Top Japanese Scientists:Warming Not Caused By Human Activity

DriftingByTheStorm

What do any of our resident "science" experts have to opine over this one?
:?:

Top Japanese Scientists: Warming Is Not Caused By Human ActivitySteve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, Feb 27th, 2009



A major scientific report by leading Japanese academics concludes that global warming is not man-made and that the overall warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century onwards has now stopped.

Unsurprisingly the report, which was released last month, has been completely ignored by the Western corporate media.

The report was undertaken by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER), the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields.

The JSER acts as a government advisory panel, much like the International Panel on Climate Change did for the UN.

The JSER’s findings provide a stark contrast to the IPCC’s, however, with only one out of five top researchers agreeing with the claim that recent warming has been accelerated by man-made carbon emissions.

The government commissioned report criticizes computer climate modeling and also says that the US ground temperature data set, used to back up the man-made warming claims, is too myopic.

In the last month, no major Western media outlet has covered the report, which prompted British based sci-tech website The Register to commission a translation of the document.

Section one highlights the fact that Global Warming has ceased, noting that since 2001, the increase in global temperatures has halted, despite a continuing increase in CO2 emissions.

The report then states that the recent warming the planet has experienced is primarily a recovery from the so called "Little Ice Age" that occurred from around 1400 through to 1800, and is part of a natural cycle.

The researchers also conclude that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity, a notion previously dismissed by the IPCC.

"The hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken." the report’s introduction states.

Kanya Kusano, Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC) reiterates this point:

"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,"

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, cites historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:

"We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "

"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken." Akasofu concludes.

The key passages of the translated report can be found here.

The conclusions within the report dovetail with those of hundreds of Western scientists, who have been derided and even compared with holocaust deniers for challenging the so called "consensus" on global warming.

The total lack of exposure that this major report has received is another example of how skewed coverage of climate change is toward one set of hypotheses.

This serves the agenda to deliberately whip up mass hysteria on behalf of governments who are all too eager to introduce draconian taxation and control measuresthat won’t do anything to combat any form of warming, whether you believe it to be natural or man-made.

DriftingByTheStorm

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
By Andrew Orlowski
The Register
Posted in Environment, 25th February 2009 12:23 GMT

Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you'll find some of the key findings - but first, a summary.

Summary
Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.

Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:

"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:

"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "

Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.

"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."

Key Passages Translated

Shown As Quoted From Research Paper wrote:

What is the source of the rise in atmospheric temperature in the second half of the 20th century?
Shunichi Akasofu

[Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)

Introductory discussion.
Point 1.1: Global Warming has halted
Global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.

According to the IPCC panel, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to rise, so it is very likely that the hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken. There is no prediction of this halt in global warming in IPCC simulations. The halt of the increase in temperature, and slight downward trend is "something greater than the Greenhouse Effect," but it is in effect. What that "something" is, is natural variability.

From this author's research into natural (CO2 emissions unrelated to human activity) climate change over the past 1000 years, it can be asserted that the global temperature increase up to today is primarily recovery from the "Little Ice Age" earth experienced from 1400 through 1800 (i.e. global warming rate of change＝0.5℃/100).

The recovery in temperatures since follows a naturally variable 30-50 year cycle, (quasi-periodic variations), and in addition, this cycle has been positive since 1975, and peaked in the year 2000. This quasi-periodic cycle has passed its peak and has begun to turn negative.

(The IPCC ascribes the positive change since 1975, for the most part, to CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect.) This quasi-periodic cycle fluctuates 0.1 degrees C per 10 years, short term (on the order of 50 years). This quasi-periodic cycle's amplitude is extremely pronounced in the Arctic Circle , so it is easy to understand. The previous quasi-periodic cycle was positive from 1910 to 1940 and negative from 1940 to 1975 (despite CO2 emissions rapid increase after 1946).

Regardless of whether or not the IPCC has sufficiently researched natural variations, they claim that CO2 has increased particularly since 1975. Consequently, after 2000, although it should have continued to rise, atmospheric temperature stabilised completely (despite CO2 emissions continuing to increase). Since 1975 the chances of increase in natural variability (mainly quasiperiodic vibration) are high; moreover, the quasiperiodic vibration has turned negative. For that reason, in 2000 Global Warming stopped, after that, the negative cycle will probably continue.

