Global Warming Scam, Climate Change Fraud

CO2 is good for you - More CO2 in the air means more plant growth

2009-09-24T21:48:00.001+07:00

Global Warming is good for the planet, Good for you. That is not the title of the article. The title is CO2 is good for you. So Climate scientists state that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are rising. This will cause catastrophic warming - they warn. This millenium however there has bgun a period of global cooling.

Whoops what happened? Not what happened with the warming cooling bit but what happened to the computer generated predictions?CO2 levels are still rising yet global cooling is occuring and has been for the last few years.

Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm) Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow (see table below).

Adding more CO2 to the air also benefits plants in other ways:
They generally do not open their leaf stomatal pores as wide as they do at lower CO2 concentrations, and they tend to produce fewer such pores per unit area of leaf surface. Both of these changes tend to reduce plant transpiration or water loss; and the amount of growth
they experience per unit of water lost (water-use efficiency) therefore rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. And with fewer and smaller stomatal openings, plants exposed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are also less susceptible to damage by noxious air pollutants, including ozone and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, that gain entry into plants via these portals.

Higher CO2 concentrations also help plants by reducing the negative effects of a number of other environmental stresses, such as high soil salinity, high air temperature, low air temperature, low light intensity, low levels of soil fertility, oxidative stress, and the stress of herbivory.
A visual example of the benefits described above is portrayed in the figure below, where the results of growing a common house plant (Devil's Ivy or Golden Pothos) at about 200 ppm below (left) or 350 ppm above (right) the atmosphere's current CO2 concentration is
shown. As you examine this figure, ask yourself in which direction would you like to be heading if you were a plant: toward higher or lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

Yes, CO2 is green; and a wealth of research has shown that more of it in the air is a very good thing.

So much for global warming alarmists - better order some thermal underwear

BBC Climate Change Reports - Shame on You Beeb

2009-09-24T08:20:00.002+07:00

I love people, I love geography, I love the planet but my love affair with the BBC has now turned into a bitter divorce. The BBC played a not insignificant part in this lifetime love of nature. When I lived in the UK, which constituted most of my lifetime I watched The BBC as a matter of choice. Well we didn't have much choice when I was a kid as there were only two TV channels - ITV and BBC

ITV was generally the entertainment channel. The BBC was trusted as THE place for news, documentaries and hard news.

Not anymore. Nowadays The BBC can be seen as THE entertainment channel. Aunty Beeb do you realize that most of the world are laughing. They are not laughing at your programmes - they are laughing at YOU

Now there are multiple channels in The UK as well as a plethora of cable, sattelite channels and nowadays news and entertainment via the Internet

Does the Beeb not realize that they are alienating a sizable portion of their listners with their eco-crap, greenie pontifications and well.....I am lost for words!

When the global warming alarmist house of cards finally collapses, exposing the pseudo-science/scare-journalism axis that has perpetrated the world's greatest mass delusion, among the first led out into the public square for ritual humiliation ought to be BBC ‘science' and ‘environment' correspondents.

Firstly, for submitting fraudulent CV's to BBC Human Resources claiming they actually knew something about science. Secondly, for asserting, as public service (public-paid) broadcasters, that they were only reporting ‘what scientists were saying.'

No doubt they will also adopt the same mitigation Scoop's William Boot called upon - that they were really only Gardening Correspondents who took a wrong turn in the BBC corridor one day. They will claim that their news editors ‘water-boarded' destroying their ‘testicular fortitude' thereby forcing them to concoct a veritable cornucopia of journalistic drivel to feed the public angst. That resulting in warnings of global apocalypse via everything -- everything from swine flu to SARS to the Mad Cow Disease (not to mention their ‘toxic' farts) -- but, mainly by employing the daddy of all scare scams: warm-mongering.

So science is turned on its head. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is reported by the BBC as a ‘pollutant' and thus all exhaling humans are ‘toxic'. Faith, not science, now prophesies that ‘higher CO2 emissions cause global warming' - even though the actual data reveals global warming ended in 1998, while CO2 emissions continued to rise. Planet Gore-ism propaganda finds a ready home displaying its wares via the ‘world's broadcaster'. Next an epidemic of teenage sleep-denying stress is brought on by viewing science-fiction horror flicks entitled ‘An Inconvenient Bunch of Statistical Crap', as media-induced hysteria invades our schoolrooms. And the evening news presents us with a steady procession of reports warn us that if we don't sell our SUV's and buy dull light-bulbs, dire prognostications will befall us. We will see the end of the Gulf Stream, the demise of islands (various), the loss of both polar ice caps and the bulk of the world's population - not to mention the nightly re-showing of those cuddly polar bears floating about on a chunk of ice.

This June, in the wake of Japanese scientists disputing the UN IPCC's anthropogenic warming orthodoxy (which, needless to say, the BBC didn't report), the Japanese Government put forward what the BBC's Environment Correspondent Richard Black called "weak" carbon targets. Writer/blogger Maurizio Morabito helpfully provides us with stark ‘numerical evidence' of Black's - thus the BBC's - biased reporting. Morabito says: "The article is made up of 469 words. Of those, 249 make up "neutral" sentences (54%). Negative comments are made of 156 words (34%). Only 58 words (13%...a mere three sentences!!) are left to explain the reasons for the Japanese government's decision."

