Global Warming Disaster? Or Propaganda?

Fungi, molds, bacteria, microbes, termites, worms, beetles and slugs produce about twenty times as much CO2 as we humans do, and have been doing so from time immemorial. The Earth has been able to cope with that amount just fine. There is, in fact, a well-developed and immensely old mechanism in place to keep this gas in check. http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9808a/carbonexchange.html

• http://www.orato.com/node/2160
• 
  Canada is awaiting beaches like this one.
  http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html
• Questions from Ric: Since present carbon dioxide in the air is about 387 parts per million and there is an annual increase of about 3%, how many years would it take before carbon dioxide is 1%, when humans start to get drowsy?
• What role does phylo-plankton have in carbon dioxide transfer in air, sea, rivers etc and is it more important in this respect than flora on land?
• During the time mammals have inhabited the earth, have CO2 levels been comparable or higher? Same question specifically for the period mankind has existed.
• What is the role of earthquakes on land or undersea in CO2 formation and how does it measure compared with present carbon dioxide formation by human activities?
• What is the role of sunspots, sun's radiation, other forms of incoming radiation and the magnetic area of the ionosphere on global warming? Also what are the effects of meteors on weather and global warming?.
• Is global warming (or cooling) the result of natural cyclic events?
• What are the effects of other gases such as sulphur dioxide have on global warming and are they more or less important?
• Since interacting effects might be so complex are there any studies encompassing these total questions?
• There are human communities living near volcanoes and might be breathing higher concentrations of gasses from these vents, so what are the effects on them healthwise? Also many high mountain communities are breathing air with less oxygen. Would human beings be adaptable to higher levels of CO2?
• Would not phylo-plankton and land flora just expand with more CO2 in the air, bringing it back to equilibrium?
• Without these questions being addressed, I cannot be sure that so-called global warming is a threat, though it might be. (Ric)

  Ocean plankton absorb less CO2

  Nutrient-stressed plant plankton had been mistaken as healthy The amount of carbon absorbed by plant plankton in large segments of the Pacific Ocean is much less than previously estimated, researchers say. US scientists said the tiny ocean plants were absorbing up to two billion tonnes less CO2 because their growth was being limited by a lack of iron. Iron deposits provide nutrients for the microbes, which in turn grow by absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The findings have been published in the science journal Nature. About 50 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide was estimated to be absorbed by the world's oceans, so the reduction could mean up to 4% less CO2 being sequestered than previously thought, the team of US researchers said. Phytoplankton (tiny plants) play a key role in the world's carbon cycle, as they are involved in about half the Earth's photosynthesis; along with zooplankton (tiny animals), they form the base of the whole ocean food web. Fluorescence fingerprint The paper's lead author Michael Behrenfeld, from Oregon State University, said that when stressed by a lack of iron, the phytoplankton created additional pigments that glowed green, unlike normal pigments. Dust storms deposit iron particles in the oceans But satellite imagery used to monitor the oceans' plankton blooms could not distinguish the difference, he said: "That green colour was not an indication of health, it was an indication of stress from the lack of iron." Professor Behrenfeld and his colleagues examined 12 years of data gathered from 36,000 miles (57,900 km) of ship tracks through the tropical Pacific Ocean. This allowed them to establish a "fluorescence fingerprint" of what parts of the ocean were experiencing iron stress, as well as areas suffering from a lack of nitrogen - another key element for ocean productivity. Professor Behrenfeld said: "Nitrogen and phosphorus are nutrients that come up from the ocean bottom to feed the upper water column. "Iron, on the other hand, can come from the deep, but it also enters the ocean through dust deposited by the wind. Windstorms blowing sand and dust off large deserts are a major source of iron for the world's oceans," he added. The researchers identified three large areas of the Pacific where phytoplankton appeared to be suffering from a lack of iron - the southern ocean around Antarctica, the sub-arctic north below Alaska, and a vast area in the tropical Pacific centred on the equator. Many questions Professor Peter Burkill, from the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK, said the study was a welcome contribution to the growing understanding of the oceans' role in the global carbon cycle. "We use oceanographic research vessels but they are very limited in their operational capabilities and are also very costly. "So we are turning to other techniques, such as satellite imagery. These are not perfect but they do have the advantage of allowing us to look at great swaths of the oceans," he added. "Studies such as this help to calibrate these models but there are many other questions out there that still need to be answered, such as how the oceans' physics work and what happens to the carbon that is drawn down." Professor Behrenfeld has also been involved in previous experiments in which iron was added to the ocean in an attempt to boost productivity. The studies showed that it did boost , but it did not deliver the results that models had predicted. Professor Behrenfeld said introducing iron was complex: "When you first do it, there is an explosion of growth. "Then you add a bit more iron, and the phytoplankton respond a bit more," he said. "But at the same time you are promoting plankton growth, the grazers that feed on them come to life because they suddenly have a more abundant food supply."