Regarding the current temporary condition (la Nina) JPL observes a fluctuation of the quasiperiodic cycle [JSER editor's note: this book is is still being proofed as of 12/19]. So we should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis.

They should have verified this hypothesis by supercomputer, but before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for "truth". This truth is not observationally accurate testimony. This is sidestepping of global warming theory with quick and easy answers, so the opinion that a great disaster will really happen must be broken.

It seems that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity. Currently, the sun is "hibernating". The end of Sunspot Cycle 23 is already two years late: the cycle should have started in 2007, yet in January 2008 only one sunspot appeared in the sun's northern hemisphere, after that, they vanished completely (new sunspots have now begun to appear in the northern hemisphere). At the current time, it can clearly be seen there are no spots in the photosphere. Lately, solar winds are at their lowest levels in 50 years. Cycle 24 is overdue, and this is is worrisome.

So, have there been other historical periods with an absence of sunspots? As a matter of fact, from 1650 to 1700 approximately, there were almost no sunspots. This time period has been named for the renown English astronomer Maunder, and is called the Maunder Minimum.

There is a relationship between transported energy and the light emissions from the photosphere and sunspots. It was thought that times of few sunspots are times of lower energy. Satellites were launched in 1980 to research this, and results were contrary to expectations. It became clear that these times were more energetic than periods of high sunspots. Periods of low sunspots have vigorous solar activity. The total change during sunspot cycles is usually .0.1%, from the Maunder Minimum to today the increase is .05%. The Maunder Minimum fell in the middle of the period of 1400-1800, the Little Ice Age, and it was theorized that this was due to a cut in solar emissions. The theory is that solar activity began to increase after that, and from 1800 global warming increased and recovery from the Little Ice Age began.

But sunspot change and climate change are not clearly correlated. Rather, the cycle was not the punctual 11 years, scientific research indicates that climate change is related to that change. Furthermore, according to the IPCC's computational investigation, this energy increase does not significantly contribute to global warming. But then, the IPCC insists that current global warming correlates to CO2, solar influence is estimated as minimal, this calculation should be redone. This 0.1-0.5% is an enormous sum of energy. The energy of solar emissions is not just light from the photosphere. Solar winds cause geomagnetic storms, yet comparisons of solar wind and light energy to particle emissions are rarely carried out. Research into the relationship between geomagnetic storms and climate change has been undertaken for almost 100 years. However, because during this time, this simple correlation has not been seen, no conclusion has been reached. The super-hot temperatures of geomagnetic storms higher than 100 kilometers have increased, and the chances of the stratospheric and tropospheric transference are low.

Through the 11 year sunspot cycle, ultraviolet rays vary considerably, the ionosphere and ozone layer are affected. Whether or not this affects the troposphere is unknown. More research is necessary. On the other hand, cosmic rays continuously fall, it seems that they constantly seed comparatively low clouds. The solar system may shield us somewhat from Geomagnetic storms caused by solar winds, so called "magnetic clouds" may shield us from extrasolar cosmic rays, so solar activity and climate are in a complex relationship.

In this way, climate change and solar activity's relationship is inconclusive. It is necessary to increase research efforts into the relationship between Earth's climate fluctuations and solar activity.

Shown As Quoted From Research Paper wrote:

Predicting the Future with Numerical Simulation
Kanya Kusano, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC)

Numerical simulation by forecast models are generally classified as theoretical models and empirical models. The former follows universal laws and carries out predictive calculations, the latter makes models that are thought to be realistic from data of phenomenon. These two methods cannot be strictly differentiated, generally experiential methods gradually become theoretical methods, finally becoming the generally accepted dogma.

