Human Induced Global Warming - Fact or Fiction

[Guest Close Marc1]

There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
By Tom DeWeese
CNSNews.com Commentary
December 02, 2004

There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period.

Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be they teachers, newscasters, congressmen, senators, vice presidents or presidents -- is wrong.

In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling -- very slightly -- 0.037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992, there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only five days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. In fact, much of the recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time.

The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and even drought on every continent on earth. It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day, the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline: "Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070."

The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article is based on a report titled "Impacts of a Warming Arctic," submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessement (ACIA).

It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups that have an agenda.

The report was commissioned by the Arctic Council, which is comprised of a consortium of radical envionmentalists from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. All are nations that possess land within the Arctic Circle.

Many of these countries, through the Kyoto Protocol, have a financial stake in pushing the global warming agenda. One of the groups providing "scientists" to the ACIA "researchers" is the World Wildlife Fund, one of the leading chicken-little scaremongers that create junk science at the drop of a news release to terrify us all into proper environmental conduct.

The report is now being used at the global warming meeting currently underway in Buenos Aires to rally the troops and bully the United States into accepting the discredited Kyoto Protocol.

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, and America's coastlines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we're warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Any change in temperatures, an excessive storm or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a global warming hysteria.

Two kinds of scientists

We are assured by such groups that scientists everywhere are sounding these warnings and that we may only have one chance to stop it. Well, as the debate rages, we find that there are really two kinds of scientists.

There are those who look at facts and make their judgments based on what they see and know. Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old practice called "peer review." It's the only true science.

And then, there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually, you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.

Let's just take NASA, for example -- the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.

At the same time, many of NASA's scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992, when a team of three NASA scientists was monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America -- if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait, and many times, they test again before drawing conclusions. Not so the green zealot.

Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America.

Then Sen. Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon -- five years before Congress had intended -- and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush's favorite vacation spot.

Two months later, NASA announced -- on the back pages of the newspapers -- that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable comodity known as freon was gone forever.

Flawed computer models

Then there are those computer models. Night after night, Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

But it's well known that even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here, it could blow in a storm. If the temperature drops there, it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

Yet those who are promoting the global warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.

The truth is that computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than what we have now.

To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large, only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.

So it's an outrage for the World Wildlife Fund or the Sierra Club to tell you that man-made global warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

Scientists are not on the global warming bandwagon

And so, too, is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact.

What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming.

Today, that figure has grown to more than 4,000 scientists. Americans aren't being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:

1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ... man-made causes."

Obviously, those two paragraphs aren't consistent with the political agenda the U.N. is pushing. So, science be damned. Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world -- bar none.

continued next post...

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06

Continuation:
The Kyoto Climate Control Protocol

Those who have been fighting against the radical green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has little to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's wealth.

They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of the KGB and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.

School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction. Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold, all of it for a lie about something man has nothing to do with.

But the lie has grown to massive proportions -- and the game is about to get very serious indeed. Pressure is building again to impose the Kyoto Protocol worldwide.

Only a few years ago, this treaty appeared dead when President George W. Bush refused American participation. Now, however, Russia has signed on, and the U.N. has enough support to begin implementing its dire consequences -- even on the United States.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has called the White House stance on global warming "terribly disappointing." McCain is now using the ACIA report to convene hearings on the "human effect on climate and what to do about it." McCain intends to help build pressure on the president to accept the Kyoto Protocol.

In fact, the Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. This means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, would devastate this nation.

To meet such drastically reduced energy standards would -- in the short run -- cost the United States more than one million jobs. Some estimate it would cost more than seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it would cost even more jobs.

It would cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food would skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product would be reduced by $200 billion -- annually.

To force down energy use, the Federal government would have to enforce a massive energy tax that would drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent. In all likelihood, there would be a tax on gasoline -- as high as 60 cents per gallon.

There would be consumption taxes and carbon taxes. The Department of Energy has estimated that electricity prices could rise 86 percent -- and gasoline prices 53 percent.

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme. Cars banned. Industry curtailed. Housing smaller. Family size controlled.

Every single product that is produced with the use of energy would increase in price. This includes items such as aspirin, contact lenses and toothpaste.

A study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty would cripple U.S. industries, including paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and cement. That about sums up the economy.

Global raid on American wealth

But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary -- that those pushing the global warming agenda are truly in a panic over global warming and are just trying to find a solution.

If you are one of these people, ask yourself: Why does the Kyoto Protocol only bind developed nations to draconian emission levels?

Undeveloped Third World nations would be free to produce whatever they want. These would include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years would come from these countries.

Now ask yourself: If the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment, then how come it doesn't cover everybody?

The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth. The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.

And international corporations that owe allegiance to no nation would bolt America and move their factories lock, stock and computer chip to those Third World countries, where they would be free to carry on production.

But that means the same emissions would be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago. So where is the protection of the environment? You see, it's not about that, is it?

Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws." Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?

And still more looting of the U.S. treasury is planned. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol also want industrialized nations to subsidize poor countries' adaption to global warming to the tune of $73 billion per year. Obtaining such subsidies would be an interesting trick after the U.S. economy had been destroyed by the treaty. Looters rarely have the ability to think that far in advance.

Don't think this devastation can't happen. The U.N. and the European Union have exposed their hatred for the United States. They envy our wealth and think that legalized theft, rather than sound economic policy, is the way to obtain it.

The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity: George W. Bush. Will he stand firm in his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? Or will he capitulate to massive international pressure and sell America's soul?

(Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, an activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Va.)

[RODEONICK Too Busy To Bio. Find all posts View Profile Close RODEONICK]

Re: Peak oil, man made global warming, recessions and other calamities.

The fanatical dedication and the little or no resistance presented by all the government in the world have embolden this new popes of climate change to a point that they now take on anything in their path. Rain patterns, ocean levels, seismic activity, recessions, pestilence, riots and revolts, all is your fault, yes, you.

not everyone has swallowed the hook of man made climate change, peak oil is over half a century away and by then it will no longer be the only source of energy.
By all means, drive your car on vegetable oil because it is fun to do so, because you save some money but please don't think you save the planet by doing so. There are churches to go to if salvation is your thing, all sorts and all flavors.


It is still our choice.

man you need a holiday.
1stly i respect your opinion.
if this climate change is all hogwash then why have the crops failed for 8 years in a row? why is it that my family farm that once supported 5 families can't even support one anymore?
i personally believe that we are past peak oil but don't see the problem with this. Bring about the survival of the fittest i reacon. why is it that the human race is the only species that carry the weak???
and peak oil is the only thing that will make our own lazy arse people come up with alternate energies.
i might not be able to save the planet running veg but i'm not hurting it either buy using a waste product instead of poisoning the inuit people of alaska for the sake of a dirty evil product that the world has become so dependant on, to hell with the placid land loving people up in alaska fill up on petroleum fuels that sound better to you does it??
salvation is not my thing however i don't see the harm in doin to others as you would like done to yourself. And what were pumping into the atmosphere surely cant be good for us or the environment regardlesss of if global warming is fact or fiction.
anyhow at least you thinking and not just whinging about the cost of petrol like my NRMA allan evans.
thanks for the good read all differant views asside.

[Captain Echidna Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Captain Echidna]

Re: Peak oil, man made global warming, recessions and other calamities.

Marc1 your perspective is from a "business is more important that the environment perspective". Sounds like an oil company perspective to me. Your posts also seem to lack any scientific basis whatsoever, and comparing a small part of America (the midwest) and deciding the worlds climate trends from that is illogical.
How much of this is a realisation we cant continue having a minority of the worlds population (the US) using the majority of the resources, and feeling uneasy that the rest of the world wont put up with it? And why mention China and Kyoto? not only have they signed it, but they look to meet the targets by a wide margin?

Climate has always changed, in fact one real feature of climate is that it changes. it MUST change.

Why must the climate change?

Yet it is good business and as such one should welcome it.

So if someone killed you and sold your internal organs on the internet because it was "good business" does that make it OK? (I am guessing most profit may come from your brain, it appears unused. If anyone from the "ebrain" website gets in contact, be wary.....)

Not everyone has swallowed the hook of man made climate change, peak oil is over half a century away and by then it will no longer be the only source of energy.
By all means, drive your car on vegetable oil because it is fun to do so, because you save some money but please don't think you save the planet by doing so.

Umm so recaping, there will be alternate sources of energy in the future, (and these will be required to save the planet from peak oil), but dont use any alternate sources of energy now because you wont be saving the planet?

This part removed at Mark1 request.

[pangit Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close pangit]

Re: Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06

Marc, I'm not quite sure what's brought on this bout of spamming on, but you realise of course you are in the minority and you are bound to draw a lot of criticism from the rest of us.

Without going through all the articles in detail and refuting them point by point (which I'm sure can be done or probably has for the older articles) a few points from what you posted stuck out for me:

The first article is from the Wall St Journal, which has been attacked recently in the UK Guardian for it's increasingly isolationist anti climate change stance.

Modern science and unfolding technologies will, in all likelihood, double recovery efficiencies. Even a 10% gain in extraction efficiency on a global scale will unlock 1.2 to 1.6 trillion barrels of extra resources -- an additional 50-year supply at current consumption rates.

Well why hasn't it already? Why are so many advanced oil producing nations continuing to decline in production in spite of a massive increase in the price of oil? (e.g. Australia, UK, US, Mexico). And that often used term "current consumption rates" is misleading, as demand for oil (and all fossil fuels) is increasing, not remaining the same.

Where do reasonable assumptions surrounding peak oil lead us? My view, subjective and imprecise, points to a period between 2045 and 2067 as the most likely outcome.........
........The world is not running out of oil anytime soon. A gradual transitioning on the global scale away from a fossil-based energy system may in fact happen during the 21st century. The root causes, however, will most likely have less to do with lack of supplies and far more with superior alternatives.

These two statements appear to contradict each other. First of all the author is admitting that peak oil will in fact happen this century (my children will only be middle aged, so I'm sure they would consider that to be "soon"!) So surely if we have moved away from oil by then (and we'd better hurry up about it even if we have 37 years to go!) it will be directly because of a lack of the stuff, and not because of these "superior alternatives" that don't even exist yet.

The sky is not falling nor will it ever fall.
Yet we can think it does and it will seem very real.

We can choose to be happy or we can choose to feel guilty and sad.
Our happiness will produce full employment and buoyant economy.
Our guilt and sadness will talk us all into recession.

None of what you said has anything to do with the science of climate change and you're not even producing any kind of evidence to back your massive sweeping statements up. Your comments about happiness/sadness are irrelevant. Our state of mind has no bearing on whether the world will warm or not!

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

This is in fact true, but since 1971 the figures have been revised down considerably. It's called "global dimming" and in fact is mitigating the effects of global warming. If there was no warming then the earth would indeed be cooling a bit.

There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
By Tom DeWeese
CNSNews.com Commentary
December 02, 2004

Erm... why are you quoting an article that's nearly 4 years old? Is that the best you can do? There has been a lot of climate science done since then, not least the IPCC report stating that there is a 90% chance that human activities are having an impact on global warming. And that is considered very conservative by most individual scientists.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day, the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline: "Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070."

The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article is based on a report titled "Impacts of a Warming Arctic," submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessement (ACIA).

It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups that have an agenda.

First of all the author is not even trying to find any science that disputes this view, rather he is simply trying to discredit the original reports. And secondly this argument has been superseded by more recent events, i.e. the record low levels of polar ice last summer (27% below the previous record).

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, and America's coastlines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we're warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Umm, how about Katrina? Record droughts both in US and Australia (and many other parts of the world)?

In fact, the Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. This means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, would devastate this nation.

Again, the state of the economy has no bearing on whether the world will warm or not! And even if his figures are absolutely spot on, they will pale in comparison with the losses to our economies if we don't do anything to mitigate climate change (see The Stern Report)

The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity: George W. Bush.

Wow, if that's really true then we're all f****ed!

[pangit Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close pangit]

Re: Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06

When trees (wood) was the major energy source I wonder if similar discussions were taking place as forests were devestated, changing the climate and forcing people to travel further and further to find new tree reserves. Did they talk about Peak Trees? Humans found alternate energy sources and civilization moved on.

I'm sure they did on Easter Island, when famously chopped down all the trees on the island then the population was devastated.

(on an a-side, a Russian scientist released a paper showing that hydrocarbons are constantly being produced in the Earths core and permeate through the crust to be captured in pockets and eventually form oil and gas, basically saying that if left long enough oil and gas will regenerate. Sorry no reference at the moment.)

I think you're referring to the Abiotic Theory, which as the article says is "rejected by most geologists"

Why do most rapid technological developments occur during war? How can we bring the disparate cultures and people of the world together...?
By starting a war! The environment is under attack! Every human is affected, we must all stand together! Technology will advance rapidly to find a solution. Stop fighting over land, religion, resources because we must all stand together or the planet will die!

I agree. When life is comfortable (as it is for the majority of us in the west now) we are too lazy to do anything. When life becomes tough (as in war) we all come together to face the common enemy/threat. In fact I was listening to an interview with Philip Sutton this morning which goes into this in more detail.

[RODEONICK Too Busy To Bio. Find all posts View Profile Close RODEONICK]

Re: Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06

Yes, the climate changes, the El Nino (sp?) has, in the past, wiped civilizations out completely (what was called a Mega El Nino), and other weather/climate patterns certainly cycle with the eons.

El Nino is NOT climate change. It is a weather pattern that forces the rain to fall in the ocean and miss the maninland (in layman's terms)

Energy consumption/peak energy has been with humans for a long time. When trees (wood) was the major energy source I wonder if similar discussions were taking place as forests were devestated, changing the climate and forcing people to travel further and further to find new tree reserves. Did they talk about Peak Trees?

At the time we had no where near the population to support.(or the greedy). Good point though.

Humans found alternate energy sources and civilization moved on.

Lets hope so this repeats itself asap.

a Russian scientist released a paper showing that hydrocarbons are constantly being produced in the Earths core and permeate through the crust to be captured in pockets and eventually form oil and gas, basically saying that if left long enough oil and gas will regenerate. Sorry no reference at the moment.)

I beleive this to be very probable but i don't think it will top itself up enough to sustain current and future oil demand. Go bury a log in your backyard and pack it down nice and tight. in i dunno 15000 years you may have made some coal. its possible but i'ld bank on the fact that were screwed first.

The question for me and maybe for a lot of people is not wether oil is the cause of global warming but is it the best thing to use?

Its cheap thats why its used. it cant be the best thing to use look at the wars that have been fought for oil??

Oil does produce polution. Oil is not sustainable with our current usage. Oil production is controlled by a cartel (OPEC). Maybe the best thing for the human race is to start weaning ourselves off of oil, but how?

Agree Agree Agree Agree
Decentralisation and self suffiency incentives. Public transport availability, heavy railway upgrades. farming incentives oh and almost forgot excise canceled for b100 but none of this will happen because the big boys wont get record profits every year and fat bonuses.

Humans tend to not like change, unless we have to. Why do most rapid technological developments occur during war?

what have we got out of the iraq war than????

How can we bring the disparate cultures and people of the world together...?

Farming

Who knows what the truth is, all I know is that we need to move away for oil (maybe not comlpetely but we certainly need a more balanced and sustainable energy system). Business is not everything, we humans are a resourceful lot and we will find other ways to do things and still make a buck. But we humans can also be stubborn and will not let go of things easily. The only way to wean a lamb is to remove it from its mother, maybe it's time to start weaning ourselves off of oil?

Couldn't agree more.

