Protesters disrupt Gore book-signing event in Chicago
Article: Truth Is Contagious

Justin Mangano, from Australia, was beaming after Al Gore signed his book Tuesday when his star-struck moment was interrupted by a protester being hauled out of the Borders bookstore in the Chicago Loop.

Gore was at the book store promoting the just released “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.” Fans were there to get his autograph and opponents came to challenge his message. Members of the group, We Are Change, were the most outspoken of Gore’s naysayers at the former vice president’s appearance at 150 N. State St. Gore’s security guards escorted the protesters from the store.

The We Are Change group contends that Gore’s message of global warming is a hoax, that he is a puppet of a new world order and that he is propagating a eugenics program.

The group claims it is “a citizens based grassroots peace and social justice movement working to reveal the truth behind the events of September 11th, as well as the lies of the government and corporate elite who remain suspect in this crime.”

“We need to wake up to this now, or it’s going to be too late. They want to tax the air we breathe and the meat we eat,” said activist Saad Ali, one of about 30 protesters at the event. ‘There are 30,000 scientists trying to sue this bum,” he screamed as he was escorted from the building.

But Gore’s fans weren’t interested in what the protesters were shouting.

Monika Hinterman, who got Gore to sign her book, said she was impressed that he was paying so much attention to climate change.

Gore’s fans weren’t interested in what the protesters were shouting because? Because they’re probably a bunch of mindless liberal drones who don’t care about facts, scientific evidence, and anything that proves that “global warming” is, in fact, a complete hoax. Just like “Barack Obama is BLAAAACK” is a lie. He’s so not. Of course Monika was impressed he’s paying so much attention to climate change. Teen fiction literature is one of today’s hot topics. He’s been busy writing these fictional books and making up fraudulent evidence… it takes a lot of work to fool this many people. Well, actually it doesn’t. It takes a lot of work to educate the libtards on the TRUTH.

“I think he’s trying to make people more aware of the issues that have gone unnoticed for too long,” Hinterman said.

Some who came to meet Gore at the book signing said that while they support free speech, the event was not the best place for a protest.

“If you have a point of view, put some facts and figures to it. Express yourself with support behind it,” said Sabolch Horvat, who carried a signed copy of the book under his arm.

Nicole Lynch bought the book to make up her mind about the science that the protesters questioned. She said she approves of his efforts to get people to take better care of the planet.

“I’m not saying he’s perfect, and I would call him out if I knew he screwed up,” Lynch said. “I’m not afraid to speak my mind.”

Well, Nicole; allow me to help you. Read my post on Al Gore and his fraudulent global warming scam HERE: An Inconvenient Al.

- BBC has found that we have not observed any increase in global temperatures for the last 11 years. Yes, that’s over ONE DECADE

- The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth’s oceans has significantly cooled since 2003

I’m sure most of you are familiar with these images that have been circulating the blogosphere:

First, let me point out that Al Gore has failed at proving that Global Warming exists. That’s like trying to prove that Santa exists. Sure, wouldn’t it be dandy? But facts are facts and fiction is fiction. So, what does a has-been politician do when his life’s work has been proven time and time again to be a fraud? Well, if this has-been politician is Al Gore; he resorts to Photoshopping “evidence”. I mean, Photoshop trumps science, right? Wrong. Sorry, Al. It doesn’t. Just like whining about pregnant chads doesn’t win an election. YES, we all remember your whiny ass complaining about pregnant chads and dimples on ballots.

In the images above you can clearly see that several massive hurricanes have been Photoshopped. It’s been proven that hurricanes are at a 30 year low. Here are some graphs I found at Watts Up With That:

Both Northern Hemisphere and South Hemisphere AND therefore overall Global hurricane activity has continued to sink to levels not seen since the 1970s. Even more astounding, when the Southern Hemisphere hurricane data is analyzed to create a global value, we see that Global Hurricane Energy has sunk to 30-year lows, at the least. Since hurricane intensity and detection data is problematic as one goes back in time, when reporting and observing practices were different than today, it is possible that we underestimated global hurricane energy during the 1970s.

Using a well-accepted metric called the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index or ACE for short (Bell and Chelliah 2006), which has been used by Klotzbach (2006) and Emanuel (2005) (PDI is analogous to ACE), and most recently by myself in Maue (2009) , simple analysis shows that 24-month running sums of global ACE or hurricane energy have plummeted to levels not seen in 30 years.

Why use 24-month running sums instead of simply yearly values? Since a primary driver of the Earth’s climate from year to year is the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) acts on time scales on the order of 2-7 years, and the fact that the bulk of the Southern Hemisphere hurricane season occurs from October – March, a reasonable interpretation of global hurricane activity requires a better metric than simply calendar year totals. The 24-month running sums is analogous to the idea of “what have you done for me lately”. During the past 6 months, extending back to October of 2008 when the Southern Hemisphere tropical season was gearing up, global ACE had crashed due to two consecutive years of well-below average Northern Hemisphere hurricane activity. To avoid confusion, I am not specifically addressing the North Atlantic, which was above normal in 2008 (in terms of ACE), but the hemisphere (and or globe) as a whole. The North Atlantic only represents a 1/10 to 1/8 of global hurricane energy output on average but deservedly so demands disproportionate media attention due to the devastating societal impacts of recent major hurricane landfalls.

Interesting, indeed. Visit Watts Up With That for more information. Unless you’re a liberal. From what I understand; you liberals aren’t all that interested in facts and information. But, it’s there if you ever decide to quit being morons.

If you look at the second image I posted; the one with the faux-hurricanes… you’ll notice that the Arctic has magically disappeared! Funny, since the Arctic ice is currently at the SAME levels as 1979. The good people at Daily Tech pointed this out.

(click to enlarge)

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Visit Daily Tech for more information.

Also, NASA points out that the average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth’s oceans has significantly cooled since 2003. CLICK FOR NASA ARTICLE

BBC has found that we have not observed any increase in global temperatures for the last 11 years. Yes, that’s over ONE DECADE. CLICK FOR BBC ARTICLE

So… tell me… Why does Florida appear to be dissolving in Al Gore’s lame Photoshopped images? What the hell happened to CUBA? Last time I checked; Cuba still exists. Also; look at the SIZE of those faux-hurricanes. Anyone who actually believes this Global Warming bullshit simply WANTS to. There is no other conclusion.

Here’s something fun:
Letting Al Gore know we aren’t falling for his junk science, Portland, Oregon 11/18/09

Wake up, people. He’s cashing in and making BILLIONS off of easily influenced MORONS.

Hackers Get The Upper Hand – Global Warming Really ‘Exposed’?

By: Simranjeet (Nate)

(Interested in more information? Visit http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam)

So as you can see, so far right off the get go of this post, you see the possibility already that Global Warming is a fake. Maybe this tiny fact isn’t enough, but is it enough to catch your attention to this post here? Maybe you have heard of Greenpeace and seen Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and your a green supporter!

I have something to challenge what you’ve been told about these “theories” by spokes men, and supposedly “Top Scientist”. I have something simple and straight forward about Global Warming, something that can save you much more then you think when you finally come to the conclusion that this balderdash information is wrong and something fishy is taking place globally.

1st off I would like to share a concern with you. Although I’m not an advocate of dirty energy I do support that everyone should have access to energy. If you have been a follower of this site you’ll see I’m in favor of alternative energies, but. Being that the places we’ve been taken by globalist control, there’s been a lot of suppression on alternative energies, that are more price effective and logical for individual home-residence usage.

But since those are not available for mass usage, we have to find a way to use these cheap effective energies in developing countries such as Africa, but I do not support waste dumping in areas not appropriate or cutting down of tree’s or anything of this.

More importantly then any though, is that Global Warming was not created because we we're running into a real problem, the cycles we have seen throughout hundreds of thousands of years shows that what we are dealing with is normal.