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

• Icebergs are mostly underwater.

With oncoming global warming will endangered arctic wildlife find new habitats in Antarctica? Will Polar bears thrive on a diet of penguins?(see polar bears on Squidoo)

	More Photos in the News

Uproar Over Grizzlies' Likely Loss of Endangered Status

Polar Bears Being Considered for U.S. Endangered ListPhotos: Grizzly Bears in National Geographic Magazine

• DNA analysis has confirmed that a bear shot in the Canadian Arctic is a half-polar bear, half-grizzly hybrid. While the two bear species have interbred in zoos, this is the first evidence of a wild polar bear-grizzly offspring.

Jim Martell (pictured at left), a 65-year-old hunter from Idaho, shot the bear April 16 on the southern tip of Banks Island (see Northwest Territories map), the CanWest News Service repor

• Ric Williams is an Australian born resident of Vancouver, Canada shivering in a Canadian summer and pining for the sunny beaches of Australia,
• Honestly I don't know much about global warming. Up here in Canada we are waiting for it with impatience. (It gets awful cold in Winter!!) We have heard that our northern ports open and free of ice, will make it easier to ship goods back and forth to Europe and Asia. I am thinking of planting a few coconut palms down at Wreck Beach, Vancouver. This might bring back a few of the tourists from U.S.A. who object to our dollar being on par with the U.S. dollar and the two hour waits at the border crossings (blame Homeland Security,)
• Anyway I am not sure of the facts. Please add your thoughts to this blog about the subject (or any other.) cwok66@hotmail.com
• Article from another website: Paladin's Page.*http://knightnblu.blogspot.com/
• The Global mean temperature of the Earth has not risen is TEN years
• Over THIRTY THOUSAND scientists are global warming deniers or if you prefer Ms. Siegel’s term, extremists.
• Computer models designed to simulate the effects of global warming have been proven to be off target by as much as 400%.
• Data presented in support of global warming (the now infamous ‘hockey stick data’) was flawed based on an incorrect algorithm (actually, it is suspected that the incorrect algorithm was intentionally done that way in order to distort the data) that has been used repeatedly by those who support global warming.
• The carbon reabsorption by plants is actually a larger buffer than previously thought and this part of the biomass is now taking in carbon at a much higher rate.
• Volcanism produces more greenhouse gas emissions than man when you get a Krakatoa or a Pinatubo scale eruption.
• NASA has said that man bears no responsibility for global warming given the fact that Mars has tracked with the Earth in the rise of the global mean temperature. This points to the sun as the ultimate cause of global warming despite researchers on the left stating that the sun has no role regarding the rise of the global mean temperature and argue that the Mars data should be ignored.
• Finally, if the weather man cannot tell you what the weather will be next month, what in the name of the nine hells makes you believe that he can tell you the temperature ten years from now?

Despite the fact that “global warming” stopped a decade ago, the left continues the crusade. Guess how many committees/research groups congress has investigating the issue, are you ready for it? The American House of Representatives has six bodies formed to fight global warming. If Congress is so well informed about the issue then how can they be so wrong about the facts? The truth is that they know the truth and that takes us back to the proclivities of the left. You know, that old stand-by of theirs, telling lies.

I have no doubt that the left knows all of the facts that I have given you in this article and I also know that they will lie whenever it is expedient to do so and they will not lose a moments sleep for doing so. Why do you think that the Hollywood elite and Al Gore speak in apocalyptic terms yet fly around the world on private jets adding to the danger? Why does Leonardo DiCaprio speak out against carbon emissions in the United States, but supports gas guzzlers in Japan by doing commercials for them? Why does Kassie Siegel make ad hominem attacks rather than state the truth? Because man’s responsibility for global warming is smoke and mirrors and it better suited to David Copperfield than to politics.

