Quote:

---

Actually, the poles shifted during Earth's history, perhaps this is how it happened. of course, that would mean other places would be *colder* than normal, which I don't think is really happening.

---

Yes, the Magnetic Poles have shifted but this is to do with underground forces in the earth. There would have to be a physical change in the Earth's axis of rotation to have any effect on the Earth's climate.

Anyway, Down here in Perth, WA we have a bad drought. Is this global warming or just a natural cycle?

Does no one know or is much of the global warming debate a beat up by alarmist Green groups?

A couple of weeks ago I heard on a national science radio show in Australia that studies of core samples showed that global temperatures have varied quite significantly without any human intervention. This can lead to the conclusion that Global Warming is a myth. You must also consider the speed of change though, this would counter the "beat up" theory as the speed at which temperatures change is currently much greater than in the past. I would say that it is a combination of both natural and man made causes.

Of course, it isn’t personal and here’s my reply to the above. Actual scientific studies ... sure let us talk of scientists who for example disagree with those of us who think there is such a thing.

Let us take USA as an example shall we? Well ... in the USA we have large groups of people who oppose measures to prevent global warming like the Information Council on the Environment, the Global Climate Information Project, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, the Greening Earth Society and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change etc, etc.

The Global Climate Coalition - now that was made up of 50 US trade associations and private companies (oil, gas, coal, automobile and chemical companies) and their campaign was of course, to persuade people that it all a bunch of lies, billions of dollars spent. Their activities got public in 1997 and then companies started leaving them - one among them BP! By 2000 so many leave that they softened what they were saying, arguing for voluntary measures to reduce emissions rather than disputing the need for measures. Funny ah? Oh and let us not forget that on their home page their main concern was with the "potentially enormous impact that improper resolution [of global climate issues] may have on our industrial base, our customers and their lifestyles and the national economy."

The Greening Earth Society – established in 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to convince people that "using fossil fuels to enable our economic activity is as natural as breathing." – lovely who funds it isn’t it? Another example of these groups - Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which, according to CLEAR, the Washington-based Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research, seems to have a strong working relationship with both the Western Fuels Association and the Greening Earth Society.

These front groups have for a long time now used scientists (although I loath to call them that) to spread doubt on the existence of global warming. Patrick Michaels – let us take him as an example. He edits the World Climate Report, which is funded by Western Fuels Association (a consortium of coal interests), has received funding from the Western Fuels Association, the Cyprus Minerals Company, the Edison Electric Institute and the German Coal Mining Association; and is on the advisory board of the Greening Earth Society. Michaels was featured in New Scientist in July 1997 as "a climatologist at the University of Virginia" and one of the "world’s top scientists." He critics the whole idea but oh great surprise decides to conveniently forget to mention who funds his research. He cites the New Scientist article as supporting his views, but again conveniently mentions that he wrote the article. Michaels is one of the climate change experts trusted by Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Pence who calls himself a “profound skeptic" and is known as a person who used to go around saying “the myth of global warming."

Or let us mention Dr Richard Lindzen, another one who is "an independent scientist" and therefore quoted in this campaign to explain that it is all false. Funny how it is easy to forget to mention this person is also a consultant to the fossil-fuel industry, charging $US 2, 500 a day for his services. He testified before a Senate committee, his trip was paid by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC (the same OPEC that supported by the United States, Japan, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, rejected calls to limit emissions, declaring emission limits premature).

Dr Robert Balling – another one – he said to a newspaper – “received more like $700,000 over the past five years” - from coal and oil interests in Great Britain, Germany and the US. He has known to have taken money from Cyprus Minerals, a mining company that has been a major funder of People for the West—a militantly anti-environmental "Wise Use" group. He is also like Michaels an advisor for the Greening Earth Society.

Fred Singer is executive director of the "think tank," the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) which says that global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain are not real but rather are scare tactics used by environmentalists. He worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, and Arco – lovely clean funding don’t you think? He proposed a $95,000 publicity project to "stem the tide towards ever more onerous controls on energy use.” This very same man said this about chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a class of chemicals found to be depleting atmospheric ozone: “"It took only five years to go from... a simple freeze of production [of CFCs], . . . to the 1992 decision of a complete production phase-out—all on the basis of quite insubstantial science." I wonder if it is relevant to mention that virtually all relevant researchers say the link between CFCs and ozone depletion is based on unassailably solid scientific evidence, and of course there is the fact that the three scientists who discovered the CFC-ozone link won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

Just as an example of the work these “scientists” do when actually together– in May of 1994 in Minnesota Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling testify as expert witnesses on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities during a hearing to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants and pretty much negate global warming.