So what this really does is just create a scare that claims ‘humans are responsible’ for this damage of the world. By creating this global idea was just to create carbon taxes on you and everything you like and do. Thusly taxing the world, merging further into a one world government. But with such a lie exposed at great speed as this one, this is more damaging then any other front for their agenda. This blow, when it finally hits them will just show more of their fabricated misinformation and more and more people will resist further claims of Global Warming, Terrorist, Al Quaeda, Economic Reasoning or Swine Flu and it will all be tossed under the microscope by independent researchers, such as you, me and others every time they put a new piece on the chess board to challenge true motives of what might be.

Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails

(Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which expose deceit about Global Warming)

To catch you up, recently hackers got into the Climate Research Unit and spread information about government cover up of tests done to prove global warming was false and it was to be kept under wraps the exact emails that were either hacked or leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University we’re placed on the internet weeks after they we’re first sent to Paul Hudson, a weather presenter and climate correspondent for the BBC, notes on his blog “I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October,”.

(Visit Paul Hudson’s Blog Here -> BBC Paul Hudson Blog)

-Read Detailed News Account Of His Findings -> HERE-

Either way though, I can provide a couple sources of truth to help you see exactly what I’m trying to telling you now! Please take your time and view these videos, share this page and keep the truth movement moving down the stream to others that must know!

Peace
-Simranjeet Singh

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Climate Gate – Hackers Expose Global Warming

Hackers break into University emails and uncover the global warming conspiracy. Mainstream media is whitewashing this story.

— News Event of Climate Gate Hackers —

Hackers have tried to prove global warming researchers are massaging the figures – after stealing sensitive emails from one of the UK’s leading climate research centers. The documents were then made available to the public from a Russian server.

PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION – Digg it, Social Media it, Friends, Family, Twitter… Do it!

-> http://simranjeet.com/2009/11/25/globalexpose/ <-

I’m sick and tired of hearing about ‘carbon footprints’ and ‘global warming.’ I’m even more sick and tired of hearing from those who have dedicated their life’s work to feed this frenzy to reap millions from a crisis that may not exist.

They say that former Vice President Al Gore may one day be the first ‘carbon footprint’ billionaire. I don’t understand why planting a few trees negates the effects of Al Gore’s excessive energy use. While the multi-millionaire former vice-president gives a speech to his followers, his handlers let his SUV idle, spewing exhaust into the air.

It would be too bad for Prince Al to step into a cold SUV and wait for the heat to turn on. He must find it awful chilly outside, after leaving an auditorium full of man-made hot air.

Gore knows all about hot air. Reportedly, Al Gore’s stately Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the electricity of the average American house. During a 2007 global warming hearing, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) – the Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee – showed Gore a frame from An Inconvenient Truth where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”

When asked to ‘put up or shut up’ by taking a ‘Personal Energy Ethics Pledge’ to change the way he lived by consuming no more energy than the average American household, Gore refused.

With Gore continuing to rake in the dough and benefiting from government financing for a start-up company producing energy-efficient automobiles, perhaps he should change the title of his documentary from An Inconvenient Truth to A Convenient Lie.

All in all, the timing is immaculate. After an almost unprecedented run of a couple of good years by the global climate religious right, thanks to the MTV advertorial known as “An Inconvenient Truth”, the climate bears are baring their fangs, and showing that they too, know how to fight when the timing is right.

And the timing is right – right now.

Back when Al Gore was showing pictures of chicks hatching prematurely and frogs swimming in slowly-boiling water, it was heresy to even question the ‘obvious truth’ that humans are responsible for global warming. It was dogma. Remember one of his famous quotes from the movie?

Future generations may well have occasion to ask themselves, “What were our parents thinking? Why didn’t they wake up when they had a chance?” We have to hear that question from them, now.

Well, the answer is, right now, unfortunately, “We don’t really care about climate change, because we’re unemployed.”

Joblessness and economic drift has a way of sharpening the mind wonderfully. And the climate bears understand this. That’s why they have spent much of the year building up quite a bit of underground momentum to counter the Gorists, with ’studies’ after ’studies’ being rolled out proving beyond a shadow of doubt that greenhouse cap-and-trade bills will cost America over one hundred billion jobs.  A typical example is given here:

[W]ho in their right mind would choose an economic policy that promises a 2.5 percent reduction in gross domestic product over the next 40 years? Add to that the likelihood of at least a half-percent loss in employment, and a strategy that would increase the costs of a staple up to 45 percent in the near- and mid-term, a cost that will erode buying power most among the lowest income earners. Does that sound like an economic policy that any rational politician would propose, let alone an entire nation adopt?

Unfortunately, it does – and our own Congress has already proposed it. The cap-and-trade system for controlling the output of carbon dioxide has made it out of committee, sponsored by Henry Waxman and Edward Markey. President Barack Obama campaigned on this revamping of the American energy industry and is widely expected to support it in its current form.

Wait a minute, some of our readers will say. You’re just quoting talking points from the right-wing corporate fascists sputter sputter Halliburton Cheney! Actually, while other think tanks have done notable work analyzing the impact of cap-and-trade systems on the American economy, the figures above come from the Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank in Washington, D.C.

However, these numbers tend to corroborate the analyses of other think tanks. Cap-and-trade proponents scorned a report from the George C. Marshall Institute when it was released in March, but the Brookings analysis matches closely to Marshall’s:

“Estimated GDP losses vary widely, from a 0.3 percent-0.5 percent to 3 percent drop in GDP below the business-as-usual projections in 2015 and a 1 percent to 10 percent drop in 2050. The timeframes of new technology development and growth in existing clean sources of energy, availability of offsets (domestic, international), and banking of allowances are likely to account for most of these differences in GDP costs estimates.”

The Marshall report, based on independent analyses of the Senate version of cap-and-trade sponsored by Joe Lieberman and Mark Warner, gives a range of results that into which the Brookings conclusions fall, both in the near and long terms. The Marshall report went into detail on the potential for job losses as well. Depending on the exact structure of the cap-and-trade system, net job losses by 2015 would be between 850,000 to 1.8 million lost employment opportunities. By 2030, that range goes up to 3-4 million potential jobs lost, as a net. One of the studies predicts a net job loss of over seven million by 2050, which would certainly account for a 2.5 percent drop in GDP.

And, a couple of days ago, karma just effectively ran over the climate dogma, then backed up on it, just to make sure. Hackers pulled out email correspondence and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, and crowd-sourced it to anyone who had an Internet connection. The short of it is that scientists in the CRU had actively gone out of their way to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science include their own views and exclude others that provided dissenting views (scientifically-based research, mind you) against the dogma that “humans were responsible for global warming”. From WSJ:

A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.

In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call “disinformation” using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.

The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.

In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was “tempted to beat” up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn’t be reached for comment Sunday.

In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics’ research was unwelcome: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.

Bottom line: Copenhagen is dead. Hackers notwithstanding, it was actually the APEC meeting in Singapore (yay us!) that put the final last few bullets into the possibility that anything binding could be salvaged from the talks on December 7. From BusinessWeek:

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Singapore, 17 heads of states and government—including ones from China, Russia and the US— destroyed all hopes of setting internationally binding climate targets in Copenhagen. Even the agreement to halve carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 that was agreed upon in L’Aquila has been sidelined. Now, the only possible result of the Copenhagen talks will be a “politically binding agreement.” According to the latest plan for the summit, a formal, legal agreement would then be reached at a later stage.

Even before the summit starts on Dec. 7, the climate talks already look like they will be a failure—at least, if one considers what the original goal of the talks was. At the end of 2007, at a summit on the Indonesian island of Bali, the United Nations decided that a follow-up agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, had to be reached within two years—and that its follow-up would be finalized in Copenhagen.

Politically binding? Not if the unemployed masses have anything to say about it. And that’s exactly how the climate bears are going to spin it.

To top it off, we’re going to hear from George Dubya soon, claiming “I told ya so.”

Onze CO2-uitstoot rijst de pan uit. Moeder aarde warmt op. De poolkappen smelten. De ijsbeer sterft uit. HELP!
DE AARDE VERGAAT!

Tenminste; als we de wetenschappers mogen geloven die in de media hun verhaal doen. Met nadruk noem ik hier de wetenschappers die de weg naar de media makkelijk weten te vinden, omdat ik na het lezen van het artikel uit Villamedia ben gaan twijfelen aan hun uitingen over de ’Global Warming’.

Belangrijk hierbij is ook de rol van journalisten. Zij bieden deze wetenschappers een platform, maar moeten ook nuance brengen in de discussie rond de ‘climate change’. En van dat laatste lijkt geen sprake te zijn. 

Wie mijn naam googlet, vindt resultaten van een eerder opgestarte blog met de naam Save Our Nature. Ik wilde een blog maken over alle berichtgeving rondom het klimaat. Nog steeds heeft het mijn aandacht, maar anders dan een paar jaar geleden. Mijn ogen zijn wel enigszins geopend. Er kan anders gekeken worden naar de opwarming van de aarde.

Op mijn stage bij het AD werd ik door mijn praktijkbegeleider al gewezen op de critici van Al Gore en ik moet toegeven dat ik ook neig naar een kritische houding ten opzichte van het doemdenken van veel wetenschappers. Graag wijs ik u op dit artikel.  En dit is niet het enige.

Al Gore heeft voor de film An Inconvenient Truth  veel lof mogen ontvangen, maar kreeg ook veel kritiek. In Groot-Britannië mag de film zelfs alleen maar getoond worden met een voorafgaande waarschuwing. Deze waarschuwing wijst de kijker op negen wetenschappelijke onjuistheden in de film.

Nu even terug naar de rol van de journalist. Hoe komt het toch dat de meeste vakgenoten kiezen voor het doemscenario? Wordt dat beter gelezen? Schrijft het lekker weg? Of zijn ze stiekem allemaal klimaatfanaten en willen ze zo snel mogelijk dat iedereen ophoudt met het milieu verontreinigen? 

Van dat laatste ga ik niet uit. Persoonlijk vind ik de voorgaande twee redenen ook niet erg overtuigend. Blijft de vraag wat de reden dan wél is.

In het artikel van het villamedia-magazine beschrijft de auteur de werkwijze van veel journalisten. De schrijver stelt dat ze alleen samenvattingen van wetenschappelijke onderzoeken meenemen in hun berichtgeving, waardoor de nuance van een geheel onderzoek doorgaans ontbreekt. Een idee om over na te denken. Niet alleen als het over de opwarming van de aarde gaat.

Wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Een lastig onderdeel in de journalistiek.

Vaak stijgt de kennis ons boven het hoofd, waardoor onze zoektocht naar een heldere conclusie niet verder gaat dan de korte samenvatting. Helaas doet dit geen recht aan het hele onderzoek. Bovendien is het nog maar afwachten hoe de journalist de gegevens interpreteert. Journalistieke interpretaties zitten er (helaas) vaak naast.

Wetenschappers zijn te vertrouwen. Dat is het gangbare idee in de media. Gek genoeg haalt dit idee onze hele beroepsattitude onderuit. We ‘durven’ niet kritisch meer te zijn op de wetenschap. Of misschien durven we het wel, maar zijn we het te weinig. We laten ons overrompelen door hun kennis.

Natuurlijk zijn er oplettende journalisten en horen een tegengeluid. Het principe ‘hoor en wederhoor’ herinnert hen aan de aandacht die ze behoren te besteden aan beide kanten van een verhaal. Helaas levert het ook dan soms geen goed resultaat op.

Ik denk aan de prikken voor tienermeisjes tegen baarmoederhalskanker. Vorig jaar nog prominent in het nieuws geweest.  De NVKP (Nederlandse Vereniging Kritisch Prikken) raadde deze prikken af om redenen die de doktoren en de wetenschappers weerspraken. Met argumenten weerlegden doktoren het verhaal van de NVKP. Toch wist de media niet wat te doen.

Het gevolg? Chaos en onrust. Ouders wisten niet of de prik nu veilig was of niet. Doktoren kregen via de media niet de kans de bevolking te overtuigen van de prik tegen baarmoederhalskanker. Verslaggevers steunden in dit geval te weinig op de kennis van doktoren en wetenschappers, waardoor hun uitspraken 1 op 1 werden gepresenteerd met die van de vereniging. 

Ook nu weer verdween hiermee de nuance. Overigens is dit nu het geval bij de vaccinatie tegen de mexicaanse griep. Viroloog Ab Osterhaus werd bekritiseerd op zijn verhaal over het griepvirus. Nu de inenting in volle gang is, zijn veel mensen blij dat er in ieder geval iéts tegen gedaan wordt.

Of het nu gaat over het klimaat, over een vaccinatie of over een ander wetenschappelijk onderwerp; het blijft lastig voor journalisten. In ieder geval een onderdeel van ons vak waar we nog veel aan kunnen en moéten werken. 
Blijven schrijven met de nuance in de pen!

Dat is de enige oplossing.

Climate change and reduction of emissions is the buzzword these days. With the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference slated to be held during December 6-18, 2009, there is an urgent need to ratify a successor to the Kyoto Protocol which runs out in 2012. At the conference, it is hoped that world leaders would meet for the last time at government level before the climate agreement is renewed.

Barack Obama and other leaders have confirmed what has been likely for some time – that there won’t be a legally binding deal at the end of the conference. The longer the world dallies on putting in place the aggressive emissions reductions needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change , the more risk we are placing before our next generation. Global warming does far more damage to poor countries than it does to the climate. In a report in 2006, Lord Nicholas Stern calculated that a 2°C rise in global temperature cost about 1% of world GDP. But the World Bank in its new World Development Report says the cost to Africa will be like 4% of GDP and to India around 5%. Even if environmental costs were distributed equally to every person on earth, developing countries would still bear 80% of the burden because they account for 80% of world population.

Emissions From Developing Nations

The Pew Research Center released its latest poll of public attitudes on global warming which shows that popular belief that global warming is occurring had declined from 71 percent in April of 2008 to 56 percent in October — an astonishing drop in just 18 months. The belief that global warming is caused by human activities declined from 47 percent to 36 percent. This proves that three years after it seemed that An Inconvenient Truth had changed everything, it turns out that it hasn’t. The current Pew survey is the latest in a series of studies suggesting that Al Gore probably had a good deal more effect upon elite opinion than public opinion.

However with the need for use of cleaner and greener energy, the problem for more than half of the world’s population remains access to basic sanitation and safe drinking water. The biggest vulnerability is that the weather gravely affects developing countries’ main economic activities such as farming and tourism. In India the gains from the Green Revolution are already shrinking because of local pollution, global warming and waning resistance to pests and disease. A study for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also suggests that the yields of the main Indian crops would decline by a further 4.5-9% over the next 30 years because of climate change. A recent assessment based on a large number of studies of what might happen in the long run if carbon continues to be pumped into the atmosphere found that world farm production could fall by 16% by the 2080s, and possibly by as much as 21% in developing countries. There is not much doubt that climate change is undermining the gains from intensive farming in developing countries at the very time when population growth and greater wealth mean the world will need to double food production over the next three or four decades. By 2050 the world will have to feed 2 billion to 3 billion more people and cope with the changing diets of a richer population.

Poor countries want around $140 billion to keep global warming down to an increase of 2°C dwarfing the $8 billion a year now flowing to them for climate-change mitigation. Also, poor countries see a climate-change deal in fundamentally different terms as they believe that rich countries are responsible for two-thirds of the carbon put into the atmosphere since 1850. Therefore they think emissions per head and not absolute emissions should be the standard. Moreover, targets set at national level have little effect in poor countries where public administration works badly. So rich and poor also disagree about the conditions attached to any money for mitigating or adapting to climate change. The rich see this as a sort of aid designed for specific projects with measurable targets requiring strict conditions. Therefore there remains to be seen what kind of solution comes out of the meeting in Copenhagen. But whatever be the shape of the final agreement, it is time for developing countries to develop as keen an interest in mitigating the impact of climate change as rich ones. Climate-change policy is no longer a simple choice between growth and ecological well-being.