It wasn't so long ago - April 2008 to be precise - that the actions of the BBC's environment reporter Roger Harrabin epitomised the lack of integrity in the BBC news reporting. Having confirmed (for once) that global warming appeared to have peaked in 1998 Harrabin went as far ‘change the news' to accommodate the anger of a climate activist.

Then there is Susan Watts, BBC TV's Newsnight's science editor, who informed the British public that "Scientists calculate that President Obama has just four years to save the world". It was unclear whether she meant from climate catastrophe or a prospective Palin White House. (I assume the former, liberal hand-wringing angst over Sarah Palin will come soon enough.) Watts later confirmed, via her blog, that she was referring to comments by Dr James Hansen. For the uninitiated Hansen is the resident alarmist nut-job at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies - a man whose ‘science' his more serious NASA colleagues are queuing up to skewer publicly.

In ‘BBC Abandons "impartiality" on warming' Chris Booker provides other examples of Watts' "bizarre" reporting, including editing Obama's inaugural speech "to convey a considerably stronger impression of what Obama has said on global warming than his careful wording justified." Booker also reminds us that, "as late as August 28, 2008, it [the BBC] was still predicting the Arctic ice might soon disappear". By the end of the year, the Arctic ice was reported as having grown by 30 percent. Needless to say, those reports too were frozen out of BBC reports. Then there was the controversy over an ‘impartial' BBC devoting 15 hours of airtime to the Live Earth/Al Gore Propaganda Show in 2007. It featured at one point a giant poster of Michael Mann's famous computer modelled "hockey stick" temperature graph. As Booker points out, "one of the most discredited artefacts in the history of science".

Okay, so why pick on the BBC? Haven't they enough troubles playing down internal reports that confirm their ideologically leftwing and liberal biases? True enough. But the BBC loves to call itself, as we have noted, the ‘world's broadcaster'. Fair enough. But its scientifically-challenged science/enviro correspondents, as Dr Richard North's excellent 2006 report ‘The BBC's Climate Change Meltdown' notes concerning those that know more science than they (mentioning Harrabin and Watts by name), they "give us every sign that they think sceptics are fools or knaves or both". Cometh the time then, only the highest profile ritual humiliation will do.

The BBC, replete with its increasingly shabby values, is now a growing player in the American and Canadian markets too, with shows including Dancing With The Stars - a programme, by the way, that cause celebrities to rush around expelling enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. If I sound a tad peevish, it's with good reason. As a British citizen I am forced annually to subsidize the BBC (British Bias Corporation) via Britain's iniquitous TV licence fee ‘tax'.

Fact is, there was a time in Britain when ‘end is nigh' placarders and other much-loved eccentrics, operated at the margins of society. Sadly, today they have moved indoors, gained a degree in journalism and become proficient at state of the art graphics. Novelist Graham Greene once wrote, "A petty reason...why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". We might add, given the BBC's appalling reporting record on climate issues, "mostly science-fiction, too".

So when I want a laugh I tune in to BBC World. If I want to watch serious issues I choose other channels - any channel

Climate Change Fraud - Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910

2009-09-22T15:26:00.000+07:00

Regardless of whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 have any measurable on global climate the true deceit of the IPCC is clearly shown by the statement that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are the source of observed 20th century global warming. Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War.
It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that started around 1942 and continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming.

Today, two decades later, they are still making this claim with incontrovertible evidence that the Earth has been cooling since 2002 in spite of the continued rapid increase in global CO2 emissions, clearly demonstrated in the IPCC's own reports. There is absolutely no rational basis for the claim that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are causing or have caused causing global warming, and anyone making this claim under the guise of "consensus science" is guilty of committing scientific fraud.

This fraud is not trivial. It has been perpetuated for so long that it is now accepted as fact and forms the basis for government programs worldwide, and these programs have had nothing but detrimental effects on the world population and world economy.

Polar bears, arctic ice thickness, Katrina, wildfires in California, droughts in Africa, and changes to the pH level of the oceans have absolutely nothing to do with the environmentally beneficial CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, but because of this fraud, costly emissions reduction programs are being put in place to address these issues. Before any more suffering is inflicted on the world, we have to put an end to this fraud and hold the perpetrators accountable.

Norm Kalmanovitch

Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment - Slippery Slope for the Ultimate Global Warming Scam

2007-11-05T13:29:00.000+07:00

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary An inconvenient Truth was unfortunately littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-Presi-dent, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global
warming.

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one
-sided” views.

The Government’s decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dim-mock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.

The first mistake made by Mr Gore, said Mr Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps. The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.

Mr Justice Burton added: “The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.

Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change”.

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded.