Or let us mention Australia, so not to be accused of only focusing on the US. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) – a governmental agency – set up by the Commonwealth Government but now calls itself an "independent" research agency. It issues a statement regarding economic impacts of emission-reduction targets. They said that it would mean huge costs in jobs and income if this was to be met. Ok ... oh did I mention this part – it relies on both government and industry funding and it has raised money from oil companies and industry lobby groups by offering them the opportunity to pay $50,000 to sit on the steering committee and "have an influence on the direction of the model development" (as stated in ABARE’s literature). Guess who signed up - Mobil, Exxon, Texaco, BHP, Rio Tinto, the Australian Aluminum Council, the Business Council of Australia, and the Norwegian oil company Statoil. The Australian Conservation Foundation, which could not afford the $50,000, requested a waiver of the fee to be on the steering committee but was refused.

And on and on for years now, it is quite tiring to even write about this any more. The corporations who are in the so – called dirty industries that would lose so much money if we were to actually start doing something, scientists paid by them, and so many other things – people in general do not believe in scientists, they never have and they fear the possibilities so it is easier to just stick your head in the sand and say hey look what they are saying (the corporations etc), why should they lie. I myself honestly cannot bother anymore to even talk to people – in the end people believe what they want to believe and the truth is a scary thing.

That is an impressive amount of research you've done there, and I quite agree that biased research on either side may as well give up as in the end both biased sides cancel each other out. But outside the industry sponsored 'research', that also promotes potentially poisonous food additives, drugs that rarely work etc., there have to be independent scientists, who in my reading are often far more equally split on this one area than the media appear to present, preferring (apart from my beloved Daily Mail) to show a blanket acceptance of global warming as a fact, man made, and any other view is shown as a rare aberration. The problem of the majority of these reports being based on speculative data partly based on computerised projections which frequently use different data to each other, and measurements which have been selected solely from those that support the idea, where for instance ice sheet increases and sea levels falling as I mentioned above seem to be hidden on the web or in my underground magazines. I'd recommend anyone who wants hard evidence (names, places, solid data) to checkout www.nexusmagazine.com , it has a lot of dead ducks as well (as I like to check out the sensational claims) but these usually relate to miraculous discoveries, but I've found their company and government conspiracy revelations quite solid.

The sad fact is that many governments are not our friends and don't have our interests at heart. For instance the US government was discovered to be testing both drugs and chemical weapons on innocent citizens (current examples can be found on a search of 'chemtrails') and whatever the state of the climate the latest British plan to price drivers off the road is going to return this country both structurally and economically to the medieval age if it goes ahead. Who will benefit from these crazy policies and how is hidden in a fog of complex connections and meetings people like David Icke do their best to unearth, and even if only 5% of it is true it would still mean many governments manage news stories in advance, and sometimes create problems as an excuse to make new oppressive laws to 'solve' them. Government is cynical, and though some politicians are genuine, they won't get far against a tide of corruption if it comes from the top, and I don't mean other politicians. Fuel companies sponsoring research is hardly a subtle example of this, and they shouldn't insult our intelligence by trying to use it for changing views, but I'll add the names:

Prof Ole Humlum of the Norwegian research centre "The greatest jump in temperature was in the Twenties, since then they have been relatively stable'.

The European Science and Environment Forum says since 1979 satellite measurements have not detected any significant warming in the troposphere.

Ian Joughin from NASA and Slawek Tulaczyk from The University of California believe their study could indicate the end of a 1000 year trend of shrinkage of the ice sheet.

And to conclude with some hard data. The UN official figure for temperature increase in the 20th century was 0.6'C, but they themselves predict a rise of around 2' for the 21st (ie facts followed by speculation, which is not scientific). However, James Hansen who was a major cause of the original theory at NASA 15 years ago now says that the warming in the 21st century is far more likely to be no more than 0.7C, which is normal.
The air, if measured as a single factor from water, has actually got cooler over the last 2 decades. In the year 1200 Europe was 2'C warmer than it is now, and has since undergone a mini ice age which lasted from 1400 to almost 1900, and the small increase since is what it took to stop it becoming a major one.
There's more where these came from, all from Universities and academic organisations, though I admit unless we know who pays for each study the possibility of bribery can't be ruled out, but I would doubt it could apply to all of them.

Well, it's not just me. The best of my file balancing the prevailing media view has already been posted here, and now I'll pass on a quote from last week's Times newspaper from a much higher authority.

Sir Ian Lloyd, Conservative MP 1964-92, describes the consensus of the 1989 Select committee on energy " What is disturbing is the reluctance of the political (and to a significant extent the scientific) community to accept that there is no consensus on the existence, let alone the causes of this phenomenon..." adding now in 2004 "This has not diminished".

He has even included his email for anyone to harangue him on the point, which I can add if it's allowed, and I'd be very impressed if he'd come and expand his reasons here, though I think as an insider he knows more than most of us so should have no trouble explaining his conclusion.

I'm not sure if I think there is a significant enough temperature difference to suggest global warming. I've not seen any evidence that suggest all the measures we've come up with to slow such a temperature rise have been effective in doing so. I'm not sure why it is so difficult to believe these things:
Humans are natural. Everything we do is "natural" from the standpoint that all which IS is comes from nature, even if we manipulate it quite a bit before using it. I'm not saying we aren't ruining things for our descendants. I think we probably are.