Manipulatie door wetenschap en politiek is een heet hangijzer. Aan alle kanten wordt er gewerkt aan het in de wereld helpen van ‘feiten’ die eigenlijk in het achterklap- en geruchtenstadium thuishoren. Dit wordt – bewust en onbewust – gedaan om de massa klaar te stomen voor één of ander doel. Mooie voorbeelden zijn de gekte rondom de H1N1-griep, de ‘noodzaak’ tot het invoeren van een kilometerheffing (die er overigens al bestaat, want je betaalt elke keer als je tankt), het langer doorwerken na je 65 (terwijl we nog steeds meer dan een miljoen inactieven hebben) en de nog steeds sombere berichten over de economische ‘crisis’.

Manipulatie is een heet hangijzer.

Gemasseerd
De massa wordt gemasseerd. Het is heel moeilijk om als scepticus tegengeluiden te laten horen. Die worden namelijk niet gepikt en onder het kleed van de ingebeelde waarheid geveegd. Soms wordt het gemanipuleer duidelijk. Een mooi voorbeeld is de schrikcampagne over de zure regen in de jaren tachtig van de vorige eeuw. De bossen zouden massaal sterven. Niet dus! De bossen zijn er nog. Wat wel verdween is de hele discussie over de zure regen. Die maakte plaats voor een nieuw spookbeeld: een opwarmende aarde! Allemaal de schuld van de mens zelf met zijn immer toenemende uitstoot van kooldioxide. Ook al is meermalen bewezen dat de aarde afkoelt en ook al is meermalen aangetoond dat kooldioxide een tegengesteld effect heeft (en zelfs nodig is om de fotosynthese bij planten en bomen op gang te houden, waardoor er mede zuurstof in onze atmosfeer komt), nog steeds wordt vastgeklampt aan het door de politiek vastgestelde doemscenario. Je hele leven wordt er door beïnvloed. Het is allemaal CO2 wat de klok slaat. Zeker na die rampenfilm van Al Gore.

Het toekomstbeeld van Al Gore.

Een échte ongemakkelijke waarheid
Dit weekeinde werd bekend dat er een échte ongemakkelijke waarheid is. Hackers zijn namelijk flink bezig geweest. Zij logden in op de systemen van een Brits onderzoeksinstituut over klimaatverandering. De whizzkids konden zo duizenden privé-mailtjes van topwetenschappers uit Amerika en Groot-Brittannië lezen. Ook hadden zij inzage in allerlei belangrijke documenten. Veel van deze informatie staat inmiddels op internet. Uit deze informatie blijkt, dat wetenschappers informatie over klimaatverandering hebben gemanipuleerd! De wetenschappers hebben het onder meer over een ‘trucje’ om informatie over temperaturen te manipuleren. Op die manier zouden ze temperatuurdalingen verbergen. In een ander bericht wordt ingegaan op het manipuleren van publicaties door sceptische klimaatwetenschappers. De betrapte wetenschappers hebben het ook over het in een VN-rapport persen van cijfers.

Geloof niet alles wat er wordt gezegd.

Heel anders vergaderen
Nu de feiten van deze ongemakkelijke waarheid bekend zijn, wordt het heel anders vergaderen tijdens de komende klimaattop in Kopenhagen. Of niet: de delegaties van 192 landen zullen wel weer boter op het hoofd hebben. Er zal flink worden gesomberd over de broeikasgasproblematiek. En natuurlijk worden er maatregelen voorgesteld. Alle media zullen er flink wat aandacht aan schenken. De waarheid die de hackers aan het licht hebben gebracht, zal in de marge van het nieuws verdwijnen.

De broeikasdiscussie èn de aarde zullen afkoelen, dat is zeker.

Een wereldbedreigend probleem
Over een jaar of twintig zullen we heel anders tegen de zaken aan kijken. Dan beseffen we dat we weer eens zijn beetgenomen door de wetenschap en de politiek. Tegen die tijd hebben we vast en zeker weer een heel andere wereldbedreigend probleem. Idee: de aarde wordt bedreigd door meteorieten. Er is een wereldomspannend verdedigingsschild nodig om ons tegen die buitenaardse dreiging te verweren. Als we dit niet doen, is de aarde gedoemd te imploderen door de vele inslagen van de meteorieten. De mens als soort zal verdwijnen. Er is actie nodig. Snelle actie! Dus voeren we een verdedigingsschildbelasting in!

Jim Morrison zag het goed, toen hij schreef: "Whoever controls the media, controls the mind."

1. When you go shopping bring a re-usable shopping bag. They only cost a dollar or so, but they are large and extremely durable. I’ve had mine for over two years. Some stores even give you a few cents off when you bring your own bag.

2. Where possible, go to paperless billing. It’s easy to track and you can look up all your statements online.

3. Get two boxes. Put your paper and cardboard in one and your plastics in the other.

4. Buy your produce at a local farmer’s market. The average piece of produce travels 1500 miles which is bad for the environment and raise costs. The produce you buy at a local farmer’s market will not only be fresher it will also help your local economy. That’s called a win-win. Think there’s not one near you? Check www.localharvest.org and you’ll find that there probably is. And remember local and organic is great, but if you have to choose between local or organic, local is always preferable.

5. Use compact flourescent light bulbs (CFLs). Anybody who’s seen An Inconvenient Truth knows this, but in case you haven’t be advised that CFLs cost more but they last far longer than the previous generation of light bulbs.

6. Invest in a socially conscious, environmental mutual fund. There’s too many to list and picking one over another would be an endorsement that I’m not qualified to make. What I am qualified to say is that the ROI on many of these meets or exceeds the typical fund. Make money and help the planet. Win-win anyone?

7. Use that travel mug. Whether it’s filled with coffee, tea, water or other, more consciousness-altering fluids, you’ll limit your contribution to the mountains of styrofoam plaguing the planet. And, drinking anything out of styrofroam is gross.

And the tough ones.

8. Starting today, stop eating either chicken, turkey, beef, or pork. Start with one, it’s not hard. That’s what I did. The CO2 emissions from livestock are greater than the emissions from ALL forms of travel. Seriously. There’s that much meat on the planet. Let me help you. If you have a pet imagine it as someone’s snack. The superiority you think your dog or cat has over a pig, for example, is purely imagined. The only difference between your pet and a pig is that no one cared about the pig enough to give it a name.

9. And maybe the hardest. Drive less. The stuff that blows out of your exhaust is bad, bad, bad. Digging into the earth with massive tools to extract oil is expensive and damaging to the earth. It will only get more expensive and more damaging. Walk, bike or carpool. This is easier in urban areas. In the suburbs it’s a challenge. I live in Greenville, South Carolina, hardly a metropolis, but I can walk or bike most places. The only places I can’t are retail outlets. I suspect that’s true for a lot of people. So, when you go shopping do it all in one trip. But, walk whenever possible. It’s astonishing how much you can learn about even those who are closest to you when you walk with them for 30 or 45 minutes.