Celestial mechanics originated in astrological prediction of solar and lunar eclipses, calendars were experiential predictions; mechanistic theory evolved when we reached an era of accurate computation. Consequently, the predictability of celestial mechanics became extremely high and practical estimates gave way to proof. Similarly, modern Global Climate Models still largely dependent on empirical models. Fundamental principles, therefore must resolve very complex physical/chemical/biological processes and phenomenon. That is why many artificial optimization operations (parameterization tuning) are needed, or we will not be able to reproduce the phenomenon. Because of this, besides mathematical accuracy, the people who construct models' choice of processes and optimum operating guidelines will have large scale effects on the calculated results.

1. Scientific Understanding and Uncertainty
When constructing models, if our scientific understanding is poor, we are not able to capture the model. But we should pay attention to the importance of the naturally occurring processes when our scientific understanding is not yet clearly decided.

In the IPCC's 4th Evaluation Report, a few potentially major processes were discussed; but [since] scientific understanding was too low to decide, the evaluation of these was omitted. In order to scientifically understand the uncertainty of accurate estimates according to the potential importance of these processes, "the cause of lack of scientific understanding and uncertainty" must be assessed.

Finally, uncertainty estimates should be included. For example, the effect of variances in cosmic ray activity on clouds, caused by sunspot activity, solar flares accompanied by energetic protons striking the upper atmosphere and generating NOx and ozone effects [*], etc., are not sufficiently understood and incorporated into the models.

Also, there are great uncertainties in reproducing historical TSI (Total Solar Irradiance), TSI fluctuation and spectral change related climate sensitivity estimates are inadequate.

2. The limits of modeling aerosols and clouds
The indirect effect of aerosols and aerosol generation as the greatest uncertainty is becoming widely recognized, but fundamental, naturally spontaneous (especially oceanic) aerosols are not yet well understood. Dimethyl sulfide (DMS: CH3SCH3) of biological origin is thought to be a primary source of sulphuric aerosol formation over oceans, but the process of cloud cores forming from DMS is not sufficiently understood. According to recent physical models, the percentage of involvement of cosmic ray ionization processes is not well understood.

Furthermore, the types of aerosols and the ways they affect climate systems are not well understood. The increasing number of aerosols, in this case, augments precipitation, but if it increases too much, water droplet diameter will decrease and cloud generation will be renewed, and the albedo will be changed significantly. Thus, the fine-scale physical processes of clouds causing feedback in geological climate fluctuation now clearly points at this as a decisively material effect.

However, the discussion of the properties and life span of aerosols in clouds in the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report is inadequate.

3. Predictability and estimation rules
The 4th Evaluation Report is confident of the reliability of its assessment that previous data does not differ from its model. But a more effectively persuasive assessment of its predictive ability has not come forth. This is like the ancient Greek Thales predicting solar eclipses, future predictions should be tested in practice. Again, by means of short metaphase models and domain models, future information feedback can be isolated in hindcast experiments (reproducing the past according to the model) and quantitatively compared to long term climate predictions assessments.

4. Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical
To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability. ®

[Translation by Charles Eicher.]

NoK

..sounds a lot like when they said they hunt whales for scientific purposes.

You can check this out:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/26/m ... anel_warns

shadowcast

G- warming is such a crock. I love how there is a blizzard on their protest today in DC.

TheSeeker

earth changes are real. you can call it whatever you want, but we'll now have an open passage through the Antarctic in the summer months; bees and bats are dying; birds, whales and dolphins are having problems navigating; there is red rain falling from the sky; water is disappearing in Las Vegas, Atlanta, and L.A; the south hates the north; dogs and cats are living together-
We are in for some weird shit felow jammers. Its too bad that we all cant be nicer to each other.

evenflow

Aw man, you've done it now. Right now Al Gore is pinpointing your exact location so he can release ManBearPig on you. You're messing with his income, and in a time of such financial crisis, shame on you.

SundaySilence

The JSER is not a scientific organization, but it is more of an industry organization.

I don't read Japanese, but here are some comments from a climate scientist in Japan. Apparently it is not a report but just an email exchange.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/ ... thing.html

"The "report" is simply the collation of one of these popular-but-pointless sceptic-vs-scientist debates, and has no official status....Emori, who was the only climate scientist involved in the event and who tried to present the scientific case but was obviously rather outnumbered...Emori-san apart, the other 4 participants in the farce have no background in climate science...Fundamentally it's just a bit of random non-scientific quackery from the local sceptics..."
___

The article quotes "key" translated passages of this nonmajor nonreport, but it leaves out the rebuttals of the only climate scientist involved (Emori).

Commy

still trying to figure out the skeptics. what is their goal in all of this?


human beings are dirty. we pollute this planet. its time to stop doing that. the end.

VINNY GOOMBA

Commy wrote:

still trying to figure out the skeptics. what is their goal in all of this?


human beings are dirty. we pollute this planet. its time to stop doing that. the end.

True.

However, the skeptics are trying to avoid a global carbon tax on everyone that will rip even more money straight out of your wallet, and will do nothing to solve the problem.

There's nothing wrong with trying to make headway against pollution-- you just have to be wary of the most popular, and worst of all the proposed solutions: carbon taxes.

yoke

Commy wrote:

still trying to figure out the skeptics. what is their goal in all of this?


human beings are dirty. we pollute this planet. its time to stop doing that. the end.

true but nobody really cares..

Cosmo

The one thing you've got to remember about the Japanese... They invented the Hibatchi... but, still don't cook their fish.
...
I'm just sayin'...

LikeAnOcean

Does this mean I shouldn't feel ashamed when I fart?

SolarWorld

Japan likes to skull fuck whales and dolphins. I will look to other "authorities" on the effects of man on the earth. Give me a fucking break with this shit.

SolarWorld

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

However, the skeptics are trying to avoid a global carbon tax on everyone that will rip even more money straight out of your wallet, and will do nothing to solve the problem.

There's nothing wrong with trying to make headway against pollution-- you just have to be wary of the most popular, and worst of all the proposed solutions: carbon taxes.

Don't even start with that tax on your carbon footprint fantasy. Carbon Taxes are not for individuals they are for companies and industries that disregard the health of the planet and the people around them. Anyone that thinks otherwise is loonytoons.

VINNY GOOMBA

SolarWorld wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

However, the skeptics are trying to avoid a global carbon tax on everyone that will rip even more money straight out of your wallet, and will do nothing to solve the problem.

There's nothing wrong with trying to make headway against pollution-- you just have to be wary of the most popular, and worst of all the proposed solutions: carbon taxes.

Don't even start with that tax on your carbon footprint fantasy. Carbon Taxes are not for individuals they are for companies and industries that disregard the health of the planet and the people around them. Anyone that thinks otherwise is loonytoons.

Why is it so far fetched? What if owning an oil-fired furnace, or a gas-guzzling SUV meant having a carbon-footprint as an individual in the future? I'd rather not open the door to the possibility of this, seeing as how we are taxed for some ridiculous shit right now, and even more ridiculous shit is being considered. I live in NY, and there was serious talk of a heavy tax on soda, and other items as part of an 'obesity tax.' The fact that it was even being discussed is bullshit.

Even putting heavy taxes on businesses will screw us pretty hard. It's more overhead for the businesses, which means whatever products or services we buy from them will cost more, as they will have a higher bottomline. Converting over to green energy isn't going to make it any less costly, either. In fact, until the payback starts to kick in for going green (which takes years), we will be footing the bill for their improvements.

Speaking of Looney Toons, anyone who puts absolute faith and trust into heavier taxes being levied onto people or businesses by governments that can't control their spending, just might fit that description. After all isn't insanity doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result that will never come?

decides2dream

SundaySilence wrote:

The JSER is not a scientific organization, but it is more of an industry organization. I don't read Japanese, but here are some comments from a climate scientist in Japan. Apparently it is not a report but just an email exchange.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/ ... thing.html

"The "report" is simply the collation of one of these popular-but-pointless sceptic-vs-scientist debates, and has no official status....Emori, who was the only climate scientist involved in the event and who tried to present the scientific case but was obviously rather outnumbered...Emori-san apart, the other 4 participants in the farce have no background in climate science...Fundamentally it's just a bit of random non-scientific quackery from the local sceptics..."
___

The article quotes "key" translated passages of this nonmajor nonreport, but it leaves out the rebuttals of the only climate scientist involved (Emori).

VERY interesting....so not japanese scientists at ALL, nor an actual report...but more like...perhaps an organization with their own agenda? hmmmmmmm........

shadowcast

SolarWorld wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Don't even start with that tax on your carbon footprint fantasy. Carbon Taxes are not for individuals they are for companies and industries that disregard the health of the planet and the people around them. Anyone that thinks otherwise is loonytoons.

Wait until they start carbon tax BS on how far you drive to work. Also, I am still waiting for someone to showme the "offical" carbon footprint scale.

Go head....I am still waiiting.

DriftingByTheStorm

decides2dream wrote:

SundaySilence wrote:

The JSER is not a scientific organization, but it is more of an industry organization. I don't read Japanese, but here are some comments from a climate scientist in Japan. Apparently it is not a report but just an email exchange.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/ ... thing.html

"The "report" is simply the collation of one of these popular-but-pointless sceptic-vs-scientist debates, and has no official status....Emori, who was the only climate scientist involved in the event and who tried to present the scientific case but was obviously rather outnumbered...Emori-san apart, the other 4 participants in the farce have no background in climate science...Fundamentally it's just a bit of random non-scientific quackery from the local sceptics..."
___

The article quotes "key" translated passages of this nonmajor nonreport, but it leaves out the rebuttals of the only climate scientist involved (Emori).

VERY interesting....so not japanese scientists at ALL, nor an actual report...but more like...perhaps an organization with their own agenda? hmmmmmmm........

and the organizations pushing the anthropogenic global warming idea DON'T have an agenda they are pushing?

Maybe one like a carbon cap and trade system, or carbon taxes, or both?

No. No agenda pushing on the OTHER side, surely.
They just want what is best for humanity, of course.
:roll:

BinFrog

Commy wrote:

still trying to figure out the skeptics. what is their goal in all of this?


human beings are dirty. we pollute this planet. its time to stop doing that. the end.

That's my viewpoint too.

DriftingByTheStorm

BinFrog wrote:

Commy wrote:

still trying to figure out the skeptics. what is their goal in all of this?


human beings are dirty. we pollute this planet. its time to stop doing that. the end.

That's my viewpoint too.

You know this argument coming from "Team Earth" is really getting tired.
Its one thing to be pro-environment, its another thing to just be stupid.

No one (that i know, anyway) is denying that man has some pretty terrible habits of fucking up the environment for all life ... BUT THE SOLUTIONS TO THESE PROBLEMS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH CARBON TAXES OR TRADING.

When will the hippy-dippies, commies, animal lovers, and tree huggers wake up and smell the fucking coffee and figure out they are being LIED to.

So what if man is fucking up the environment,
how the fuck does carbon taxes and cap & trade solve that problem?

It's not ar CO2 problem that is going to fuck us, it's unmitigated resource consumption and destruction.
OF COURSE YOU DON'T HEAR THEM MAKING ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW TO STOP REAL POLUTION, or how to stop logging in the rain forest, or how to stop runoff from poluting major rivers, or how to stop clear cutting, or how to stop mountain top mining ... etc etc etc ...

nope,
you only hear ONE thing out of Team C02 ... CARBON TAXES and CAP & TRADE.

Well,
maybe then you can at least know the true cost of turning on your light bulb (so says Rothschild Co. VC),
even if it doesn't save shit.

:roll:

BinFrog

You're talking in circles man (as is always par for the course). You came here to "show" us that a (crackpot) team of Japanese industry-backed "scientists" said that global warming is not real and than there is some crazy conspiracy to keep the story out of the media. I call B.S., and now you've turned it into a how "Team CO2" is using it to raise our carbox taxes and drain our bank accounts even more.

I love how you use the roll-eyes emoticon like it's your job. Yes oh wise one, we're ALL just soooooo brainwashed and lack any sort of comprehension of what is really going on in the world.