I am saying that we have AMPLE evidence to suggest dramatic fluctuations in global temperatures have happened multiple times in the Earth's history, and we don't really know the reasons, but a good guess is that a combination of things, such as emissions from gigantic plant-eating animals, a shift from cold-blooded to warm-blooded species, new, more complex plants, more liquid water, less liquid water and a whole host of other issues contributed, and that most likely DOES include (as I mentioned above) contributions from dominant species or animal cultures. Now, humans may be very good at poluting the planet, but how could we possibly guess that even if we ARE somewhat or (doubtfully) completely responsible, that it is "unnatural" for that to be?

And in the end, if all the measures we've come up with to stop global warming fail, well, we'll just have to deal with it, won't we? Perhaps the planet is gearing up for another catastrophic shift in dominant life forms, as has happened (likely due to climate changes for whatever reason) in the past. Perhaps even human contribution to the changes is part of the natural cycle. One way or the other, even our best efforts may not be enough to stem it, and I certainly think some more time spent preparing FOR it rather than trying to STOP it would be in order.

Humans can and do have an effect on the types of lifeforms who find the planet liveable. But the history of life on this planet is dotted with dramatic shifts and seemingly sudden leaps from one type of form to another. It may be hard to imagine that such a shift would begin happening in our lifetimes, but it IS possible, and it isn't something we're going to be able to stop.

Talk Sport radio has just had 2 wonderful guests presenting the case for the defence against both the existence of it, and likely lack of importance of in the future if it were to happen. Unfortunately the amazing Swedish professor on James Whale last week had both an unpronounceable name and website, plus as I was in the car I couldn't copy them down, though for the first few minutes I was convinced he was really a spoof character from the muppet show... But his personal measurements using satellites of sea level and numerous temperature readings certainly refuted the sea level rise theory (which is currently about an inch in 4 years, hardly much to get excited about). It also explained how low lying third world countries use the speculation about them sinking in the future as ways of getting more money from the IMF, international aid and charities. If anyone can help me out here on the name or link please pass it on, as it wasn't on the Talk Sport site. I have just sent them an email so that may do it.

But last night they had the head of the Anxiety Center, set up to defuse all media stories that cause anxiety by discovering the truth behind them, and here they present a 30 year history of the development of the global warming media campaign, who started it, why, and why none of the claims are backed up by evidence. Report here.

I don't believe I can repeat this stuff often enough as while I type UK energy prices are being ramped up by around 10-20%, partially to tax global warming, and restrictions on driving such as road pricing are going from local schemes to eventually cover the whole country. Why? One excuse is to reduce cars to combat global warming. Though the link tells us petrol vehicles account for 0.18% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. And to repeat my earlier figure, over 99% is from natural sources so in fact the best way to reduce it is actually to kill all the plant and animal life that selfishly emit CO2 as a result of their respiration. And though the human population has increased massively over a few hundred years, overall I think the amount of life on earth is fairly constant overall so may be another red herring after all in the equation...

But the overall fact is that it really is happenning. The mean sea level has indeed risen. Ask anybody from an island in the pacific that's about to disappear if they do or do not believe in global warming.

Quote:

---

And to repeat my earlier figure, over 99% is from natural sources so in fact the best way to reduce it is actually to kill all the plant and animal life that selfishly emit CO2 as a result of their respiration.

---

I sincerely hope that that was said in jest. How would we as human kind survive if we simply "killed all the plant and animal life", that is in fact responsible for our very survival.

Just my thoughts.

Nils-Axel Morner. The rogue scientist who's measured sea levels and world temperatures independently using satellites among others. After missing his name the first time round, luckily someone mentioned it again and I can now provide some more documented evidence, by scientists, that refute virtually every proposal that the global warming promoters raise.

Rising sea levels?

General refutations, point by point.

These are (to start the punning) just the tip of the scientific iceberg I managed to find once I tapped into the scientists doing their best to be heard by the media and not ignored as flat-earthers. The radio presenter echoed Margaret Thatcher's comments (like her or hate her, she does posess an incredible mind), that you don't ruin businesses on an unproven theory. Our car industry is already falling apart, and many more will including in countries just becoming successful industrially, if taxes and other impositions are put upon every company due to the Kyoto protocol. The world economy could crash due to an idea which in itself is only based on future projections which are impossible to prove. Again, like Mrs Thatcher I'm no particular fan of George W., but being the only country not to sign up to Kyoto must be a sign of independence, and a refusal to accept a major shift in policy mainly generated by the green lobby. Anyone who remembers, 30 years ago many of the same types of groups were predicting an ice age. Unfortunately this time the latest predictions are being taken totally seriously by just about every world leader, and the repercussions will increase as costs to industry rise. And if you believe the sources I've found, that's all that will be rising...

The US wasn't the only country ... Australia didn't sign either.

Good, I'm glad to hear it, I really had no idea. It just shows how the UK media always emphasise the US rejection but barely acknowledge they weren't the only ones.

Edited to add: The satguru careless machine operated again, did I say plants emit CO2? Oops... May I use the excuse of the absent minded professor? At least half of that is true...