There are two things that cause people the most anxiety, one is the fear of not getting what you want and the other is the fear of losing what you have. 2009 made many people face those fears.
This year has sucked economically for so many people, which has resulted in people feeling down about themselves and life. Now Christmas is around the corner and for this Christmas I would like to invite you to think differently about what you ‘want’ and what you ‘have’. Hopefully taking some of the pressure off you this Christmas and look darn cool in the process. Our campaign is to shift consciousness towards improving the condition of the Earth and having a meaning full Christmas to boot.
I know you have had enough doom and gloom, but I have to point out why the shift in consciousness is so important. We will be looking at positive things you can do to make this Christmas easier and more magical for all and I promise you won’t be feeling all negative and crap by the end of reading this.
Christmas is full of traditions: Presents, cards, large amounts of food and family gatherings.
If your family is anything like mine, you buy things for each other that look expensive, but are in fact cheaper than they look. The reason we do this is because we want your friends and family to know that we care by looking like we are spending money on them. It is our way of showing love. The truth is often the stuff is useless and ends up in a draw. By buying stuff we are adding to the Earths land fill, we send out more poisonous toxins from the factories and pollute the planet.
I invite you to watch this film ‘The Story of Stuff’ http://www.storyofstuff.com/index.html as it gives a full explanation as to why spending money on stuff at Christmas is such a bad idea. But here are three reasons to start you off:
• An estimated 6.3 million children suffer from asthma, double the rate 20 years ago.
• Since World War II, the production of synthetic materials has increased 350 times, and billions of pounds of chemicals have been poured into the environment.
• An Estimate of 64,000 people die prematurely every year due to the soot from power plants.
(ref: Building a green economy success stories from the grass roots. Danaher, Biggs, Mark)
I also invite you to watch the film ‘An Inconvenient truth’ Check out: http://www.climatecrisis.net
So how do we get out of buying presents?
Adults are easy; you can send them this information so they know where your coming from. You can tell them you gave the money to charity in their name: http://www.goodgifts.org. Or make a pact that you don’t buy Christmas presents, as my family decided to do. If you must buy, check out www.naturalcollection.com and other mindful places to spend your money.
If people insist on buying you presents clearly distinguish between your needs and your wants. Give them ideas about what your really need. Down to basics like shampoo and food!
But Children have expectations that we have given them around Christmas. What’s great is Children love stuff if it’s new or second hand (recycled) check out www.freecycle.org. We know kids will play for hours with the card board box the gift came in. So buy second hand or give away your old stuff to children you know. We often care too much about looking ‘tight’ with money, but what is the greater cost?
Wouldn’t the greatest gift for a Child be the same environment that you grew up in? Many of the toys that are made pollute the environment for the children that live in the areas around the factories. In some places even child labour is used to make the toys.
Cards:
Not sending cards and saving trees is a no brainer! Trees give us the air that we breathe, I know you know that, but it’s so hard to think that our air is getting polluted. You can send an E-card if you feel that the date can’t go by unmarked www.BlueMountain.com.
By inviting your friends to join this campaign it’s a subtitle way of letting them know not to expect a card from you! Once upon a time, we sent cards as a way of keeping in touch with the people we wouldn’t see all year. We would remember them and check in when we looked through our address book. Now we can see their face and check in on IM or facebook all year. If you have to send cards save them for those you really love. Tell the person how much they mean to you, say something from your heart and connect with theirs.
Trees and decorations:
The trees are the lungs of this planet they quite literary ‘breathe’ in and out with the change of seasons. Why not plant a tree, or have your Christmas Tree in a pot and bring it in and out of the house living every year.
Keep recycling your decorations. Don’t by new, make your own from recycling stuff with your kids, turn the lights on all night, less is more artistically effective.
Food:
This is a subject close to many hearts! So I won’t bang on about the issue. The biggest problem is that food is all about commodities and not about communities.
Check out: Food inc film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0
Today, we produce more food than ever before, more than one in ten people on Earth are hungry (800 million). While there are also more people overweight (1 billion).
Studies show that 287 toxins and chemicals are regularly found in umbilical cords. That is just super freakin wrong on all levels of wrongness!
• Support locally owned business. Check labels for produce from as close to the country you live in as possible.
• The food in street markets is about a third cheaper than the supermarket and often sourced locally.
• Buy organic and fair trade when you can.
• Don’t buy more than you really need, you know you will feel like you have to eat it and feel like crap afterwards!
• Grow your own for next year, so easy and totally satisfying.
If you have a large family and they are all coming to you for Christmas, consider having an organic potluck event. A potluck is when everyone brings one dish they have made themselves, enough for everyone to share. It’s fun because everyone gets to participate and no-one person gets lumbered with the whole day’s food. Plus the host often gets the leftovers!
(Ref: Stuffed and Starved Raj Patel)
What I believe has been great for us in 2009 is that facing our fears of ‘not getting what we want or losing what we have’ is that it makes us revaluate what is important. The whole point of Christmas is about spirituality, letting people know we love them and think of them, being nurtured and nurturing and being joyful. Yet for many people the reality of Christmas is so far from this idea.
I believe our real deepest fear isn’t about not getting the ‘stuff’ we want or losing the ‘stuff’ we have. Our deepest fear is losing love and not having love. Love shows up in many ways. In the compliments we give and receive, in the time someone takes out of their busy life to be present for someone else. It’s the simple stuff we somehow find so difficult, to connect with each other. It’s so easy to stay pissed about something that happened many Christmas’s ago or in childhood, or even yesterday. Open your heart to someone and just to say ‘Hi, how are you? Good to see you’ in a heartfelt way. This makes the world of difference, to them and you.
Laughter and enjoying life affect the immune system’s health in a positive way. Touch is an important factor in healing, yet when we freak out about swine flu we do the total opposite. Studies show the benefits of holding hands or employing touch. Studies of humour show that the simple act of smiling improves the function of our immune system’s cells.
2010 is a time to live consciously and realise that our small steps to make a difference do work. The way forward is to break with traditions which no longer serve us and find new ways to bring joy into our lives through community and connection and much less ‘stuff’. The planet is in crises and what better love is there then to look after your home.

The mainstream media has got a very large portion of the population duped into believing that humans have caused some sort of climate crisis (global warming) and that paying new emissions taxes will somehow fix all that is wrong with the world. This “crisis” is actually the greatest scam of all time and is based on bad science. It is a classic Problem/Reaction/Solution that is being used to line the pockets of fat cat “environmentalists” and further enslave humanity. In this article I will explain why the so called “climate crisis” is fallacy and nothing to worry about, who is behind it, and why you should refuse to pay a tax on living/breathing.

In the mainstream media it appears as though the “global warming” debate is over. We are facing a great problem, our carbon dioxide emissions have caused Earth’s temperature to rise and if we don’t do something to stop it right now we will face great cataclysmic events. The polar ice caps will melt, our ocean levels will rise and displace hundreds of millions of people, species will go extinct, and humanity will be brought to its knees. The truth is that what is presented to us as scientifically proven fact in the mainstream is still hotly contested by tens of thousands of the world’s top scientists, and no real debate has even been done. Today you receive dumbfounded looks or worse if you even begin to question the validity of the idea that man made global warming exists and is caused by CO2 emissions. More likely you are ridiculed and possibly even considered to be suffering from a mental disorder when you present such a blasphemous question. Global warming has developed an almost religious, or cult-like following in the years since Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was produced and marketed through the mainstream media and was sent to schools as part of a new curriculum to indoctrinate our youth into the new religion of “climate change”. Suddenly and without debate, a pseudo-scientific theory became fact almost over night. To this day Al Gore and his fellow fear-mongering “environmentalists” refuse any sort of debate on the subject and proclaim that it is just too urgent to waste time debating something so silly when what we need to do is focus on the solution. A solution which just happens to make Al Gore very rich. If global warming caused by man made carbon dioxide emissions is such a silly thing to debate, why don’t they just do the debate and get it over with? Why won’t Al Gore and other alarmists debate the issue? I suspect the reason they will not engage in the debate is because they are wrong, and debating it would prove them so. John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, along with over 30,000 other scientists are now trying to sue Al Gore for fraud. They feel that since the mainstream media will not cover both sides of the story, there is no other way to get the issue looked at seriously, so they are taking it to the courts.

It is evident that the climate on earth is indeed changing, but the climate on earth is always changing and humans have very little influence over it. A professor by the name of Nir Shaviv from the Institute of Physics at the University of Jerusalem discovered that there have been periods in earth’s history where there was up to ten times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet it had next to no impact on earth’s temperature. Professer Ian Clark of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottowa is quoted saying “If we look at climate from the geological timeframe we would never suspect CO2 as a major climate driver. You can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past”. Dr. Piers Corbyn, a weather forecaster who uses sunspots to predict weather patterns, said that CO2 does not explain any past weather patterns. Professor Patrick Michaels of the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia has said that “anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20^th century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers”.

