More holes in the GW consensus: a chronology

 

 

Alpine Glacier Never So Thick, Al!

 

October 19, 2007 (LPAC)--Defying global warming doomsayers, the highest mountain in Europe has never had so much snow as now, according to a survey by French scientists reported by the Italian press agency ANSA on Oct. 13.

In the last two years the highest mountain in Europe, Mont Blanc, grew 2.15 meters in height, reaching its historical maximum at 4,810.90 meters. The cause is increased snow cover. The relative volume of its glacier almost doubled, from 14,300 to 24,100 cubic meters.

Carried out every two years, the survey aims to determine the "health status" of mountains along the Italian-French border.

 

 

Al Gore's Nobel Prize: "Embarrassing. Deeply Embarrassing"

 

Under the headline "Embarrassing," Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest daily newspaper, ran a devastating critique of Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize.

"He spends 221,000 kilowatt hours a year. He emits gross amounts of CO2 when he runs around the world in his private plane. He has a loose relationship to the inconvenient scientific truth that he tries to convey.

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has nevertheless chosen to award this year's Nobel Peace Prize to former U.S. Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. and the UN Climate Panel....

"One should almost bow in the dust before Al Gore, and yet not.

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee gives no specific factual argument that the UN Climate Panel has made a special contribution to peace, nor that Al Gore has done so.

"Of course, you cannot demand that political figures that propagandize for a viewpoint should fully live by it, but without a substantial agreement, it very quickly becomes hypocrisy, which is the case with Al Gore. He preaches moderation to the tune of absurd private energy consumption.

"His credibility is not improved by the fact that the High Court in London has just decided that `An Inconvenient Truth' can only be used for educational purposes if the students are informed about nine severe faults, such as, that the world oceans will rise by 6-7 meters `in the near future' if nothing is done to stop the climate change.

"In the decision, it is stated directly that Al Gore is `politically prejudiced,' makes use of `exaggerated alarmism,' and presents `a one-sided apocalyptic vision' which are not exactly characteristics suitable for a Nobel Prize winner.

"If the political Al Gore, seen through the eyes of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, had deserved the prize, it is strange that it was not given when Al Gore was politically active. To a even higher degree, the Committee should have judged whether Al Gore was using his platform as U.S. Vice President to do such unselfish work on behalf of peace, that he deserves to be seen together with such former Peace Prize recipients as Martin Luther King, Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Mother Theresa, Eli Wiesel, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

"The Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee has, by choosing Al Gore, contributed in an unprecedented way to devaluing the Peace Prize....

"Embarrassing.

"Deeply embarrassing."

 

 

British Judge: Gore's Climate Film Has Nine Scientific Lies

 

October 12, 2007 (LPAC)--A British High Court judge, Mr. Justice Barton ruled yesterday that Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," had nine "scientific errors."

As reported in the Guardian, the list of errors--more accurately called lies--in the film, include:

1.The film claimed that low-lying, inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming," but there was no evidence of any evacuation as asserted in the film.

2) It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor," referring to the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was "very unlikely" that the Conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.

3) Gore had also claimed--by ridiculing the opposite view--that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit." The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts".

4) Gore said that the disappearance of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said that the consensus is that this assertion could not be established.

5) The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from...population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability."

6) Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that."

7) Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the [disappearing] ice." The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find, is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

8) The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said that, separating out the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult.

9) Gore's film claims that a sea level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by the ice melt from either Greenland or western Antarctica, "in the near future." In Mr. Justice Barton's legal opinion, such melting could happen, "but only after, and over, millennia." He said of the film's assertion, "This is distinctly alarmist."

 

 

More Stark Warnings: Biofuels Will Kill

 

October 12, 2007 (LPAC)--Two more stark warnings have come out about the dangers "biofuels" pose to the world food supply, in just one day this week. Yesterday, Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, called for an international five-year ban on producing biofuels, because using arable land to produce biofuels would result in "massacres." "It's a total disaster for those who are starving," Ziegler said from Geneva, the Chinese news agency Xinhua reported. "232 kg of corn is needed to make 50 liters of bioethanol. A child could live on that amount of corn for a year." Ziegler plans to submit a resolution to the UN General Assembly on Oct. 25, which would ban the conversion of farmland for the production of biofuels. However, Ziegler punted on the real issue: that the whole alleged "need" for biofuels is a fraud. He proposed a five-year moratorium, to wait until it might be possible to create "second generation" biofuels from waste or non-food plants.

Lyndon LaRouche responded to Ziegler's call by saying that it is probably a good idea to have a "think pause." LaRouche continued that "many people are totally irrational on the issue, so hold off for a while until people become more rational." LaRouche added: "If Gore is for it, that is good enough reason to avoid doing it."

