The media elite have bought into the propaganda that you and I are responsible. Yet, there are numerous experts who say the proponents are wrong. Their stories are not being told, which means pro-global warming tactics (to silence the opposition) have worked. “The argument is over,” they declare. What that says to me is, “we’re too lazy to investigate the other side.”
There are thousands of scientists that have their doubts about “man made global warming.” Here in Paradise we have a well-qualified voice speaking out against what many call the, “Global Warming Myth.” His name is Paul Crapuchettes, who spent his lifetime working with General Electric and Litton Industries designing electron tubes. He also spent time overseeing the preservation of marshes and wetlands.
“Opinions are opinions, not facts,” he said. “We’ve known about greenhouse gases since the early 1800s green house gas (was discovered) in the early 1800s. The atmosphere was a greenhouse.” We pay “carting costs” to haul waste that releases CO2 that, “should go to a digester, rather than the dump,” he concludes.
Crapuchettes has strong qualifications. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry and as a chemist he said the calculations to develop the global the warming theory have not been properly carried out. “They (pro-global warming enthusiasts) only look at CO2 they need to check all gasses and the change in inventory and that’s not being done!” The retired chemist notes, “we don’t have enough data we have to know what’s going on everywhere on the planet we have 17,000 weather stations in the world nowhere near enough (to get adequate data).”
He says our press corps is the major problem because they prefer using inadequate data and information to amplify problems that do not exist. “The spotted owl was not endangered yet thousands lost their jobs because of irrational and thoughtless reporting by the mainstream media.” He’s also challenging the idea of using “ethanol” as a means to eliminate carbon in the environment noting such actions will drive up the cost of food, and lower the mileage we presently get on gasoline produced in our refineries.
He believes the global warming movement is a “blind adherence to people who don’t know what they are talking about. Character assassination (a trait of the pro-global warming crowd who get angry when they are challenged) is abhorrent to me.” The retired chemist concludes, “somebody has established an imperial relationship between themselves and melting ice they don’t know why!” He concludes those pushing the issue such as Al Gore, “don’t know what they are talking about.”
Anyone who has spent time on a University of California campus in recent years will tell you about the “tyrannical atmosphere” developing between social and “real” scientists. Those that speak out on some campuses do so at the risk of losing their jobs, and that is dangerous. Only the media elite, social scientists and politicians support the global warming theory. Real scientists know we have a lot more to investigate before we make any solid conclusions. We all need to pay more attention to people with solid credentials like Paul Crapuchettes, and less attention to “pseudo-scientists,” like Al Gore. Read more here.
Maurizio Morabito’s Blog
From Nature’s Climate Feedback: ”Shock climate change verdict acquits Hansen’s heroes”:
“Criminal damage in the name of climate change is not a criminal offence, according to a shock ruling from a British court. Eco-warriors’ UK paper of choice The Independent says the verdict “will have shocked ministers and energy companies”. In the Guardian, veteran environment correspondent Jon Videl says it will “embarrass the government and lead to more direct action protests against energy companies"."
The so-called “Kingsnorth case” was a trial-by-jury. Given the verdict, it means that Hansen and the defence team in general have convinced the jury that it is a bad idea to build coal-based power stations: bad enough for a certain class of criminal damages to be considered necessary.
And why so bad? Because burning coal is linked to global warming and unimaginable future disasters. The verdict also means that the prosecution was unable to convince the jury otherwise. But wait! What could have the prosecution done? Could they have dared to demonstrate that burning coal is not linked to global warming?
Had that happened, the entire “Anthropogenic Global Warming is real” construct of successive UK Governments would have collapsed. No more Kyoto, no more dreams of “carbon taxes” and “carbon allowances”. Instead now, since the “phasing out” of “coal-burning power stations” has been shown as “crucial” in a court of law, either lights will starting going off in the Sceptred Isle or nuclear power will be given a very high priority.
And so in hindsight one can rest assured that under no circumstance could the UK Government afford to win the “Kingsnorth case”. And as a matter of fact, it lost it. After all, this is a crucial year for the future of Britain’s power supply. Look at another note from the Greenpeace’s article:
“Before travelling to Kent, Prof Hansen met the David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who is thought to be unhappy about the plan for Kingsnorth, which is being promoted by John Hutton, the Business Secretary. Mr Brown will have the final say later this year.”
Greenpeace 1 - Coal power 0? More like Miliband 1 - Hutton 0. Read more here.
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor, UK Independent
Humanity must urgently embark on a massive programme to power civilisation from wood to stave off catastrophic climate change, one of the world’s top scientists has told The Independent on Sunday. Twenty years ago, Professor James Hansen was the first leading scientist to announce that global warming was taking place. Now he has issued a warning that a back-to-the-future return to one of the oldest fuels is imperative because the world has exceeded the danger level for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Growing trees, which absorb the gas from the air as they grow, burning them instead of fossil fuels to generate electricity, and capturing and storing the carbon produced in the process is needed to get the greenhouse effect down to safe levels, he says.
Professor Hansen’s assertion that there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will alarm governments and environmentalists, who are concentrating on the already daunting task of limiting its build-up, while allowing it to rise well above present levels. However, his views will command respect because, as director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies for the past 27 years, he has been one of the few climate scientists ready to risk his reputation by openly stating what many suspect to be true.In 1988 Professor Hansen put global warming on the political agenda by telling the US Congress that he was “99 per cent certain” that human activities were warming up the planet. It took the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change until last year to catch up, by which time nearly two vital decades had been lost. In the UK last week, his evidence helped to secure the acquittal of six Greenpeace activists charged with causing criminal damage to the Kingsnorth power station in Kent.The level of carbon dioxide stands at 385 parts per million (ppm), about 100ppm above what it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution. It is rising by about 2 ppm a year. The most ambitious international efforts focus on stabilising it at 450 ppm, though few see this as achievable. But Professor Hansen says this goal “is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation” and that present levels have already “brought us to the precipice of a planetary tipping point”.
He adds: “If we go over the edge we will transition to an environment far outside the range that has been experienced by humanity, and there will be no return within any foreseeable future generation."He is convinced that 350 ppm is the absolute maximum that will avoid the loss of the polar ice sheets and other disasters. He says that all coal power stations must be phased out by 2030, unless they are equipped with special “carbon capture and storage” equipment that stops the gas escaping into the atmosphere. If that was done, the level could be stabilised at 400 ppm. After that, a vigorous programme of planting trees to suck up carbon dioxide – coupled with the use of carbon capture equipment when the trees are burnt, and improvements in agricultural practices – could get levels down to 350 ppm “within a century”.
Global temperatures 20 years after his famous testimony was significantly colder despite the fact both years were strong La Nina years. See larger image here.
Icecap Note: If you develop technology for scrubbing CO2 from emissions what difference is there between burning readily available coal and trees? Environmental groups would not allow for the logging on a scale necessary to provide the wood needed. By the way thanks to the very high costs of heating oil, many more people are buring wood or wood pellets in their home which emit CO2 and many other pollutants and particulates than are emitted using clean burning fossil fuels. Another example of the law of unintended consequences. Read more nonsense here. Meanwhile, Hansen continues his evil twin to Chauncey Gardner imitation tour.