[Dexta Biofuels Forum Newbie Find all posts View Profile Close Dexta]

Re: Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06

El Nino is NOT climate change. It is a weather pattern that forces the rain to fall in the ocean and miss the maninland (in layman's terms)

Climate change or climate patterns? I guess what I was trying to say is that our climate changes due to cyclic patterns The El Nino apparantly has cycles within cycles, 10 years, 30 years, 1000 years etc.

what have we got out of the iraq war than????

There are hundreds of angles you could take out of the Iraq "war". Can you call it a war? Insurgency? Resource Protection? Political stunt? Will anything positive come out of it? Who knows? Better medical practices/ procedures? Hot weather climate clothing? Maybe just an answer to the question "How could you spend 3.27 trillion dollars?

[Nuddy Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Nuddy]

Re: Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06

There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
By Tom DeWeese
CNSNews.com Commentary
December 02, 2004

There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period.
[/B]

How on earth did this post get/stay on this thread?
We were discussing Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06
What does the man-made global warming issue have to do with peak oil?
If we want to discuss man-made global warming let's start another thread and let's have it in the off topic area as it has nothing to do with biofuels.

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: Peak oil, man made global warming, recessions and other calamities.

.......if this climate change is all hogwash then why have the crops failed for 8 years in a row? why is it that my family farm that once supported 5 families can't even support one anymore?
..........
thanks for the good read all differant views asside.

You are welcome.

Your perception is right and it is this your perception that is taken advantage of by the climate change extremist.

As I said before CLIMATE DOES CHANGE. It is at the very essence of climate to change.
What is bull dust is to allege that it changes because of human activity this is a bold face lie.
Climate has changed for millennium and will change again for as long as there is an atmosphere.
And there is nothing we can do about it. Not a iota.

Your farm has gone through a climate cycle once more. One of the many it will go through.
There is no "normality" and farms do not have to support humans neither do the opposite. This are no indication of "good" or "bad". Only that certain conditions are favorable to us and others are not.

The climate change extremist wants us to believe not only that it is our puny little insignificant self who make the climate change, not only that... but that we can actually make the climate do what we would like it to do?

How can anyone believe such fat lies when we can not even predict what the weather is going to do in a week time?

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06

.........if we want to discuss man-made global warming let's start another thread and let's have it in the off topic area as it has nothing to do with biofuels.

I must say that I disagree. If not for the man-made-global-warming scare mongering campaigns, there would not be any biodiesel industry or forum for that matter.
The peak oil scare mongering campaign I addressed before, was just a warming up to how things are now. Both lies are very well related, I hope others can see it. It is not rocket science.

[Guest Close Marc1]

Re: Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06

Here are a few points to the above stories that may add some balance to the issue:
Yes, the climate changes, the El Nino (sp?) has, in the past, wiped civilizations out completely (what was called a Mega El Nino), and other weather/climate patterns certainly cycle with the eons. This certainly makes it hard to determine just what is natural and what is man made.
Energy consumption/peak energy has been with humans for a long time. When trees (wood) was the major energy source I wonder if similar discussions were taking place as forests were devestated, changing the climate and forcing people to travel further and further to find new tree reserves. Did they talk about Peak Trees? Humans found alternate energy sources and civilization moved on. (on an a-side, a Russian scientist released a paper showing that hydrocarbons are constantly being produced in the Earths core and permeate through the crust to be captured in pockets and eventually form oil and gas, basically saying that if left long enough oil and gas will regenerate. Sorry no reference at the moment.)
The question for me and maybe for a lot of people is not wether oil is the cause of global warming but is it the best thing to use? Oil does produce polution. Oil is not sustainable with our current usage. Oil production is controlled by a cartel (OPEC). Maybe the best thing for the human race is to start weaning ourselves off of oil, but how? Humans tend to not like change, unless we have to. Why do most rapid technological developments occur during war? How can we bring the disparate cultures and people of the world together...?
By starting a war! The environment is under attack! Every human is affected, we must all stand together! Technology will advance rapidly to find a solution. Stop fighting over land, religion, resources because we must all stand together or the planet will die!
Who knows what the truth is, all I know is that we need to move away for oil (maybe not comlpetely but we certainly need a more balanced and sustainable energy system). Business is not everything, we humans are a resourceful lot and we will find other ways to do things and still make a buck. But we humans can also be stubborn and will not let go of things easily. The only way to wean a lamb is to remove it from its mother, maybe it's time to start weaning ourselves off of oil?

