Yet another world class expert weighs in!

The head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden is Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner. He's also been the Chairman of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. He's also led the famed Maldives Sea Level Project. Pretty impressive credentials; perhaps some of the world's best when it comes to sea levels and climate. No wonder then that Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for over 35 years.

Guess what he has discovered?

* From 1850 to 1930-40 the sea level was rising, and the rate of rise was 1.1 millimeter per year.

* The sea levels stopped rising in 1940 until 1970.

* Since 1970 there has been no obvious trend in either direction; up or down.

Now, in discussing the infamous IPCC Report that "everyone" is screaming about (including you know who, yeah, you know... Mr. Gore). It will surprise you to learn that Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has been the expert reviewer for the IPCC Report both in 2000 and 2006. Dr. Mörner said, "I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were sea-level specialists."

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner says there are all sorts of problems with the methodology in the IPCC report and repeats "rising levels from 1850 to 1940" and since 1970 absolutely no trend. Sea levels are stable!

And we really know he is right too... No one is moving away from the seashore, it's still the hottest property around.

Click HERE for the story

Click HERE for the Article

Excerpts:

Question: Does President Klaus really believe that it is a good risk management strategy to ignore the summary report on climate change science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, approved by the Czech Republic and other countries in February, concluding that continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century? - Bob Ward, London, UK

Vaclav Klaus responds: I think it is a very bad risk management strategy to follow the summary report on climate change of the IPCC. To do it would be a giving up of risk management rules and of standard cost-benefit analysis techniques in favour of environmentalists’ “precautionary principle” which totally discredits risk management and comparison of costs and benefits. I suppose that you don’t insure your house (or car) when the danger is small and the insurance is too expensive. That’s all.

Question: Mr. Klaus, I believe, has asked the wrong question, and in doing so, is in danger of under-cutting his main point, which is the danger to personal freedom of a top-down, single-government approach to managing the problem of global warming. Instead of trying to ask, is global warming a REAL problem?, Mr Klaus should ask - and then provide his answer - the question: Assuming global warming is a REAL, global issue, how can we manage this problem on a global scale while also expanding personal freedom and economic welfare? I would be very interested in hearing his response to this question. - Robert Bruegel, Denver, Colorado

Vaclav Klaus responds: I ask myself several questions. Let’s put them in the proper sequence:

• Is global warming a reality?
• If it is a reality, is it man-made?
• If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say “globally”, better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?
• If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything – within the range of current proposals – to be done just now?

Surprisingly, we can say yes – with some degree of probability – only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority.

Please go to the article for the rest of the questions and answers...

A very serious article written by Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, a professor and the Director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, says - GET READY FOR GLOBAL COOLING.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth.

Click HERE for the scientific article.

Let me take a few moments to issue this memo for record. To wit: China has surpassed every other country on Earth in CO2 emissions. Now, whether you consider this a real threat or not (and this is debatable according to most scientists), let us consider this simply a measurement. You can decide for yourself whether you think CO2 is a pollutant (plant life would disagree with you if you do).

It is quite odd then that I do not see the "environmentalists" taking China (or India) to task for emitting massive amounts of CO2. Quite the opposite, weirdly enough. This morning, John Ashton of the UK Foreign Office says: "There was no point blaming China for rising global CO2 emissions. Rich nations had to set an example of low-carbon development for China to follow." What? WHAT???

So, let me get this straight... no matter what, it is still the fault of the United States according to Mr. Ashton. China and India have a FREE PASS to continue emitting CO2 and the US is still held accountable?

This is crazy.

And then, like China is some kind of juvenile idiot society that requires the good graces and brains of the US and the UK to guide it... Mr. Ashton blames the US and UK for "making" China emit CO2. "Setting the example" Mr. Ashton calls it.

Earth to Ashton... CQ CQ

First, China is a society that predates the UK (and the US of course) by thousands of years. Second: China is STILL (ready for this?) A... Communist Nation. Third: They are the worlds manufacturers - and we are NOT (anymore). Fourth: their pupils in college are becoming engineers and scientists. Ours are becoming sales people. Yes, it is STILL called "RED" China, for a reason. It's a communist country with some kind of weird centralized control; it is NOT a free market. Although admittedly it is moving in that direction quickly. So, pray tell Ashton, what have WE to do with setting examples to China? The only factual thing I can think of concerning China is that we have SOLD OUT to CHINA. Click HERE for the article.