The same day, the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) reported that plans by China and India to produce biofuels could worsen already serious water shortages, and threaten food production. "China and India, the world's two largest producers and consumers of many agricultural commodities, already face severe water limitations in agricultural production," the IWMI report states. "Domestic production of biofuels derived from crops will put greater stress on these countries' water supplies, seriously undermining their ability to meet future food and feed demands." The IWMI is based in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

China is reportedly planning to increase biofuel output to 15 billion liters by 2020, and would have to increase maize output by 26% to do that. India's has similar planned targets, which would mean 16% increased raising of sugarcane. Irrigation requirements for both these crops would hit water supplies hard. The IWMI report says that it takes 2,400 liters of irrigation water to produce one liter of ethanol from Chinese maize, and in India, it is worse: 3,500 liters of water are needed to produce one liter of ethanol. Brazil, which grows rain-fed sugar cane, uses 90 liter of irrigation water to produce a liter of ethanol. This translates into an extra 20 gallons of irrigation water per person per day in China, and an extra 18.5 gallons per day in India, beyond what is needed for food.

Study lead author Charlotte de Fraiture, put out a statement saying that "Crop production for biofuels in China and India would likely jeopardize sustainable water use and thus affect irrigated production of food crops, including cereals and vegetables, which would then need to be imported in larger quantities. Are these countries, particularly India, which has devoted so much effort to achieving food security, adequately considering the trade-offs involved, especially the prospect of importing food to free up sufficient water and land for production of biofuel crops?"

Earlier this week, according to AP, the U.S. National Research Council issued a report saying that ethanol crops could threaten water supplies in the United States.

 

 

Gore's 'Alarmist Global Warming Lies Melt Under Scientific Scrutiny'

 

July 1, 2007 (LPAC)--That is the headline on a damaging article in the June 30 Chicago Sun Times, by James M. Taylor, who takes Al Gore to task for lying throughout his "Inconvenient" video. After calling on Gore to follow his own advice that "reasons" and "science" be brought to bear on the climate debate, Taylor documents a string of Gore lies and their scientific refutation:

* "Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking" due to global warming. False, says the Sept. 2006 issue of the American Metereological Society's Journal of Climate.

* "Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking." Not true, says the Nov. 23, 2003 issue of Nature magazine.

* "Gore claims global warming is causing tornadoes." False, says the IPCC in Feb. 2007.

* "Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes." No, say hurricane experts Chris Landsea and William Gray, and the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters.

* African deserts are expanding. No they are not, says the Sept. 16, 2002 issue of New Scientist.

* Greenland is in rapid meltdown. Nope, says the Journal of Glaciology.

* "Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming." No, says the Jan. 14, 2002 issue of Nature magazine, Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades.

Nice try, Al.

 

 

Russian Minister Speaks the Truth; Don't "Panic" Over Global Warming

 

July 12, 2007 (LPAC)--Interfax reports in a July 2, 2007 story, that Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Yakovenko told a session of the U.N. agency ECOSOS in Geneva:

"A new global agreement on joint action may be drafted under the United Nations' aegis before the end of 2009 with the participation of not only developed countries but also key emitters of greenhouse gases in developing states."

"...We believe that there is no reason to submit to panic and to apocalyptic scenarios of the effects of climate change. We see such changes in a long-term context that rules out emergency measures and tight restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases that would run against the interests of economic growth and development," Yakovenko said.

"The shaping of responsible long-term approaches to climate change should not amount to hasty selective actions that may ultimately inflict much greater damage on the economy and environment than the national cataclysms that are forecast."

 

 

Man-Caused-Global-Warming Is Not Science, "Almost a Religion," Says Father of Scientific Climatology

 

June 18 (LPAC)--The man known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey. Reid Bryson, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor emeritus, says, "There is no credible evidence that it [the Earth's warming] 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. The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down, so it is getting warmer, he said.

In a interview published in the June 18 Capital Times of Madison, Bryson said that humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny.

"It's like there is an elephant charging in, and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

The so-called consensus in the scientific community that global warming is man-caused proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."

Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since, without pay.

Why are thousands of scientists promoting global warming? "There is a lot of money to be made in this," Bryson said. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, `Oh, global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'" Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted.

"There is very little truth to what is being said, and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion, where you have to believe in anthropogenic global warming or else you are nuts."

Bryson didn't see Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."