Thank you, nice post.

What seems to be missing from your conceded nice post and the others who, more religious than you want to point out at my heretical status, is the real reason behind any of the major pseudo-scientific debates be it about man made global cooling now not cool anymore, peak oil, or man made global warming for that matter.

What follows is a speech given by Klaus Vaclav, President of the Czech Republic. What has this to do with Biodiesel?
A lot.
If there is a person that knows about power struggle, conspiracies and loss of freedom is someone who lived behind the iron curtain. If that one is now a president of a former communist state, he has something to say.

Why do we want to make Bio fuels? Because we perceive it to be an expression of freedom. In stead of joining the guerrilla or marching with a red flag we have decided to brake a few minor rules and express our freedom struggle that way. A biodiesel maker is a dissident, a contrarian someone who want to see and act beyond the obvious.

That is why I think Mr Vaclav speech extract in relation to the Climate change advocates is very pertinent.
However that is as always only my opinion.

Vaclav Klaus | March 12, 2008
A WEEK ago, I gave a speech at an official gathering at Prague Castle commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 1948 communist putsch in the former Czechoslovakia. One of the arguments of my speech, quoted in all the leading newspapers in the country the next morning, went as follows:
Future dangers will not come from the same source. The ideology will be different. Its essence will nevertheless be identical: the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality. What I had in mind was, of course, environmentalism and its present strongest version, climate alarmism.

As an economist, I have to start by stressing the obvious. Carbon dioxide emissions do not fall from heaven. Their volume (ECO2) is a function of gross domestic product per capita (which means of the size of economic activity, SEA), of the number of people (POP) and of the emissions intensity (EI), which is the amount of CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP. This is usually expressed in a simple relationship: ECO2 = EI x SEA x POP.
What this relationship tells is simple: If we really want to decrease ECO2 we have to either stop the economic growth and thus block further rise in the standard of living, stop the population growth, or make miracles with the emissions intensity.

I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries.
This ambition goes very much against past human experience which has always been connected with a strong motivation to better human conditions. There is no reason to make the change just now, especially with arguments based on such incomplete and faulty science. Human wants are unlimited and should stay so. Asceticism is a respectable individual attitude but should not be forcefully imposed upon the rest of us.

I am also afraid that the same people, imprisoned in the Malthusian tenets and in their own megalomaniacal ambitions, want to regulate and constrain demographic development, which is something only the totalitarian regimes have until now dared to experiment with. Without resisting it we would find ourselves on the slippery road to serfdom. The freedom to have children without regulation and control is one of the undisputable human rights.

There are people among the global-warming alarmists who would protest against being included in any of these categories, but who do call for a radical decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. It can be achieved only by means of a radical decline in the emissions intensity.

This is surprising because we probably believe in technical progress more than our opponents. We know, however, that such revolutions in economic efficiency (and emissions intensity is part of it) have never been realised in the past and will not happen in the future either. To expect anything like that is a non-serious speculation.

I recently looked at the European CO2 emissions data covering the period 1990-2005, the Kyoto protocol era. You don't need huge computer models to very easily distinguish three different types of countries in Europe.

In the less developed countries, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which during this period were trying to catch up with the economic performance of the more developed EU countries, rapid economic growth led to a 53 per cent increase in CO2 emissions. In the post-communist countries, which went through a radical economic restructuring with the heavy industry disappearing, GDP drastically declined. These countries decreased their CO2 emissions in the same period by 32 per cent. In the EU's slow-growing if not stagnating countries (excluding Germany where its difficult to eliminate the impact of the fact that the east German economy almost ceased to exist in that period) CO2 emissions increased by 4 per cent.

The huge differences in these three figures are fascinating. And yet there is a dream among European politicians to reduce CO2 emissions for the entire EU by 30 per cent in the next 13 years compared to the 1990 level.

What does it mean? Do they assume that all countries would undergo a similar economic shock as was experienced by the central and eastern European countries after the fall of communism? Do they assume that economically weaker countries will stop their catching-up process? Do they intend to organise a decrease in the number of people living in Europe? Or do they expect a technological revolution of unheard-of proportions?

What I see in Europe, the US and other countries is a powerful combination of irresponsibility and wishful thinking together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project.

This brings me to politics. As a politician who personally experienced communist central planning of all kinds of human activities, I feel obliged to bring back the already almost forgotten arguments used in the famous plan-versus-market debate in the 1930s in economic theory (between Mises and Hayek on the one side and Lange and Lerner on the other), the arguments we had been using for decades until the moment of the fall of communism. The innocence with which climate alarmists and their fellow-travellers in politics and media now present and justify their ambitions to mastermind human society belongs to the same fatal conceit. To my great despair, this is not sufficiently challenged, neither in the field of social sciences, nor in the field of climatology.

The climate alarmists believe in their own omnipotency, in knowing better than millions of rationally behaving men and women what is right or wrong. They believe in their own ability to assemble all relevant data into their Central Climate Change Regulatory Office equipped with huge supercomputers, in the possibility of giving adequate instructions to hundreds of millions of individuals and institutions.

We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. We need to learn the uncompromising lesson from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom.

Vaclav Klaus is President of the Czech Republic. This is an edited extract from a speech he gave on March 4 to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

[Dexta Biofuels Forum Newbie Find all posts View Profile Close Dexta]

Re: Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06

So according to the tenents of Vaclav Klaus we should let the Brazilians cut down the Amazon Forest as stopping this will slow their economic growth. Let the developing countries burn as much oil and coal as they can otherwise it will take away their freedom. Drain the lakes and river systems while they can to turn a profit. What about the freedom of people to breath clean air? What about quality of life and environment? I'm sure the people of Europe didn't mind when Chernobyl blew up and poluted their countries, they wouldn't want to stifle the Russian economy. That is the problem with our current energy systems (oil, coal and fission reators) they just don't pollute the local environment they have the potential to pollute the whole globe.
Should the "third world" countries simply perpetuate the mistakes of the first world countries in the name of economic development? Should they ignore the lessons learnt in the name of fairness? The third world cries "it's not fair that you get to build your economies in a wasteful, polluting manner and then you tell us we cannot do the same thing!" It may not be fair but it is certainly illogical to do so.
Wether we have reached peak oil or not and wether we believe humans are the cause of the current and future climate conditions or not, the one thing I think is obvious is that it can no longer be "business as usual". Economics is not the be all and end all of the human race.
I do like the line from the movie the Matrix, where Agent Smith is talking to Morpheus, here is the quote:
"I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."
A bit strong maybe but I use this as a point to the question "Should we continue as we are or try to improve, not just our life but the life of all on this planet?"
I do appologise for the diversion away from peak oil, though I guess the "peak oil" situation can be seen as a catalyst for the next stage of human civilisation.

[pangit Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close pangit]

Re: Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06

It is not rocket science.

No, it's CLIMATE science. Your arguments (and quotes) are economic arguments, with no basis on science at all.

Human wants are unlimited

Unfortunately that's the main crux of the problem. Neither the earth's carrying capacity or the resources contained therein (e.g. oil) are. That's something economists almost univerally ignore. Whereas scientists do not.

[Captain Echidna Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Captain Echidna]

Re: Peak oil - 4 Corners ABC TV Monday 10/7/06

(Quote removed)

What he is saying reeks of the language and "I will talk from a perspective of money and ecconomics is more important than anything else"

The last time I heard this language it was from a spokesperson paid by Australia's "copper mine". "we mine copper here" (her language, not mine) and of course, "as the uranium comes up with the copper, we can make money by selling it, so we do".

Would companies pay people to write their perspectives into forums to argue their perspective, to in effect say money is more important than the environment, and anyone running cars on biofuels are wasting their time? (reworded)
(part removed)