DriftingByTheStorm

BinFrog wrote:

You're talking in circles man (as is always par for the course). You came here to "show" us that a (crackpot) team of Japanese industry-backed "scientists" said that global warming is not real and than there is some crazy conspiracy to keep the story out of the media. I call B.S., and now you've turned it into a how "Team CO2" is using it to raise our carbox taxes and drain our bank accounts even more.

I love how you use the roll-eyes emoticon like it's your job. Yes oh wise one, we're ALL just soooooo brainwashed and lack any sort of comprehension of what is really going on in the world.

How am i talking in circles, do you not see how the two ideas are related?

Someone is shoving the idea of "global warming" down your throat.
It is NOT proven, it may NOT be caused by man's C02 emissions,
and THE SOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REAL PROBLEMS OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION. Carbon credits and taxes will do NOTHING to solve the ALLEGED C02 problem. NOTHING. And that isn't even the real problem. The real problem is just outright resource and enviornment degredation. Your average old polluting industry, clear cutting loggers, and so forth.

"global warming" is ONE possible example of environmental destruction ...
one that isn't even proven, or probably even proveable any time soon ...

AND YET IT IS THE ONLY ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM THAT THE ELITE WANT TO FOCUS ON.

WHY?

Because it is one THEY STAND TO PROFIT IMMENSLY FROM.


LOOK AT THIS:
Rothschild: Carbon Trading Must Be Globally Regulated]
Oliver Rothschild Joins Carbon Advice Group as Chairman
Rothschild, E3 launch carbon credit investment fund

ITS BEING PUSHED BY THE BIGGEST BANKERS ON THE PLANET.

Rothschild, E3 Launch Carbon Credit Investment Fund wrote:

The investment bank said it was estimated that the global carbon trading market could be worth up to $150 billion by 2012.

$150 BILLION dollars.
Not exactly chump change.

AND ITS LARGE BANKS THAT ARE MAKING THAT MONEY.

Do your homework.

WHO is pushing for carbon taxes and credits?

Scientists, or the biggest, oldest, most powerfull, and most historicaly corrupt banking house in the world?

:roll: :roll: :roll:
triple rolls, just for you.

Talking in circles my ass.

VINNY GOOMBA

Until the government (or any government) learns to spend the people's money responsibly, new taxes are not a solution-- for global warming, or any problem. How about a solution that benefits the people, industry, and the environment, rather than taxes that go to huge government slush funds which later become horribly mis-spent?

Here's an idea, how about legalizing industrial hemp first, of which the oil from hemp seeds produce a much cleaner burning oil than any diesel? Why not allow for new industry to grow (literally), that will eventually replace dirtier fossil-fuels as part of the solution? As an added bonus, would we even have to deal with the Middle East anymore? If they wanted to buy some of our kick ass hemp oil from us, why not? There would no longer be this 'need' to occupy their countries, and we here in the U.S. would probably be a lot less hated, and could save tons of money by not operating bases over there.

Of course our actions impact the planet negatively as it stands, and we should have a MUCH greater respect for this planet in general. Why is it that the inital solution is always to throw money at the problem? Can't we ever entertain ideas that work for everybody first before placing it on the business / taxpayer?

polaris_x

global climate change is indeed man-made ... we've been thru this before - all you skeptics can either choose to educate yourself on the topic and focus on what it is that is really annoying y'all or continue to look like the same people who think the earth is flat ...

if it's a carbon tax you don't like - that's fine but these articles continue to get zero play because they are the same retread propoganda ploys put forth by industry ...

VINNY GOOMBA

polaris_x wrote:

global climate change is indeed man-made

polaris_x wrote:

if it's a carbon tax you don't like - that's fine but these articles continue to get zero play because they are the same retread propoganda ploys put forth by industry ...

I would think that climate change is in part, man made. We had an Ice Age however many thousand years ago, and man had nothing to do with that.

And yes, the carbon tax is my beef with it all. I'm all for a solution, just not that 'solution.'

polaris_x

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

global climate change is indeed man-made

polaris_x wrote:

if it's a carbon tax you don't like - that's fine but these articles continue to get zero play because they are the same retread propoganda ploys put forth by industry ...

I would think that climate change is in part, man made. We had an Ice Age however many thousand years ago, and man had nothing to do with that.