But, I digress. Back to the environment. Did you know China is building TWO POWER PLANTS a WEEK? Click HERE. Something has to drive all this manufacturing. And we're not even talking about India yet. So...

Just WHERE ARE the environmentalists now? Well, they're still blaming America. Busted! Because they are NOT really environmentalists; in my opinion they are anarchists or communists. Goal: tear down the US. This is easy to see because if they were REALLY interested in the environment, they'd have gone after China and India a long time ago. They didn't, and they aren't. Busted!

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

Click HERE for the story

Global warming... hey, it's necessary to the United Nations. Why, what else could they blame for their own gross incompetence and sheer uselessness. Take the Darfur slaughter that has been going on for some considerable time now. Actually, for almost 4 years. So, where were the United Nations peace-keeping troops? Where was Koffi Anonymous in all that time?

Actually, the UN finally did decide to send 17,000 troops in August 2006, after three years of trying very very hard to look the other way (click HERE for a summary). But, Sudan strongly objected to this so the UN said 'OK fine', and so nothing happened. Oh, yes, more recently the UN did condemn activities in Sudan in March 2007. Wow... amazing organization, that UN, huh?

But, now, amazingly, the UN (needed someone or something to blame) has decided that, well, doggone it, the whole culprit in this Darfur thing is... global warming. So, according to the UN, global warming made the Darfur Liberation Front attack Golo (HQ of Jebel Mara). Such is the power of global warming, eh? And global warming isn;t stopping there. The U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon blames the ethnic and religious violence in Darfur on global warming and insists more conflicts of this kind are coming because of global warming. Click HERE for this incredible story.

Actually, I have to hand it to the UN... this really does open the door to a lot of useful blame. I can see it now. Next time I come home from the bar, early in the morning, lampshade on my head, with my wife standing in the doorway with a rolling pin in hand asking "where have I been", I can easily reply: "Nope, not me, blame global warming". Or, if I decide to simply not pay for groceries next time I'm at the store and waltz out, I can explain to the judge that "It wasn't me, it was global warming". I can see where this can even influence children who for ages have relied on that phrase "the dog ate my homework" when coming up empty handed in class. Now they can simply stun the class with two simple words when asked where the assignment is: "global warming". The dog will never need to be the missing homework whipping boy... not while the big bad scary horrible global warming is an excuse for everything.

In one of my own studies of global warming, I discovered that a significant number of temperature measurements (used in generating climate measurements) are taken from questionable locations. For example, the Goddard Institute is in New York city. Follow me here... Dr. Hansen (of the Goddard Institute) uses temperatures measured at the institute, in New York CITY, as part of his evidence that global warming is here. We'll keep going: a huge number of NOAA weather stations (measuring temperatures) are in cities and towns. Television and radio temperature reporting is usually from within large cities or towns. All part of the network of temperature reporting.

Now, it is well known and easily demonstrated that the ambient air temperatures in cities and towns are significantly HIGHER than air temperatures taken in some deep forest or desolate mountainside. In my opinion, measured temperatures taken any where NEAR human activity is going to be higher than normal. Think of the concrete, asphalt, air conditioners, cars, machines, motors... all giving off heat warming the local air around cities and towns. And where are our institutions and universities? In cities and towns.

I have always maintained that human activity easily skews global temperature readings. Now along comes a chap that says he has detected that NOAA temperature reading are REALLY skewed - for essentially the same reason. And he has proof. he found the placement of MANY thermometers in bad places - next to air conditioners (think heat exchanger), trash incinerators, rooftop heat vents, motors, etc. Click HERE for the article.

As the NOAA reports ever warming periods, it is quite coincidental that the size of cities are ever growing. Interestingly, the areas of the US with the fastest rising temperatures are around the east coast and west coast. Think big cities and population. And it IS odd that the SAME NOAA measurements show the midwest as cooling - coincidentally areas with less cities and smaller population.

Bottom line - most likely NOAA temperature sensors are providing false readings generally speaking. Enough say, to give some scientists a scare about rising global temperatures?

Not to say that in a global setting, growing cities will not affect global temperatures at some point in the future. However, just because you find the temperatures 2-3 degrees warmer on the streets of Boston than you do in a corn field in Iowa doesn't mean the world is getting warmer, it simply means the streets in Boston are warmer - for the most obvious of reasons.

Hey, sometimes scientists are just plain wrong. Especially the ones in it for the money.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”.

Vaclav Klaus stated it clearly when he said: "We are living in strange times".

President Klaus (Czech Republic) also had it right when he implied that Al Gore was nuts.

Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had it right when he said: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

And there you have it...

Click HERE for the full story

Three fourths of the WARMEST days on record in Denver occurred BEFORE 1955. Amazing...

Click HERE for facts instead of hysteria.

Residents of Colorado's Front Range awoke Friday morning to frost-covered windshields as temperatures dropped to the lowest readings in over 50 years. And it's the 8th of June!

Click HERE for the story.

Global Warming in the News
by John Morris, Ph.D.

The recent rush to enact legislation addressing "global warming" brings back memories, not all of them good. As has happened several times in the past, dire warnings of impending doom have predicted devastation to the planet, all backed up by pronouncements of scientists. While we recall them, let's remind ourselves that science and the opinions of some scientists are two different things. Often there seems to be a hidden agenda, either financial or political. Of course, as we learned in last month's Impact article, threats of global warming are not baseless, for there are observations of fluctuations in parameters. Are they normal oscillations or long term trends? Are they due to human activity or natural causes? The best observations and speculations are that they are of natural origin, and the earth will readjust in time.

It reminds me of the time in the 1970s when I was ushered into the inner sanctum of the CIA in Washington, a meeting arranged by a highly placed government official interested in my search for Noah's Ark. I asked for the release of photos of Mt. Ararat's ice cap during a year of extreme snow melt, hoping to see the Ark. According to our government's best intelligence, the earth was heading into a new Ice Age, and ice caps would probably expand for hundreds of years. We were entering into "global cooling," and man was to blame. Some in government wanted to pass legislation to "save the planet" by altering human behavior. Imagine the fix we would be in now if they had succeeded.

In the 1960s a similar scare predicted doom due to human overpopulation. Some wanted the governmentally limit family size, others wanted to eliminate the aged and infirmed. Famine and water shortages were touted as imminent. As before, man was the enemy and government needed to be expanded and empowered. Eventually the cries
diminished.

Next came scares of acid rain, nuclear winter, Y2K, etc. Now we have the need for government-funded stem cell research. (Always the cry is for embryonic stem cells to be harvested, which destroys the embryo, not adult stem cells which do no harm to the donor.) In every case man is the culprit and an all-wise, all-powerful government is the solution while fringe science provides the evidence. A political agenda lurks behind it all.

Many scientists see through the rhetoric, but they too benefit by government funding of their own marginally related research projects. Always the same big-government groups are behind them. Let it be known that I am not overly concerned by global warming. I consider the scare as an effort to promote extreme political views. Some would fall under the label socialist, others Marxist, all desiring power vested in the hands of an elite few. The Creator designed the earth well, with built-in feedback mechanisms to handle any crises. There is coming a time, however, when excessive heat will be a problem (see Revelation 16:8-9), and these fluctuations may be a foreshadowing, but that too is in God's hands.

[Thanks David!]

It may be amazing to some that we still don't know everything about our ecology. It is a fact that this 'planetary system' we live in is complicated and not well understood yet. Sure, we've learned a lot but there is so many variables and things yet undiscovered or understood that to state we have a complete working and predictive model of the ecology (or climate) is nothing more than arrogant nonsense.

Here's a fine example. A recent study (published in May 2007) led by University of Georgia researchers has found that crenarchaeota (one of the most common groups of archaea and a group that includes members that live in hot springs) use ammonia as their energy source. Who would have thought that?

Chuanlun Zhang, lead author of the study and associate research scientist at UGA's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, said, "such a metabolic mode has not been found in any of the other known high-temperature archaea".

"The oxidation of ammonia was not thought to be a dominant process for crenarchaeota, but now we realize how important it is," said Zhang, who is also associate professor of marine sciences. His assistant co-authors include researchers from the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Montana State University, Savannah River National Laboratory, Harvard University and Yunnan University in China.