One main reason that some people believe CO2 causes warming is the results of ice core surveys that can measure earth temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years. In Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth it is said that for 650,000 years the ice core surveys show correlation between CO2 and temperature. “When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer”. While the ice core surveys certainly do show that CO2 and warming seem to go together, Al Gore and his team make an incorrect assumption when they state that it is the CO2 that causes the warming. Professor Ian Clark says that Al Gore’s team got it backwards, and that the warming actually causes the CO2. The ice core samples show that the warming leads the CO2 by about 800 years which means it could not possibly be the CO2 causing the temperature to change. Clark says that carbon dioxide is a product of temperature, not the other way around, and that completely destroys the fundamentals of the theory behind “global warming”.

If it’s not CO2 that’s behind climate change, then what is causing all this apparent warming (we are actually in a cooling period, more on that later) that is melting the polar ice caps and raising sea levels? I know this might sound crazy so I’m just going to throw this idea out there for you to chew on for a bit. . . Could it possibly be the sun?

When Dr. Sami Solanki, director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany analyzed sunspot cycles and compared them to temperatures on earth, he found it stunningly obvious that when there are more solar flares, also known as sunspots, the temperature goes up to reflect the increase in solar activity. It’s not only more heat from the sun that causes warming, cosmic rays interacting with water vapour create clouds which effect the temperature of earth. When there is strong solar radiation (more sunspots), fewer solar ray particles get through to the earth, resulting in fewer clouds. When there are fewer clouds, more solar heat is able to get through. When studying cosmic ray and temperature records going back up to six million years, you will find that when there is less solar radiation there are more cloud-forming cosmic rays, and temperatures go down. When solar radiation increases you will find that the temperature goes up, every single time. I have included a graph which shows the relationship between cosmic-rays and cloud cover, and another graph showing the relationship between sunspots and global temperature. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that the sun is obviously the driving factor when it comes to the temperature on earth.

Often we are told that our planet is warmer now than ever before in recorded history. What they forget to mention is that “recorded history” means somewhere between 1860 and 1914. Our planet has been through many cycles, some lasting tens or hundreds of thousands of years, so are records from only 150 years ago really all that meaningful? Research by a study team at Harvard University showed that we have had much higher temperatures in the last thousand years, and we are not at an extreme at either end of the spectrum. Between the 9^th and 14^th centuries the temperatures were much warmer than today and in the 15^th century there was the beginning of the “Little Ice Age” during which many rivers and waterways iced over and people had to adapt to the cooler temperatures. We are currently not even in a warm period when compared to the last 60 years or so we are actually in a cooling phase. Below is a graph which shows the current cooling trend. Recent news reports show that 2008 was the coldest year in the last century, with many countries reporting record amounts of snow in places that don’t normally get any. You might find it funny to know that The International Organization for Global Warming had to postpone last years conference due to an unexpected blizzard and record breaking cold weather. These climate changes are natural, ever-present, and are nothing to be afraid of.

Even if carbon dioxide was causing warming of our earth, carbon taxes would not be a solution to the problem. Paying carbon taxes to fight carbon dioxide emissions would be about as effective as trying to fix a car that won’t start by changing the rear wheel. Carbon taxes are a sick trick being played on the public by a group of greedy scam artists. Paying a tax makes the environment better? Since when? Even if that tax money went to pay people to plant trees or invest in renewable energy research and development (which it doesn’t) it would not likely make a noticeable or substantial difference to the betterment of our environment or our ability to sustain a non-changing climate. But since CO2 is not behind climate change at all, there is absolutely no reason that anybody should pay taxes on carbon emissions. If such carbon tax legislation ever does pass, I hope that everyone will stand together in protest of them and refuse to pay such ludicrous fees.

Many will accuse people who have done research into the global warming scam to be anti-environment, encouraging pollution, supporting big oil, or a plethora of other things. I personally have been accused of “enjoying toxic air pollution and supporting the scourge of cancer” after speaking out about the truth behind the whole man made climate change scam. For some reason, which I suspect might be television and mainstream media mind programming, people make a connection that links people who are skeptical of man made global warming (“climate change deniers”) to encouraging pollution. To make this perfectly clear, there is no such connection. CO2 isn’t causing temperature changes but that doesn’t mean you should run your car more often or quit recycling. I am in full support of exploring new clean renewable energy sources and better waste management and disposal.

I guess that’s all I have on this for now. I encourage you to check out the Global Warming/Climate Change part of the aBraveNewsWorld Documentaries section to find several good videos on the subject. I would also like you to have a look at Climate-Skeptic.com if you want more detailed information.

Hip-Hop is not dead

… its just in Norway.

Madcon have been huge stars in Norway for years. One member of the hip-hop duo even won the Norwegian Dancing With The Stars. Other notable fame came when the hosted their own television show on the Nordic music channel The Voice. They have won World Music Awards, have toured all over Europe, have sold millions of singles and compilations, and for some reason have no attention in North America.

Atleast they didn’t until they’re single Beggin’ was used in a Adidas commercial featuring athletes and celebrities such as Russell Simmons, Run DMC, David Beckham, Katy Perry, Kevin Garnett… and the list goes on. Unfourtunetaly Madcon was not included in the ad.

Here are a couple of Madcon’s videos. Both amazing with great songs.

Why does anyone take Al Gore seriously on global warming, or any matter involving science? The guy’s ignorant. Check out this howler. Thirty seconds of searching on the Internet found the correct information.

Again, I ask: Why does anyone lend this bombastic fool any credence whatsoever?

Because anthropogenic global warming is a religion, not a science, and the Goracle is its chief priest.

Don't let facts disturb your faith

(hat tip: Power Line)

In a previous post on Mind control , I concluded by saying that World War 3 was taking place and it is being fought in our Mind . In this post I hope to demonstrate how it is being fought on a global scale and show some of the tactics being used in this war . There are no different and diverse governments – there is only one Government mind for the whole world . You may believe the French government to be different from the Chinese and the Indian different to the Brazilian . In reality they are all locked into the same Mind . The individuals who run these countries may think they are serving the public , but they are actually serving this Government mind . In the vast majority of cases , this is done unconciously , even though there are a small number of people who are aware of the truth and conciously serve this Mind . Only those men and women who are locked into this mind set, either conciously or unconciously , are allowed into the higher echelons of government . Anybody who is seen as a danger will very quickly be spat out . Many ‘conspiracy’ theorists , myself included , believe there is a plan to create a One World government and the building blocks of this government are already in place . But , in reality , this government is already here and what we are seeing is the real state of affairs being unmasked .

This Mind wants only one thing – Control . It wants to rule the World and everything in it and up to now it has been very successful . It passes laws to how we should behave and instructs our children , through education to how they should behave . It then sends these children out into the larger world , where they spend all their lives toiling away until they are in their dotage , when they are allowed to retire .( They are physically no longer useful ) People work for companies , who enslave their workers and extract the last vestiges of humanity from them . It is never satisfied and is forever hungry . It is only concerned for itself and however glamorous the shiny suits and loquacious speeches given by our politicians may seem , this Mind does not care about us at all . The Mind is always worried about its survival and fears everything and everybody , unless they prove they are a friend and if they are not it will stamp down ferociously . Fear is the main weapon it uses in its quest to retain its control over the world and it concocts certain scenarios to keep the populace afraid and retain the staus quo . Over the last decade or so , the scale of these ‘ fear ‘ events have increased in an attempt to achieve total dominance . The following examples , at first glance , may appear to be rational but are in fact reactions to problems that never existed in the first place .