And yes, the carbon tax is my beef with it all. I'm all for a solution, just not that 'solution.'

uhhh ... yeah - and there were hurricanes before man was around - what exactly is the point?

the evidence was overwhelming 5 years ago and we're still talking about it just goes to show the power of the propoganda machine ...

VINNY GOOMBA

polaris_x wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

global climate change is indeed man-made

polaris_x wrote:

if it's a carbon tax you don't like - that's fine but these articles continue to get zero play because they are the same retread propoganda ploys put forth by industry ...

I would think that climate change is in part, man made. We had an Ice Age however many thousand years ago, and man had nothing to do with that.

And yes, the carbon tax is my beef with it all. I'm all for a solution, just not that 'solution.'

uhhh ... yeah - and there were hurricanes before man was around - what exactly is the point?

the evidence was overwhelming 5 years ago and we're still talking about it just goes to show the power of the propoganda machine ...

My point is that this planet obviously undergoes some serious radical changes in climate regardless of man's influence on the planet. Many scientists believe that humans wouldn't be able to breathe the air that the dinosaurs breathed, that the atmosphere was completely different then-- what changed it? Nature. Nature that is bigger, stronger, and more powerful than all of us, our 'carbon footprint' and those pesky bovine gases combined... So speaking of propaganda machines, who is to say that the current course that the planet is taking isn't 99% natural, and 1% influenced by human action?

I do believe our impact is greater than that, though.

Listen, I'm not your foe. I'm with you. What would propose as a solution to this problem other than a carbon tax. I want to see the whole planet treated with greater respect, but bear in mind "propaganda" comes from all angles.

VINNY GOOMBA

polaris_x wrote:

uhhh ... yeah - and there were hurricanes before man was around - what exactly is the point?

the evidence was overwhelming 5 years ago and we're still talking about it just goes to show the power of the propoganda machine ...

My point is that this planet obviously undergoes some serious radical changes in climate regardless of man's influence on the planet. Many scientists believe that humans wouldn't be able to breathe the air that the dinosaurs breathed, that the atmosphere was completely different then-- what changed it? Nature. Nature that is bigger, stronger, and more powerful than all of us, our 'carbon footprint' and those pesky bovine gases combined... So speaking of propaganda machines, who is to say that the current course that the planet is taking isn't 99% natural, and 1% influenced by human action?

I do believe our impact is greater than that, though.

Listen, I'm not your foe. I'm with you. What would you propose as a solution to this problem other than a carbon tax? I want to see the whole planet treated with greater respect, but bear in mind "propaganda" comes from all angles.[/quote]

polaris_x

"VINNY wrote:

My point is that this planet obviously undergoes some serious radical changes in climate regardless of man's influence on the planet. Many scientists believe that humans wouldn't be able to breathe the air that the dinosaurs breathed, that the atmosphere was completely different then-- what changed it? Nature. Nature that is bigger, stronger, and more powerful than all of us, our 'carbon footprint' and those pesky bovine gases combined... So speaking of propaganda machines, who is to say that the current course that the planet is taking isn't 99% natural, and 1% influenced by human action?

I do believe our impact is greater than that, though.

Listen, I'm not your foe. I'm with you. What would you propose as a solution to this problem other than a carbon tax? I want to see the whole planet treated with greater respect, but bear in mind "propaganda" comes from all angles.

Because there is scientific consensus on this matter - yes, the actual impact and the exact impact is difficult to measure ... what is frustrating is that we are still discussing these ridiculous articles that have only one audience and that is the people that are dead set on believing we are not causing this change ...

i'm not sure a carbon tax is the solution ... i do think it is part of the solution if we continue to operate on an unsustainable model ... the problem is that we measure the health of our economy on a metric that means doom for the environment ... our consumption regardless of climate change is far beyond what this planet can sustain ... sooo - while a carbon tax is a focus of irritance for most ... as an environmentalist - i can tell you that it is the not that significant in the grand scheme of things ...

we need to move to a model of existence that is sustainable for all - less consumption, more conservation, a different bottom line ...