 

 

A British Flagellant Attacks LaRouche on Global Warming

by Laurence Hecht Editor-in-Chief, 21st Century Science & Technology

17 June, 2007

 

Counterpunch's Alexander Cockburn makes a useful point in his rebuttal to Guardian science scribbler George Monbiot's continued hysterical rants against 21st Century Science & Technology (the magazine associated with U.S. economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche), by noting that "peer review" is hardly the definition of science.

But a deeper matter, touching on the historical failures of British science and intelligence capabilities, underlies the controversy. The re-creation of a cult of medieval self-flagellants in the form of the modern-day Green movement goes to the heart of the problem.

Monbiot, who had earlier hounded a British botanist and TV science personality into silence for his mere mention of a 21st Century Science news item, committed the tactical error of bringing long-time anti-LaRouche figure Alexander Cockburn into his circle of those found guilty by association. Cockburn, who has joined with other leading British intelligence-connected figures in exposing the hoax of global warming, struck back in a series of commentaries in his American political newsletter.

Cockburn notes that Monbiot, whose best argument against global warming critics, such as Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, is that they have published in non-peer reviewed magazines, would have condemned Albert Einstein to the same fate.

A 1936 controversy with the editors of the Physical Review caused Einstein to cease publication in that journal forever after. The controversy arose when Einstein discovered that a paper he had co-authored with Nathan Rosen, questioning the existence of gravitational waves, had been sent to an anonymous referee for peer review. In a letter to the American science journal, Einstein wrote:

"We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed. I see no reason to address the, in any case erroneous, comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere."

Einstein had been accustomed to publishing in the journal Zeitschrift fur Physik, whose editor, the genius Max Planck, served as his own review board. Planck's philosophy was to "shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions than that of having been too gentle in evaluating them," as documented in an article in Physics Today, and cited by Cockburn.

In truth, the peer review process, much less than a century old, has nothing to do with the determination of real scientific truth. What must be added to Cockburn's treatment, to make sense of the apparent insanity, is the following.

The spread of "peer review" coincides with the intentional destruction of science, which has been accomplished by the imposition of a cult of information theory and Cartesian-Newtonian statistical hoaxes in place of the process of creative inquiry.

The essence of that matter, in modern times, derives from the intention, by forces associated with the former British Empire and Anglo-Dutch financial interests, to prevent the hegemony of Abraham Lincoln and Henry Carey's "American System" of political economy over the British East India Company's Haileybury school and its hirelings Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus. Following the death of Franklin Roosevelt, the top item on their strategic agenda was to crush what remained of Roosevelt's openly stated intention to put an end to the colonial system forever.

A crucial feature of that nasty scheme was the control of nuclear science. Bertrand Russell's 1948 proposal for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, was supplanted, following the Soviet's demonstration of a nuclear armed capability, with a revival of the world government program of H.G. Wells. For strategic purposes, it remained necessary to tolerate a certain degree of fundamental scientific inquiry, to be confined as much as possible to the defense sector--as the British attempted in the Aldermaston system. Once a mutual commitment to arms limitation had been achieved through the Pugwash process, it became possible, by approximately 1963, to begin a more thorough assault on scientific progress.

The control of science itself by "peer review," a method of mind control borrowed from the Venetian repertoire, and the unleashing of an anti-science cult among youth were the means selected. This appeared first in the form of Bertrand Russell's Ban the Bomb movement. It was soon followed by the mass environmental hysteria, which surfaced at the April 22, 1970 Earth Day celebrations from ground that had been amply seeded by Aldous Huxley and Gregory Bateson's mass drugging project.

That identifies the modern features of the process.

The deeper aspect of the anti-science commitment of the Anglo-Dutch faction goes to questions that can be mentioned here for purposes of identification only. The essence of the matter was the decision by elements of the then newly formed Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy to promote the fraud of Isaac Newton in an attempt to destroy both Leibniz himself, and the tradition he represented, in the disgusting Commercium Epistolicum affair. To end the threat of the succession of a Leibniz-influenced Princess Sophie, in the event of the early death of Queen Anne, the faction of Winston Churchill's progenitor Lord Marlborough, also known as the "Venetian Party," launched a defamation campaign against Gottfried Leibniz that has few equals even in modern times.

However, in thus successfully destroying real science in England, the Venetian Party laid the basis for its own monumental defeat. The German classical renaissance, which built upon the revival of Leibniz by such figures as Gotthold Lessing and Moses Mendelssohn and led to the revolution in German science marked by such high points as Carl Friedrich Gauss and Bernhard Riemann, was their first come-uppance. The American Revolution was the second, and still persisting, fruit of that strategic miscalculation.