Climate Change

There is no Climate change that threatens the world . A scare story has been manufactured to convince us that the world is in imminent danger of destruction unless we change our ways . Propaganda like Nobel prize winner Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth has been used to scare the public so governments can pass laws giving them more power and control over their publics . Most so called experts on the subject are paid from the public purse and if they do not toe the party line , they will find that their research money soon disappears . Alarming photographs of polar bears on ice floes and scary statistics are shown where the planet will be unbearable to live on , unless we do what we are told . This is bunkum . Nobody can really predict what the weather will be like next year , let alone in fifty years . In Britain , the UK meteorological office has promised to give up giving long term predictions as its last few have been seriously wrong . For alternative views on climate change please research the works of David Bellamy or go to the following website Watts Up With That . I do not have any objection to the ‘greening’ of the planet , and do not propose the world should continue as it has been , but the World is not going to end tomorrow as we have been told and is just an attempt to keep the public scared and happy to give away power to their governments .

Swine Flu

The Swine Flu has been deliberately manufactured and the world infected on purpose . As far as I am aware , there has never been a disease before that has managed to mutate from three different strands as Swine flu has with its combination of Human , Avian and Swine flu . The response to the infection is the Swine flu vaccination , which is actually a combination of toxins that will damage your immune system and weaken your body. Again , the hope is to increase the fear of the world and WHO, the World Health Organisation, at the United Nations has immeasurably increased its power due to this so called crisis . The United Nations is the vehicle which will eventually be used to create the World Government . The Swine flu , to most people , is a fairly mild infection and should cause no problems . There is no reason for a healthy individual to have the vaccination as your body is perfectly well equipped to deal with flu , however alarming the Governments ‘ propaganda is . For those who doubt this has been planned please read the following article at InfoWars which details IBMs plans to deal with a future flu plandemic in 2006 . The Swine flu is just another fear mongering attempt so we will relinquish our freedoms freely , in the belief we are threatened .

Credit Crunch

The credit crunch was deliberately manipulated to create fear amongst everyone . Survival is our greatest sub-concious motivation and when we are faced with a situation where we lose our jobs or our livelihood is threatened the survival ‘gene’ is triggered and we batten down the hatches and concentrate on solely ensuring the continuation of  the monthly pay cheque . It is easy to create a credit crunch – all you have to do is to create a bubble market , in this case through the mortgage market, and then just cut the supply of credit . The result is massive of people in debt and with the increasing number of unemployed , a large number of them are unable to keep up with the repayments and are to a certain extent now owned by the banks . Power over your life is transferred to the banks and governments , who an increasing number of people are dependent on for survival . In this present credit crunch , a few banks stopped lending to each other and very quickly the others followed suit and the whole bubble market collapsed in on itself . The credit crunch has increased the level of uncertainty in our minds as to the future and we are like rabbits caught in the headlights and this has helped to create a situation that has increased the power of those who wish to implement a global government . We will be told there are only global solutions and the only way to deal with these problems is a World government .

The War on Terror

The attack on the twin towers on 9/11 was the start of a period of the state taking greater and greater powers for itself under the guise of The War on Terror . I am unsure to who actually bombed the towers , but at the very least the US government knew of the plan and let it happen . The intelligence services knew the instigators of the plan and did nothing to hinder them . The destruction of the WTC building as well , when it was not even struck by the planes and the deployment of the US air force to go out to the Atlantic shows that 9/11 was not just a plain terrorist attack . The inevitable discovery of Mohammed Atta’s passport , when everything else was burnt to a cinder , was too good to be true and it appears that some people had prior knowledge of the attack – see Insider Trading : pre 9/11 . The paranoia that led from 9/11 was exactly what was wanted and the following wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , as well as smaller terrorist attacks in other parts of the world eg 7/7 in London, the Madrid bombings and the Bali bombs exacerbated this paranoia and led to the current position where most of the world is very close to becoming a version of George Orwell’s 1984 , with surveillance cameras and all the rest of the paraphernalia of the police state . Most governments now are just rubber stamping institutions , where very little dissent is heard to the orthodox government view and if anybody dares raise their head above the parapet , they are attacked for being ‘ soft on terrorism ‘ and yet it is the very people who instigated the terrorism who now run the show .

The aim of the Government Mind which instigates these situations is not the outcome of these events , but the fear that it creates in our Mind . We are willing to give our freedom away to the people who say they will protect us from the threat and we become docile and subservient , which is actually the result the government Mind desires . We let it snoop and pry into our private business and generally push us around , all because we believe we are being attacked and yet the very same people who promise to defend us are the ones who created the threat in the first place . It appears to have become an unstoppable machine with a momentum all of its own and anybody who seriously threatens it is jumped by the goon squad , but it is not an all powerful behemoth which cannot be beaten . It is , in fact , very weak and in a future post , I will discuss how this state can be turned around and how it is currently under serious threat , however strong it may seem to the outside observer . The War is on your Mind and in your Mind – it wants you to believe you are weak , frightened and powerless . If we believe this , then we will be its slaves but if we can manage to free ourselves from the fear and terror , we will find that it disappears like a will of the wisp .

I’ve blogged here before about various claims made & tactics used by climate science deniers (I refuse to call them “skeptics” because they are not guided by evidence, merely ideology), but what I have to share in this post is truly damning stuff.  One of the things which is really interesting is what happens when a group of pseudoscientific ideologues (like global warming deniers) gets caught red-handed playing fast & loose with the facts…

Exhibit A: Statisticians Confirm Reality of Global Warming in Blinded Tests

Recently, one of the claims making the rounds has been that, contrary to the consensus within the climate science community, the Earth is actually entering a period of global cooling – this claim is patently fallacious, and anyone who has a basic understanding of statistics knows it.  But what happened recently, as reported in a widely-circulated AP story, really slams the door shut on this bogus claim: the temperature data for the planet was analyzed by a series of independent statisticians, all of whom found a warming (not a cooling) trend in the data.  And here’s the kicker: these statisticians didn’t know what the data were – in other words, the examination of the Earth’s temperature data was a blinded test!

Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It’s not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It’s been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather’s normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

This result puts paid to the oft-repeated claim by GW-deniers that there is a cooling trend in the data.  Of course, the only reason why these pseudoscientists were able to get away with their false claims for so long was because they, as professor Grego said, have been cherry-picking the data and presenting it incomplete & out-of-context in order to give the impression that the Earth is cooling.  But, as we’ve seen, once the experimenter & statistician bias is removed from the analysis, which is the whole purpose of doing blinded tests, a very real and consistent warming trend is revealed.

But it gets even worse for the GW-deniers…

Exhibit B: An anti-GW petition & campaign “on behalf of” the American Physical Society has been exposed as fraudulent.

In the summer of 2008, a widely circulated story in GW-denier circles claimed that a large portion of the membership of the American Physical Society (a professional organization for physicists of which I am a member) had signed onto a petition rebutting the scientific consensus on global warming, and – further – that the APS leadership itself had reversed its stance on the issue…

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

At the time, my b.s. detector went practically off the scale, because the day after publication the APS had released a statement (on that same page!) that was directly contrary to the claims in this article…

Update 7/17/2008: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

When this annoying fact was pointed out to the deniers, many made claims about how there were “thousands” of physicists signing onto the petition claiming that GW-science was false – the implication being that the rank-and-file membership of the APS was revolting against the “establishment” (a variation on anti-scientific conspiracy mongering).  At the time, my b.s. detector went off again, because such a claim smacked so strongly of similar claims made by creationists that numerous scientists had “dissented from Darwinism”. Of course, such a claim is nothing more than an argument from popularity, but it’s even worse than that – it’s just a bald-faced lie, and it always has been!

That’s because evidence directly contradicting the GW-denier claims that the APS rank-and-file has revolted against the APS “establishment” on climate science has come to light:

Only 0.45% of Physicists sign Denier Petition

Despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society’s 47,000 members signed on.

It’s a humiliating defeat for the climate change Deniers who make such false claims as ”many scientists dispute’ and ‘there is no consensus. The Petition drive was announced in the prestigous journal Nature, APS publications, numerous popular and electronic media, as well as heavily promoted by the petition organizers. Despite all of that effort and publicity, a mere 0.45% was all that they could manage.