Archaea is one of the main branches on the tree of life. Despite it's position as one of the three main domains of life, it was just recently discovered in 1977 by Carl Woese and George E. Fox. The other two main branches of life consist of bacteria and plants and animals.



What is most important to understand is that scientists are JUST NOW "gaining a fuller understanding of what archaea do" - in an ecological sense.

Zhang and his colleagues sampled extensively from hot springs in the United States, China and Russia for crenarchaeota and found the widespread distribution of the presumed amoA genes, which microorganisms use to combine ammonia with oxygen, releasing useable energy.

Because these ammonia-oxidizing archaea are associated with microorganisms that live and enjoy hot spring environments and because these hot environments are thought to resemble the early Earth environment, studying these organisms may help yield better understandings of the evolution of the Earth, it's climate, and it's ecosystem.

Zhang continues, "If we want to know how organisms evolved and how their metabolism evolved, we need to understand both the hot springs environment and the low-temperature environment. Crenarchaeota are special because they thrive in both environments."

Given these new daily discoveries and revelations, how is it that a failed lawyer with a rich daddy can stand up and state, without batting an eye, that * ALL THE SCIENCE IS IN * and * IT IS CONCLUSIVE * ?

What kind of silly arrogance is this Mr. Gore?

Here's what Al Gore said in 1992 about 'global warming': "Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

Yet, despite his incredibly wild claim, there was and still remains much evidence that this is false.

"A Gallup poll reported then that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research do not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable."

Now, Al Gore is "declaring" science by decree. Having accomplished NO EXPERIMENTATION of his own and having absolutely no background in anything related to science (or much else for that matter), Mr. Gore is working hard to change science from "critical thought" and "the scientific method" to something that becomes "factual" simply because we think it should be (science by consensus).

I cannot stress how dangerous this trend is. Taken to extremes (which sometimes occurs easily enough), I could state that I don't think that two plus two is four any longer but instead, well, I think it should be five. And if you don't agree, we will all die horrible deaths very shortly. This is exactly what is occurring with the global warming argument. This article (from the UK, of course, those socialist boneheads) clearly intends to explain that since many of us are skeptical, we shall all die horrible deaths even quicker (Click HERE).

Today, Al Gore is doing much the same thing... crying that the sky is falling via the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings. Using the IPCC report, he claims scientific consensus. And now that the hundreds and thousands of skeptics have stepped up, Al Gore is becoming more shrill with his hysterical ranting and warnings and doom.

Insane?

But, before you think this is all just the rantings of madmen... this most definitely is not. There is much reason and planning behind this global warming mythology - even though NO EVIDENCE for it exists.

Did you think Communism just disappeared off the face of the Earth when the Berlin Wall fell?

Do you know who Al Gore's father was and why he was in trouble and who his best friend (Armand Hammer) was?

Do you know what the driving force behind the Green Party is?

Do you know WHY Bill Clinton went to Moscow at the height of the cold war, at the invitation of the KGB, and spent a week there, after dropping out of the Oxford program (that's right, Bill Clinton is NOT a Rhodes Scholar, he quit the program and did not complete it).

Do you know what a Rhodes Scholar is and who Cecil Rhodes was? Do you know what Rhodes believed, how he came by his money, and what his vision was for a secret society run by the richest men on Earth?

Do you know WHY the Kyoto Treaty EXEMPTED China and India (THE TWO LARGEST polluters on Earth) from the treaty -- yet it would take the United States to task to such a degree that even starting an outdoor BBQ with charcoal, in your backyard, would make you a lawbreaker and you would be arrested? Courtesy of the UN!

Do you know who OWNS Occidental Petroleum, one of the worlds largest OIL COMPANIES? You probably think it's George Bush, since he''s been accused of being "an oil man". Are you in for a surprise... click HERE and read the WHOLE article.

I'll BET you didn't know that Al owned most of Occidental Petroleum, didja? Does he still? He claims no... but, hey, do your own research.

Do you know who caused LOVE CANAL? I'll BET you didn't know that it was a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum!?

Nice people, those Gore's... and now he is telling you to believe him, or else?

You find the answers to those questions and you will understand what this Global Warming nonsense is about. Yes... I have the answers. But YOU need to discover them for yourself so that YOU TOO understand, for yourself, what is going on here.

And it's a very dangerous game.

Click here for a supporting news report.