British methods of cultural manipulation and intelligence warfare--more properly, Venetian methods--succeed more often than not. When they fail, the failure tends to be catastrophic, as the present unraveling surrounding Britain’s BAE/Prince Bandar scandal portends, to those trained in the ability to read, and act upon, such situations.

 

 

Sea Level Funding Rising--Not Sea Levels

 

June 6, 2007 (LPAC)--Sea level is not at all in a generally rising mode over the globe, Swedish expert Dr. Nils-Axel Morner told Executive Intelligence Review in an exclusive interview today.

It is certainly not rising in the Maldives, Tuvalu, or Vanuatu--all notorious sites where computer models predict flooding. Even the satellite altimetry shows no sea level rise. Morner said that most scientists know these facts and are silent about it for fear of losing funding.

Dr. Morner is head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics program at Stockholm University, and served as an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001 and 2007). He has made first-hand investigations of most of the sites in question. True field observations must have a higher credibility than computer models and wishes, he said.

Dr. Morner explained the truth about the island nation of Tuvalu, which the global warmers say is going to be flooded in the next 30 years because of the encroachment of sea water in the island's water supply. This encroachment of sea water was caused by a Japanese pineapple company which drew down a massive amount of freshwater without making any arrangement to replace the water In the meantime, sea water filled the void. Then the United Nations and the IPCC told the Leaders of the Island that is was not bad water management, but sea level rise caused by global warming that had caused the problem.

Dr. Morner said that of the 22 authors of the sea level chapter in the latest IPCC report, not one of them was a sea level expert. The three leading authors of the chapter were from Austria, a landlocked nation without a coastline!

Morner charged that, as shown by the chapters of the report that deal with malaria and sea level, the IPCC appoints people whom they know will write only what they are told to write, and which fits the preset agenda.

 

 

The Bio-Fools: Indonesia Is Third-Worst Carbon Emitter--Because of Biofuel Production!

 

June 5, 2007 (LPAC)--The World Bank has made it official: Indonesia has now surpassed Russia and India, to become the third-greatest emitter of greenhouse gases, lagging behind only the United States and China. How did Indonesia achieve this distinction? In a manner proving yet again that those pushing bio-fuels, are indeed Bio-Fools.

Huge tracts of rainforest and peatlands in Indonesia have been cleared to plant oil palm, aimed at fulfilling the rapacious markets in Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere, for bio-fuels from oil palm, all supposedly to reduce carbon emissions. In the process, cutting down rainforests, and especially burning the carbon-dense peat, have increased the CO2 emmissions several-fold in Indonesia, giving the world a massive net gain in greenhouse gases.

And, in the process, huge clouds of REAL pollutants from the smoke have annually spread across Indonesia and Malaysia, causing severe health problems.

Chicken Little couldn't have handled it better.

 

 

Climate Mafia Charged with McCarthyism

 

May 31, 2007 (LPAC)--British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, who was featured in the British Channel 4 documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," published a letter to the editor in the London Times Higher Education Supplement for May 25. Corbyn was writing in response to an earlier article by former Royal Society media spokesman Bob Ward, who had warned universities to beware of "fame-seeking climate denialists."

Piers Corbyn replied that the global warmers would rather not face the inconvenient truth that solar cycles determine climate. They associate questioners of their creed "lurking" in universities with "holocaust denial." They intimidate scientists into silence through fear of attack, of loss of funding, or of "Nuremberg-style climate courts."

Corbyn writes that these attacks on climate sceptics are McCarthyism, and that the attackers have adopted measures that were used earlier by Hitler and Stalin.

Piers Corbyn gave Executive Intelligence Review an exclusive interview featured in the current issue.

See: Interview

 

 

IPCC Expert Says Climate Models Are Just Computer Games

 

May 30, 2007 (LPAC)--Climate models are nothing more than computer games, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told EIR News Service today.

The problem with the climate computer models, the scientist said, is that they are based on a bottom-up approach as opposed to a top-down approach. Think of a cat stalking a bird, the climate expert said. You see the cat tense, and creep towards the bird. Now picture only the bird's nervous system, and with that information, try to model the cat stalking. That is the equivalent of a global climate model.

The expert also commented on how information-age thinking has negatively affected science writing. He noted that when he was in school you were taught to use a slide rule, and in using a slide rule you had to have an idea of what the result would be. Nowadays people just grab an algorithm off the shelf and use it, without any thought about what kind of result they will get. He pointed to the trend in articles in leading peer-reviewed journals such as Science and Nature, which use numerical values out to several decimal places, most of which are wrong.

The scientist ended by asking the following scientific question: In the past two and-a-half billion years of the Earth's oxygen atmosphere, there have been only two climate states--one glacial and the other interglacial. In that time, the Sun's output has increased by 30 percent, yet the temperature has only increased and decreased only a small amount over the period. So how can a mere 0.4 percent of man-made CO2 now be catastrophic?

Think about that the next time you hear Al Gore talk about global warming, or you read the next big climate change scare story.

 

 

If the Globe Is Warming, Why Aren't the Alps Melting?

 

May 18 (EIRNS)--Posing a serious question to the promoters of unscientific dogma of global warming, Centre Nacionale de la Researche Scientifque (CNRS) researchers, in the Journal of Geophysical Research, pointed out that at altitude as high as 4,200 meters (about 13,750 ft) the small ice caps of Mont Blanc and Dome du Gauter are not melting. Citing the records, the researchers say at this altitude in the Alps, the accumulation of snow and ice has varied very little since the beginning of the 20th century.

Adding more puzzles to the phenomena that the researchers have observed in the Alps, and which contradict the views of the global warming flag wavers, they note that the Alpine glaciers, which are mainly at an altitude between 2000 and 4000 meters, shrank considerably during the 20th century and particularly during the past twenty years, losing an average of 1 to 1.5 kilometers in length. However, the situation is different above 4200 meters. In order to study these mass balance fluctuations, the research team measured the rate of accumulation of snow on the Dome du Gouter since 1993, and the thickness and flow rate of the glacier.

At the altitude of the Dome du Gouter (4300 m) or the summit of Mont Blanc (4810 m), all precipitation is solid, falling as snow. The ice fields melt very little, and only in extreme conditions such as the 2003 heat-wave. Variations in the mass of glaciers only depend on the accumulation of snow and the downward flow of the glacier, as the ice is deformed under its own weight. Based on this data, the glaciologists have shown that at these very high altitudes, the ice mass balance has remained almost constant over the last 100 years.

 

 

Climate Change Converts Deal Another Blow To "Consensus"

 

May 17 (EIRNS) -- Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Republican James Inhofe (R-OK) wrote in his committee website that the climate momentum is shifting as prominent scientists are going public with the reversal of their belief in man-made global warming. Most of the scientists that Senator Inhofe highlights say they changed their minds on global warming after reviewing the real research that has been done on the climate, as opposed to the fraudulent climate models which the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) promotes as scientific research.

Senator Inhofe's list of scientists who have changed their minds on global warming includes several who were Expert Reviewers of the IPCC reports in the past, like Tad Murty, who until two years ago was a firm believer in the global warming hoax.

The list also includes colorful scientists like the U.K. botanist and environmental campaigner David Bellamy, who has called the fears of global warming pure poppycock. Bellamy has been attacked not for doubting the consensus of man made global warming, but because he quoted from an article in the 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine (associated with Lyndon LaRouche) written by Laurence Hecht, on how the Greenland ice sheet and the glaciers are actually growing.

The Minority Office for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said that a much larger report listing more of the converts from the man made global warming hoax and other well known skeptics is due out the first week in June.

 

 

MIT's Climatologist, Richard Lindzen, Attacks Al Gore

 

May 11 (EIRNS)-In an op-ed in today's issue of Germany's Koelner Stadtanzeiger news daily, Richard Lindzen wrote under the headline, "A Warmer World is Not a Catastrophe," that too many questions still remain unanswered, scientifically, to allow any conclusions and hysteria of the kind that Al Gore is propagating. The US Hurricane Center, the World Climatologist Organization, even the IPCC itself concede that in a warmer world, weather extremes outside the tropical region would decrease, not increase. And, there are mysteries like the fact that the world temperature average should have shown an increase by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, but instead only rose by 0.6 degrees.

Climate-activism has caused drastic consequences, like the enraged protests against the price increase for tortillas in Mexico, the large-scale deforestation in Asia, and the danger of new corruption created by the emissions trade, Lindzen wrote.

Lindzen even quotes the late Richard Revelle, one of the climatologists who once inspired Gore, as once saying: evidence of global warming does not justify drastic measures so far, unless they were justified by reasons having nothing to do with the climate issue. "This is politics, not science," Lindzen writes.

 

 

Schiller Institute Issues Open Letter to the Governments and Parliaments of the World in Opposition to the Global Warming Hoax

 

May 7 (EIRNS)--The Schiller Institute, whose Chairwoman is Helga Zepp-LaRouche, has launched an international campaign to unite the opponents of the Global Warming Hoax into an effective opposition. To this end, the Schiller Institute is soliciting signatures in support of the following Open Letter to Governments and Parliaments:

Open Letter to the Governments and Parliaments of the World

We, the undersigned, demand that the governments and parliaments of the world immediately stop the spreading of hysteria about alleged Climate Change.

Since the appearance of the unscientific film of hedge-fund manager, Al Gore, and the 4th IPCC Report, an outright campaign of indoctrination of populations and legislators has been underway, up to the point of "reeducation campaigns" in the schools in some countries. Contrary to the massive propaganda, the scientific basis of the hypothesis of man-made climate change has not been established, and the media depiction of a "scientific consensus" is dangerously misleading to the population.

This theory is being spread world-wide by a small group of questionable political institutions like the IPCC, with the help of massive financial backing. A precedent for the resistance of established scientists is the Petition Project of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine against the damaging effects of the Kyoto Protocol, which has been underway since 1998 and has been signed by 17,200 natural scientists so far.

Existential challenges of the 21st Century, like the threatening scarcity of energy and water in a world with a growing population, will force drastic increases of energy generation, which can only be ensured through scientific and technological progress.

Measures to save energy and increase efficiency disregard not only this fact, but also neglect the fact that the portion which can be saved from private households is minimal compared to industry and commercial traffic.

In the face of the already endangered energy supply due to lack of investment in nuclear power generation, the proposed reduction of CO2 emissions would irrevocably disrupt worldwide economic development.

The most tragic and perfidious aspect of the political and economic measures currently demanded in industrialized nations, is the pretense of acting in the interest of future generations and nations in the developing sector. It is precisely the latter which are most adversely affected by the anti-industrial policies of "Climate Protection." As the Organization of African Unity, the Group of 77 at the United Nations, and the Non-Aligned Movement have warned, an internationally enforced reduction of CO2 emissions would in reality mean a prevention of industrial, and thus social development, and therefore promote genocide on a world scale.

Against the background of a deep social and economic crisis, it is utterly irresponsible not only to be promoting an unproven hypothesis as truth, but above all to be spreading a dangerous existentialist and anti-humanist image of man. As Martin Durkin, the director of the documentary, {The Great Global Warming Swindle}, aired on Britain's Channel 4, confirmed in an interview on March 14th, and as historical documentation proves, the historical roots of this so-called environmental movement are very much related to those of fascism and the eugenics movement at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Therefore, we hereby call on the governments and parliaments of the world to allow an open debate of this subject, immediately outlaw all programs of "re-education" in schools using Al Gore's propaganda movie, and under no circumstances to allow the passage of legislation based on such a questionable and obviously politicized theory.

 

 

First Full U.S. Television Strike Against Gore's Global Warming Fraud

 

May 3 (EIRNS)--CNN's "Glenn Beck" program ran an hour-long special on May 2, attacking the hype and the pure fraud of the scientific consensus around the issue of global warming.

The special was entitled "Exposed: Climate of Fear". The special interviewed some of the climate researchers that were part of the British Channel 4 documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

The special clearly showed the point that there is no consensus of the scientific community on manmade global warming, and that most of the warming that has happened has been due to natural causes like solar activity.

The program highlighted Roy Spencer, a former scientist for NASA, saying, "The global warming crowd talks of a consensus but never mentions the Oregon Petition that has been signed by 17,000 professionals and scientists, who do not agree with the idea that we are causing climate change."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was exposed as a political body by the program. The whole IPCC process was shown to be a controlled political process with a scientific "window dressing."

The program highlighted Patrick Moore, the former Greenpeace founder saying, "You've got Greenpeace and other major environmental groups saying that the civilization and the environment are going to be destroyed by global warming, catastrophe, chaos, and these scary words; and yet they are unwilling to adopt nuclear energy."

Moore was also asked about the risks that surround nuclear power and he said," I don't think there is much risk in nuclear power myself. There are 103 plants operating everyday in the United States, and no one has ever been injured by them."

 

 

China, India, Brazil Act In Concert to Derail IPCC "Hoax #3"

 

May 2 (LPAC)--It is the rich nations--like the U.S. and Europe--that are mainly responsible for so-called global warming, charged China, India, Brazil-- three large developing nations--in a move that has blocked up the week-long session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN's leading authority on global warming at Bangkok, Thailand, AFP reported today. IPCC is holding this meeting to issue report #3 in a four-part series. The first two reports have already been challenged by scientists, governments, and organizations, as LPAC has been reporting in its regular coverage of the Al Gore/climate change hoax.

More than 1,500 objections have been raised by the developing nations scientists and technologists against the 24-page document submitted by the IPCC for discussion. The three nations' insistence since the talks started on April 30 that the developed world recognize their dominant role in climate change, has stolen precious time meant for debate on how best to tackle global warming, the IPCC said.

But the objections have not gone down well with the Europeans pushing the IPCC document. "This is not the point of this meeting. We are meant to be looking to the future," the European delegate who did not want to be named, told AFP. Another European delegate told Reuters that China was demanding measures that were in breach of IPCC procedures. The delegate referred to Chinese insistence on the inclusion of figures favorable to developing countries, and the omission of references made to progress on emissions reductions in the developed countries.

The real objective of the most of the developing nations, under the leadership of China, India and Brazil, to insist on these issues is to block any effort by the IPCC to hornswoggle them into a commitment of carrying out a policy which will endanger their food security and developmental plans, in general.

 

 

Scientists and Cardinal at Vatican Conference Dismantle Global Warming Paganism, Population Reduction

 

April 28 (EIRNS) - International scientists and religious leaders confronted promoters of Global Warming theories in a two-days conference in the Vatican, concluding that there is no evidence of man-induced climate change and that urgent priority for humanity is the development of the third world.

As reported by Zenit news agency, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council Justitia et Pax, the event organizer, chaired the meeting, focusing on the new paganism and on depopulation policies hidden behind climate hysteria . In the concluding speech at the conference, Cardinal Martino said that "Man has an undisputable superiority within Creation and, in virtue of his being a person endowed with an immortal soul, cannot be equal to other living beings, nor considered a disturbing element to the naturalistic ecological balance.... The Social Doctrine of the Church," Martino said, "must deal with many current forms of idolatry of nature, which loose sight of Man. Such ecologies often emerge in the debate on demographic issue and the relationship among population, environment and development".

Martino recounted how at the 1994 Cairo World Population Conference, where he led the Vatican delegation, already he had to "oppose, together with many third world countries, the idea according to which population increase in the next decades would be such as to collapse natural balances and prevent the development of the planet." Such views have been defeated, Martino said, but "in the meantime, those same ones who pushed such views have promoted, as a means to prevent the supposed environmental catastrophe, all but natural instruments, such as the use of abortion and mass sterilization in high-birth rate poor countries".

"The Church", Martino concluded, "is confident in Man and in his ever new capacity of finding solutions to problems posed to him by history. Such capacities allow him to often reject the ever recurring, gloomy and unprobable catastrophic predictions".

During the debate, such catastrophic predictions pushed by, among others, British environment minister David Milliband, have been rejected by world-renowned scientists, who exposed the incompetence of both Milliband and the IPCC methodologies. Among these, Italian scientist Antonino Zichici, US scientist Craig Idso and Italian energy expert Claudio Rafanelli.

Craig Idso, in an interview with the daily Avvenire, explained that CO2, far from being a pollution agent, is a resource for development. "All this hysteria on anthropogenic causes of global warming has persuaded the collective imagination that CO2 is a polluter, or a synonym of pollution. This is simply absurd: our very life on earth depends on CO2, and it is thanks to CO2, combined with water, that plants grow. Therefore, an increase of CO2 is beneficial if we think of vegetation, or to the possibility of increasing agricultural productivity".

In a clear reference to Al Gore's role, Antonino Zichichi, chairman of the World Federation of Scientists, slammed the fact that "the [climate] discussion has not been conducted among scientists, but has been used in such a way that public opinion has the feeling that we are able to explain the climate of the past, the present and the future. Nothing is further away from the truth".

Condensing the spirit of the debate, Justitia et Pax secretary Msgr. Giampaolo Crepaldi said that the Church sees as its main concern "the development of poor countries," and therefore global warming cannot become a pretext to prevent third world development.

 

 

IPCC "Thought Police" Instruct World Journalists Against "Balanced" Coverage of Climate

 

April 18 (EIRNS)--A lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report told science journalists that "balanced" reporting "perpetuates the public's perception that scientists are in disarray, which is misleading in the case of climate change." Australian scientist Kevin Hennessy said further that the media attention on "the view of a handful of climate change skeptics" amplifies their opinions and "implies that there is little agreement about the basic facts of global warming," said this representative of the climate police.

Hennessy spoke April 18 at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Melbourne, Australia. Seconding him was Geoff Love, vice chairman of the IPCC Working Group II, who told journalists that emphasis on the skeptic view does not help public understanding of climate change.

The IPCC remarks were reported in the April 23 newsletter of the Science & Development Network.

 

 

"The Claims of the IPCC Are Dangerous Unscientific Nonsense" Says IPCC Expert

[source: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition press release]

 

April 10, Auckland, NZ (EIRNS)--"There is no scientific evidence for all these `projections' and `estimates,'" says Dr. Vincent Gray, the only New Zealander who has served as an expert reviewer for all the IPCC reports. "It should be obvious they are ridiculous."

"Global temperatures have not been rising for eight years. New Zealand temperatures in the last 50 years have gone down with volcanoes and up with El Niños but have no signs of `warming.' Christchurch has not warmed since 1917. The sea level in Auckland has been much the same since 1960."

Similarly, Paul Reiter, a medical entomologist who heads the Insects and Infectious Disease unit at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, says that scare stories about global warming spreading malaria are "complete bull."

Reiter quit the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calling its approach unscientific, but had to threaten a lawsuit to get his name taken off the IPCC reports. In an interview with EIR magazine April 6, Reiter lambastes the IPCC process as "bullshit," and ridicules Al Gore's phony film depiction of the malaria scare.

www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-14/pdf/52_714_scienv.pdf

 

 

Global Warming Not to Blame for Hurricanes, Says Top Forecaster

 

April 9, 22:00 (EIRNS)—"I think the whole human-induced greenhouse thing is a red herring," senior forecaster Dr. William Gray told the last session of the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans April 6, according to a report by Reuters news service.

Dr. Gray, professor emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, has been producing the Extended Range Forecast of Atlantic Seasonal Hurricane Activity for 22 years. Gray believes that natural changes in the ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, not man-made global warming, are the key driver of Atlantic hurricanes.

The April 3 forecast by Gray and his colleague Dr. Philip Klotzbach, indicates that the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season will be much more active than the average 1950-2000 season. They estimate that 2007 will have about 9 hurricanes (average is 5.9), 17 named storms (average is 9.6), 85 named storm days (average is 49.1), 40 hurricane days (average is 24.5), 5 intense (Category 3-4-5) hurricanes (average is 2.3) and 11 intense hurricane days (average is 5.0). "The probability of U.S. major hurricane landfall is estimated to be about 140 percent of the long-period average," according to their Extended Range Forecast.

"This early April forecast is based on a newly devised extended range statistical forecast procedure which utilizes 40 years of past global reanalysis data and is then tested on an additional 15 years of global reanalysis data. Analog predictors are also utilized. We have increased our forecast from our early December prediction due largely to the rapid dissipation of El Niño which has occurred over the past couple of months," write Drs. Gray and Klotzbach.

 

 

Lyndon LaRouche Denounces the Release of the IPCC Summary Report as an Attempt to Smuggle In a Pro-Green Fascist Globalization Dictatorship

 

April 6--After an all-night fight over the IPCC Working Group 2 Summary for Policymakers, during a conference call press conference from Brussels, the United States Representative to the IPCC Sharon Hays was so defensive over the Summary, that she didn't even want to say what was in the report, but only gave a quick outline. EIR asked Hays if the reports about China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia complaining the most about the Summary and the technical report represented a political fight and or a political move away from the policy of man-made climate change. To which Hays said defensively that the all-night fight was a normal part of the discussion process needed to approve the IPCC report.

[Source: IPCC phone briefing, EIR, April 6th, 2007]

 

 

Lord Monckton Renews Debate Challenge to Gore; Calls Environmentalism a New ‘National Socialism’

 

April 5, 10:55 EDT--Lord Monckton of Brenchley, member of the British House of Lords and leading opponent of the global warming hoax, renewed his challenge to debate Al Gore in an ad appearing in the New York Times today, following similar ads in the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post earlier this week. Lord Monckton told EIR News Service that he is emphatic on pursuing this debate challenge. He described modern environmentalism as a new national socialism and a messianic movement intent on destroying industry.

Monckton's first challenge to Gore was issued March 14 of this year, but remains unanswered. In November 2006, Monckton issued a 40-page research paper on the fraud of global warming, titled "Apocalypse Cancelled." He said there that the environmentalist's "precautionary principle" is killing people. He gave the example of the banning of DDT, noting that just this year, after 30 million people died of malaria, the World Health Organization has finally agreed to bring back DDT for indoor spraying.

Lord Monckton also calls for the United Kingdom to start building--not merely designing, or holding a ten-year planning inquiry about--12 nuclear power stations.

In 2005, the House of Lords started an inquiry into the science of global warming and the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and held hearings, taking statements from scientists against global warming, such as Dr. Paul Reiter and Richard Lindzen of MIT, as well as from global warming advocates.

EIR News Service is currently investigating what is behind the growing opposition to the Gore hoax from leading circles in Britain, Germany, and Denmark, as evidenced by the recent refutations of global warming in Germany's mass circulation daily Bildzeitung, similar coverage in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the March 8 airing of the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," on Britain's Channel 4-TV, and numerous publications in Denmark.