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

A High Court judge since 1998, Sir Michael Burton, 60, was president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal from 2002 to 2005. He stood in local elections for Labour in Kensington and Chelsea in 1971; Stratford upon Avon in the General Election in 1974; and for the SDP in Greater London Council elections in 1981. Educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, his wife died in 1992 leaving him to bring up four daughters.

The speech, the film, the book An Inconvenient Truth is the third-highest grossing documentary ever in the United States, making more than $23 million (?12 million) It has so far earned $49 million at the box office worldwide It was shown at the Sundance Film Festival and won an Oscar this year for Best Documentary, Features

The film is based on a lavishly-illustrated public lecture that Mr Gore has given more than 1,000 times in the US and elsewhere It was directed by Davis Guggenheim, who has also directed episodes of the hit television shows Deadwood, The Shield and 24.

The companion book written by Gore has been on The New York Times bestseller list since June 11, 2006.

Mr Gore has been nominated jointly with Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming campaign, including making the documentary.

President Bush, when asked whether he would watch the film, responded: "Doubt it"

The documentary has featured on The Simpsons, South Park, Futurama and even in an Ozzy
Osborne song, The Almighty Dollar

Comments on this Article
I think this is an error in the article: The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was mainly attributable to human-induced climate change. I read elsewhere the full sentence, which reverses the meaning: "it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change."
Felix, Nottingham,

Some of us have known all along that Gore's film is tendentious and warped. He is off on an almost religious crusade. Please everyone read Bjorn Lomborg's latest book "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming".
Gerald B., Aarhus, Denmark

The judge also failed to point out that, scientifically speaking, almost 80% of greenhouse gases
are attributable to water vapour off the oceans (which we have no control over), global temperature change trends do not coincide with the consistent rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution, and that walking to the shops expends more CO2 than driving (due to CO2 intensive farming methods used to replenish human ATP energy expended in exercise)... other than all that, yeah Al Gore is completely right and is getting absolutely no personal gain from any of this! What a great guy he is! Viva la Disillusion!
Ian, Lancaster, UK

What appears to be lacking in this article is reference to credible sources to justify Mr.. Burton's
criticism. Do they exist or is it the oversight of the author that no reference is given. Is Mr. Burton professionally qualified to make these judgments? I'd be more than happy to feel this issue isn't an immediate concern, particularly the melting of the ice caps and the rising of the ocean. Everything I've read suggests this the melt is way ahead of what was anticipated. Having
waterfront property, I'd be more than pleased to know that rising sea levels are more than a
millennia off. Sigh of relief! But, credible sources please? .Without that his judgments are personal opinions; not much to bet the future on.
Hugh Malafry, Victoria, B.C., Canada

Can you save Al Gore? Can you save Al Gore? The Most Infamous Con Artist of Modern Times

2007-09-26T23:28:00.001+07:00

Al Gore - Con man of the century. Making millions of dollars a year off the fears of the gullable and the children who know no better than to believe what they are told by their parents. Shame on you Al Gore. Shame on the parents who don't seem to have enough brain cells to think for themselves.

Prove Catastrophic Global Warming and Win $125,000

2007-09-26T22:49:00.000+07:00

The Web site junkscience.com is offering $100,000 to the first person who can prove that humans are responsible for harmful climate change. The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge says — "If you think it's a no-brainer that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, here's your opportunity to earn an easy $100,000."

The Web site lists the specifications for the challenge and the contest rules. It's open until December 1, with the results announced next February. (Political Grapevine)

$100,000 Offered to Prove Global Warming: Can You Save Al Gore?

As soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore continues to duck every person on the planet willing to debate him about his unproven anthropogenic global warming theories, one well-known skeptic has put his money where his mouth is.

On Monday evening, the website JunkScience.com, owned and managed by Steven Milloy, announced The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge. (News Busters) Contest Offers $100,000 Reward Proving Catastrophic Manmade Climate Change

"Here's the opportunity for global warming alarmists to flaunt all the conclusive evidence that they say exists," said Steve Milloy, founder and publisher of JunkScience.com, the sponsor of the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge.

"Al Gore says the debate on global warming is 'over' and the UN global warming panel places at 90 percent the probability that humans are causing harmful climate change through greenhouse gas emissions," said Milloy.

"If such claims are true and it's such a no-brainer that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are wreaking havoc on the climate," Milloy observed, "Then here's a chance for any scientist in the alleged "consensus" on climate change to pick up an easy $100,000."

"There's no excuse for not entering," Milloy offered, "since the winner, if any, could always donate the prize money to his favorite charity."

Contestants will also get a free DemandDebate.com T-shirt that says, "I'm more worried about the intellectual climate."

"So even if contestants can't prove that humans are causing global warming, their $15 will not have been for nothing. They'll get a great looking T-shirt warning of the real climate threat," added Milloy. (Southwest Nebraska News)

Global Warming is not a Scam

2007-06-27T15:34:00.000+07:00

Please don't worry. If you have arrived here looking for some fruit and nutcase global warming denier or climate change skeptic then I am afraid at this moment you will be disappointed. Maybe later one of these low-life scum climate change skeptics will pass by and leave an infantile message - let's wait and see.