About Me

Name:jayles1931
Location: Shoreline, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Death of the Environmental Dragon

The Death of the Environmental Dragon

 

It is time to stab this “global warming/climate change” dragon in the heart and cut off it’s head.  We must recognize this fraud for what it is.  It is an attempt, by socialists and the scraggly remains of the soviet communists in our government and in the powerful environmental lobby, in conjunction with the U. N., to control the entire economic system in our country.  It is patterned after Mussolini’s economic fascism; i.e. control production by rewarding certain segments of the population  for accomplishing socialist goals and punish those segments who oppose those goals.

In order to do this, beginning in the ‘80’s, it was necessary for the U. N. to create the pseudo-scientific Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control.  Their goal:  generate world panic by demonizing and blaming a minor trace gas in the atmosphere for disastrous global warming; Carbon Dioxide, CO2. They attempted to legitimize this by asserting that “a consensus” of scientists believed that CO2 increases in the atmosphere were causing catastrophic warming of the planet and consequent disasters, such as more and bigger hurricanes, glacier melting, etc.

This fraud appears to be successful. This propaganda effort was begun in the ‘80’s. and continues today.  A bill for government to take over our entire economic system was debated in the senate this week (6/6/08).  It was defeated.  It is a set up to tax us by using “carbon credits”.  The more carbon you use above your“allowance”, the more you get taxed.  If you use more than your “allowance” you get to buy “credits” from those who are “polluting” less so that you can continue “polluting”.  The bill failed this time.  But, it will come back when the new national administration, which will be more ‘friendly’ to fascism and more beholden to eco-theist environmental special interests, takes over next year.

THE PHYSICS OF THE DRAGON'S DEATH

There is no such thing as “consensus” in science.  Those who use this term are not scientists.  This is a political term.  When it’s used by politicians, hang on to your wallet.

There is no scientific or causal relationship between greenhouse atmospheres and global climate.  The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers.

 Climate models cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Fudge factors are used to try to duplicate water vapor, the largest and most climate- influential gas in the atmosphere, in these models.  “At best. the models may be regarded as a heuristic game”.*

The methodology used in climate models is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, simply stated: Heat can not be made to flow from a low temperature reservoir (stratosphere) to a warm temperature reservoir (atmosphere) without work input, as in a refrigerator, assuming the environmental system to be in radiative balance.

CO2 is not directly responsible for climate change or warming.  To the contrary.  It is the mother gas of planet flora survival and is required to sustain life on earth. Real greenhouses generate CO2 by burning natural gas in the greenhouses and/or injecting CO2 into the environment from liquid storage tanks in order to create the best environment for plant and crop growth.  The desireable level of CO2 in the greenhouses is between double and triple the current measured amount in our atmosphere.  CO2 levels up to 1000 parts per million (ppmv) by volume in the greenhouses are not uncommon.  The normal atmospheric content of CO2 is now about 380 ppmv.  If, on the other hand CO2 levels were to drop to, say, 150 ppmv, plant creation would cease and life on earth would cease to exist.

Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals.  It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other or ganic molecules of which living things are constructed.

Plants extract carbon from at mospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized.  Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist.

Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible.

They are surely not en vironmental pollutants.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Religious Environment

THE RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT

In a 2002 speech, author Michael Crichton spoke of “Environmentalism as a Religion”.  He could not have been more prophetic.

In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzy over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the religious upheaval at the latter end of the Tenth Century. Then, the doomsday theorists identified human sin as the main factor in the planet's rapid downward slide.  The Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a ‘line of credit’ against bad behavior and could go on ‘sinning’ against the environment.

This was “cap and trade", medieval version.

Now, as then, the global warming crowd thrives on fear and promotes a huge market of activity to assuage liberal guilt.

Today a world market in 'carbon credits' is in full swing. Those whose 'carbon footprint' is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less “virtuous” than themselves. 

 The modern trade is as devious as the medieval one. The greenhouse fear mongers rely on unverified climate models to finger mankind's sinful contribution. Carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed.  Take a look at the proliferation of government bureaus and business entities lining up at the global warming trough.

There is still zero definitive evidence that human production of carbon dioxide was contributing to the world's now static warming trend.  Actually, the scientific evidence showing CO2 has had little global warming effect is overwhelming.

Without this Carbon compound in our atmosphere, we all would die: plants, animals, humans.

Al Gore has made a hundred million dollars in the fraudulent Carbon Credit market. Last year, his documentary, “An inconvenient Truth”, was proven to be full of falsehoods and outright lies in a British Court.  
Tags: religion  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CONSENSUS NONSENSUS



Al Gore has stated that that there is no global warming controversy. He refers to the multitudes of the world's top scientists voicing extreme concern through the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. He cites a study of a random sample of 928 articles on global warming, none of which were found to express doubt. There is a consensus, he says.


In natural sciences one has to distinguish between:


 A LAW OF NATURE: A definitive scientific generalization based on a sufficiently large number of empirical observations that it is taken as fully verifed;


THEORY: A logical and consistent framework for describing from fundamental principles the behavior of certain natural phenomena;


HYPOTHESIS:  IT has not been proved or disproved, or found false in terms of natures true laws and/or by experiment;


A MODEL: a similar but weaker concept than a theory, describing only certain aspects of natural phenomena typically based on some simplified working hypothesis;


CONSENSUS: a consensus about a hypothesis is a notion which lies outside natural science, since it is completely irrelevant for objective truth of a physical law: Scientific consensus is scientific nonsense.  


Michael Crichton (best known for his novels but also a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a former postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies) warned his audience of the dangers of "consensus science" in a 2003 speech:


"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.


"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus."


"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »