examples used to gain power, grow government by falsely convincing us there was or is impending danger only government can fix by regulations, more government entities and spending. Governments don’t have money, when they’ve taxed us to the point we object, they know they have to scare it out of us.

This news report from 1865 is as credible as the current “Global Warming” science but really proves we do have climate and it does change, in fact the geologists pointed out evidence of tropical flora in Greenland before it froze over (considerably warmer than now), thus the reason for emigration. The article also gives a timeline account as far back as the year 860 for other incidents of severe cold weather and its effects. Most notably the following excerpt shows weather extremes; “The annals of history show that from time to time since the advent of man into the world, remarkable ridged winters and torrid summers have upset the calculations of learned Geologists and ruffled the equanimity of the inhabitants of the temperate zones.”

If anything the grand scale of reverse engineering science has done since the advent of man proves how little is actually known let alone predicted, even in present day as proven with the recent man caused global warming alarm. It seems to me that what we are really witnessing is a great deal longer natural phase than anyone cares to admit. Why wouldn’t it have simply been deducted as a gradual retreat from the glacial ice age where segments of cooling  and warming activity is also intrinsically part of the process? We are still withdrawing from a glacial era as evidence that glaciers are still a part of our landscape.

We are increasingly attacked with regulations on all the basic resources we need to survive because there is no faith in our individual ability of self-regulation, impending danger from scare tactics is just the vehicle to save us from ourselves. The United States Government was originally intended to make the rules of the game and level the playing field according to the wishes of the people it serves. Federal Government was supposed to protect our nation from other nations and make sure states don’t infringe on another states rights. They were also in charge of posts and roads, for every new law they pass is an opportunity to tax through fines and fees, now they can tax the very air we breathe.

New York Times article from 1895

PROSPECTS OF ANOTHER GLACIAL PERIOD; Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.

February 24, 1895, Wednesday

Page 6, 759 words

“The researches of Geologists have proved the existence in Greenland and other arctic lands of fossil palms and other tropical plants, which show that these regions were once covered with a rich vegetation, which only equatorial climes can now produce.”

“Is this kingdom of ice and snow again extending its way to the equator?”

“Great masses of ice are frequently observed by navigators in far more southerly position during the summer months in the Atlantic than was the case a few years ago, and the effect of these icebergs is to materially reduce the temperature in Scandinavia and Iceland. The latter island in late years has suffered so severely that corn no longer ripens there, and the inhabitants, in fear of approaching famine, and a still colder climate, are emigrating to North America.”

Other Ice Age Predictions

September, 1958 The coming Ice Age: A true scientific detective story

January 1970 Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age:  Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (pay for article)

June, 1974 Science: Another Ice Age?  This article shows the normal weather for different regions the weather was reversed and still remained opposite from other regions.

The full story about DDT

As with the DDT scenario regulations banning the use of this pesticide resulted from an investigation and hearings that omitted pertinent information, thus rendering the verdict based on bias not scientific fact. It is the governments job to write regulation and enforce the rules not perform job security and expansion measures. It is all of our individual responsibility to make sure government is doing it’s intended job, it was the media’s original purpose and the reason they were granted “freedom of the press” to inform us regarding the comings, goings and doings of the government. We can’t just sit down and shut up as Obama requests, we would be remiss of our duty if we did that. It was the Government that went overboard with the DDT production and use. Banning DDT remains controversial to this day and the governmental decision to ban DDT is responsible for millions of Malaria deaths since.

DDT – Properties, History, Environmental impact, Impact on human health

Read more: DDT – Properties, History, Environmental impact, Impact on human health http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/5635/DDT.html#ixzz0eyvWPHL6

The E.P.A. was established in 1970, signed into law from the Nixon Administration and was granted the power to write laws and enforce them. The EPA’s evolved service has been to offer us up polluted science to scare us into submission using all natural resources against us. It is a major conflict of interest for government to be running any organisation that governs both research and lawmaking. The EPA is only one example of the far reaching tentacles of government control. All of the science generated for the following list of acts the EPA has produced is left suspect, knowing there is a paycheck associated with every regulation.

Air

Water

 Land

Endangered species

Hazardous waste

Although few and far between, it’s a good thing for us there are those like Senator Inhofe that has been fighting against AGW and Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, who was elected to Senate GOP leadership last year and holds a key post on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She is trying to have a bill passed as efforts to block the Obama administration from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Murkowski will have the opportunity this week to offer an amendment to limit EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Her options include an amendment to prohibit EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other stationary sources. The senator insists that unwieldy EPA regulations would cripple the U.S. economy.

The latest news is a Q & A session between the BBC and Professor Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the center of the row over hacked (I presume “leaked”) e-mails.

ADo you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significance for each period:

Period                 Length      Trend (Degrees C per decade)    Significance
1860-1880        21                0.163                                             Yes
1910-1940        31                0.15                                               Yes
1975-1998        24               0.166                                             Yes
1975-2009       35               0.161                                             Yes

B Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Those that saw all the red flags would have known all along that the truth eventually gets out. Since anthropogenic global warming was the whole reason everyone was going crazy green, what do we do about the EPA and the IPCC? The fraudulent companies should get dismantled all revenue, grants be revoked and dispersed among the skeptics for unnecessary pain, anguish and suffering.

Advertisements