The left said to leave the forests natural an not the cut down the undergrowth and communities burned, the left said that DDT was a dangerous chemical and that it would kill us all and millions have perished in the third world, the left said that eugenics was a good idea and the ovens of the Third Reich were lit. Why does anybody even listen to these fools? They listen because these fools are highly skilled liars. When the Environmental Defense Fund was struggling and looking for a cause they found DDT and helped to ban a valuable and effective pesticide and in so doing brought about the deaths of millions from malaria. Did the left prove that DDT was dangerous? No. In fact, DDT was found to be safe in a court of law, but the fear inspired by their lies caused the permanent ban of the chemical. The left forged the research they cited, made dubious claims about cancers caused by DDT, and even said it was to protect the children. All of it was malarkey.

No one who produced, worked with, or was exposed to DDT ever contracted cancer caused by the chemical. In fact, an entomologist at a well known university in California would take out a bottle of the stuff and drink a tablespoon of it every semester just to prove that DDT was safe. Yet the Environmental Defense Fund perpetuated the hysteria that Rachel Carson began and filled their coffers while elevating them to prominence. It is truly amazing what you can accomplish with skillful lies and the attending useful idiots to tell them. But if the left has no use for the facts, then what value does science hold? None, unless we are speaking of pseudo-science that is designed to support the leftist agenda, but that would require scientists who are less than honest and the left has found them. Never underestimate the power of cold, hard cash or the greed of man.

This is why the left continually cites “science” as the argument ender. With regard to global warming, the left says that the science is settled, that there is consensus, and that any delay is simply dragging the feet when the world is at risk. Yet another tall one from the fine tale spinners of the left, how can the science be settled when over thirty thousand scientists disagree about man’s role in global warming? Doubtless that number is small due to the numbers of scientific personnel who remain silent in order to obtain tenure, keep their jobs, and to be taken seriously as professionals. The left can be dangerous to one’s career if you are on the wrong side of an issue as evidenced by the documentary “Expelled.” It would seem that the free expression of ideas and of speech only pertains to the left and their propaganda. While the left constantly screams about fascism and the right, their suppression of free thought and speech is the fascism that they have been screaming about.

The left will never give up global warming until they have run that dog into the ground. They are making too much money, wield enormous political influence, and have achieved too much prestige on the issue to let it go without a fight. But they can see that the end is coming because nature has run out of gas and stopped warming the planet. Eventually they will have to find another cause to rally behind and milk to death and toward that end they have found compact fluorescent bulbs. Good for global warming now and the 3 mg. of mercury each bulb carries will afford them the next major crises that will kill us all. All they have to do is to lie gloriously, continue the global warming panic, indoctrinate your kids at the public school, and keep your legislators on board long enough to get them into your home and then wait until millions of these bulbs show up at the landfills and contaminate the ground water. Presto! Another environmental catastrophe of epic proportions! (Paladin).

The so-called "Global Warming" would be part of a natural process, according to Ball.

We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification: Global Warming is NOT caused by human intervention.

Timothy Ball , Canada

Date Posted: 04/12/07

Reader Rating:

After a reported all-night session on April 5, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its second major report on Global Warming. Climate scientists and government policy administrators from more than 120 countries concluded that we've reached a point that is worse than previously thought. But Canadian climatologist Tim Ball, who wrote last year's article Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?, insists that Global Warming is a big lie and that he has accumulated enough scientific research to prove everybody wrong.

I said it once and I'll say it as many times as I need to until somebody listens: Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This, in fact, is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. We have created such a level of environmental hysteria that reason, rationality and facts are being thrown out the window.

In the last year, I've seen documentaries, read hundreds of comments in forums and witnessed how scientists around the world try to find the way to stop the effects of Global Warming. The big problem is that all those people do not understand what's really going on. It's all part of a natural process. In fact, since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

Considering the scientific evidence that is available, the latest report on Global Warming by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change appears to be nothing other than a big lie. They have no real evidence to prove what they are saying. read on via the website:

http://www.orato.com/node/2160 http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html