Consider that the success rate for Nigerian email scams is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%, ie roughly speaking about the same. (Tip of the Hat to Grumbine for the genesis of seeking a comparison)

• • Physicists firm on climate change
  • APS rejects plea to alter stance on climate change
  • APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society’s Current Climate Change Statement

Of course the reason for that APS Council’s rejection is unrelated to the number of the signatories, but rather was based the quality of the alleged “science” justifying the call. The “scientific” claims are a sad cobbling together of the argumentum ad ignorantiam and appeal to authority logical fallacies, along with the unbelievably idiotic “it’s happened in the past” argument. As “science” it should embarrass a freshman.

**BTW, this graphic nicely illustrates the utter fail behind this stupid anti-scientific petition campaign…

Whoops – looks like the anti-GW science denialists got caught on this one with their pants down.  But that’s what happens in scientific circles if you make things up – whether it be the cold-fusion hoax, the global cooling myth, or lying about the number of legitimate physicists who agree with your pseudoscience – sooner or later the truth will catch up to you, and you’ll be revealed for what you really are… cynical, lying bastards with an ideological & political agenda.

Here’s a message to all you GW-deniers who’ve been pushing this crap over the last couple of years:

It is no slightest doubt that everyone in India has experienced what really is global warming. The average temperatures have gone up in the last few summers, and even the winters and rainy seasons are showing abnormalities from their behaviors over the last few years. Indeed, this is ‘global weirding’ or rather ‘climate crisis’ that would define the thing better.

But, what really caused global warming? Industrial revolution for one, heavy pollution caused by it another and there might be numerous such reasons. But, how do we know that we have landed in a state of global warming? Of course, anyone who has experienced summer in any part of India would know better. But, any symptoms that would convince the rational mind? Yes, in fact there are many. If you haven’t seen Al Gore’s documentary, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ you must watch it once. I would rate it 5 stars, as it is a must watch for everyone today. From the official website of An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, I could get some science behind this. The symptoms are listed below and are sourced from the website climatecrisis.net (official website of An Inconvenient Truth). Do visit the website, it has a good music track played once the website is accessed. Other initiatives from Al Gore are the website of WeCanSolveIt, TakePart, RepowerAmerica.

Image from www.cranberg.com

Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. This is a good thing because it keeps our planet habitable. However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising.

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence.¹ The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.

Sanity will prevail. One day. Perhaps.

It’s been obvious for a very long time that the fervent “belief” some people have in human-induced climate change is closer to religion than science. Now a court has ruled that climate change is indeed a religion with its believers able to claim legal protection for their faith.

In a landmark decision in London, Justice Sir Michael Burton has declared that redundant worker Tim Nicholson’s views on global warming are so deeply held that they are worthy of the same protection as religious beliefs.

“A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations,” His Honour said in a written decision.

Nicholson claimed he was sacked by Grainger, the UK’s largest listed residential property company, because of his views on the company’s attitude to climate change. The company said he was made redundant because of the economic downturn.

Justice Burton’s decision will enable Nicholson to take Grainger to an employment tribunal to claim he was sacked because of his religious beliefs.

The case comes as the proponents of global warming are mounting a hysterical propaganda war around the world in the countdown to the UN’s climate change summit in Copenhagen next month.

Hysterical, because the “scientific” basis for their economy-wrecking cause collapses further by the week, leaving them to demand everyone “believe” their mantras.

The most-read post on this blog was the April 2008 revelation that average world temperatures had not increased since 1998 despite continued growth in carbon dioxide emissions. This post continues to get dozens of hits every day and has now been read twice as many times as the next most popular post.

The post was about a BBC news story that quoted temperature data from the UN’s very own World Meteorological Organisation. Both the BBC and the WMO are ardent believers in global warming. Until their revelation, I had actually believed the propaganda that temperatures were going constantly up. The BBC story was such dynamite that the Global Warming Thought Police put heavy pressure on the BBC to recant it.

It is becoming ever clearer that the inconvenient scientific truth is somewhat different from the shrill propaganda. The world’s climate is always changing. A thousand years ago, temperatures were warmer than now as the world basked in the Medieval Warm Period, during which the Vikings settled Greenland and grapes were grown in the north of England. But temperatures gradually fell again, until the Little Ice Age of the mid-1700s, in which the Thames froze, glaciers advanced across Europe and Greenland had become so covered in snow and ice that the Viking settlements lay long abandoned.

There were no SUVs in the Medieval Warm Period, nor for 200 years after the Little Ice Age, but after the latter, the world gradually began warming again, with ebbs and flows about every 40 or 50 years that led to the same alarmists who today claim we are going to cook claiming in 1975 that we were entering a new ice age, because of global cooling from 1940 and then.

Of course, once that claim was made, another warming cycle began.

The BBC recently updated last year’s story, again having to concede that average world temperatures have still not risen since 1998, in complete contravention of the computer climate models the warmists use to push their religious beliefs.

After 11 years now without global warming, and with temperatures actually falling in many places, it seems about time for the Warmers to confront the fact we just may be entering another cyclical cooling phase. That might allow time to conduct some actual rather than computerised work on the human effect on the climate before rushing in to Copenhagen’s religious indulgences, pardon, emissions trading scams, sorry, schemes, that will greatly enrich the same money merchants who wrecked the global economy last year, while doing nothing actually to reduce the supposedly dangerous emissions.

There are two delicious ironies to Justice Burton’s declaration that climate change is a religious belief.

First, Justice Burton is the very same High Court judge who ruled in 2007 that warmist cardinal Al Gore’s propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth included nine serious scientific errors, one of them that the South Pacific ocean was rising and island-dwellers had been forced to evacuate to New Zealand. The judge ruled this arch-work of mass deception could only be shown in schools if accompanied by a countering viewpoint.

The second irony is that it comes at the same time as the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Italian schools must remove the crucifixes that have adorned their walls for decades, as crucifixes represent an ancient religion, Christianity, which is apparently now frowned upon by the courts in Europe just as the new religion, Climate Change, is welcomed.

Jesus wept.

In recent months Climate Change has become a world wide hot button (no pun intended) that has scientists and global leaders not only talking but also meeting on the subject.  This of course all coming to a head on December 7th in Copenhagen.  United Nation leaders will gather from 192 countries around the world and be told a lie.  A lie that has become apart of our daily lives.  What is the lie?  That our CO2 usage, or carbon footprint, is directly responsible for “Global Warming” and the recession of the polar ice caps.  This is the lie we are spoon fed everyday in order for us to “Go Green” as a nation.  I am not saying Climate Change isn’t happening, because it is.  What I am saying is that our carbon footprint has nothing to do with it.

There are two sides to the debate over Climate Change.  The two sides are Al Gore, representing the belief that CO2 is causing Global Warming, and Lord Christopher Monckton, who represents the other side.  The war between these two sides started when Al Gore release his film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.  After the film was released, Lord Monckton reviewed the film and found that it left out key facts and statistics that actually prove most of the films “facts” are actually theories.  Monckton actually took the film to court.  He hoped to get the film makers to put side notes up on all graphs, charts, and statistics in the film as to discuss where the numbers came from.  Monckton won the battle in Britain, but lost on the world stage for the film.  Afterwards Al Gore told Monckton that if he wanted to dabate the film with him, that he would be very open to the idea.  Even though the two agreed they should debate in a public forum, no such event has taken place.  Thus making most of Monckton’s corrections never heard.

The facts that do come forth are that the Earths overall temperature has risen since the 1500s.  The fiction is that the industrial revolution’s byproduct of CO2 is the culprit.  The truth is actually quite easier to understand.  From the mid 1300s to the early 1500s the Earth had what was called a “Mini-Ice Age”.  What does that mean?  That during that time period the Earth’s overall temperature actually dropped several degrees, thus expanding the polar ice caps exponentially.  The mini-ice age has actually been targeted for one of the main reasons for the “Black Plague”.  Since the 1500s the Earth has been warming back to the levels it had previously been at.  In “An Inconvenient Truth” the mini ice age era was pushed aside to “rig” the data in favor of Global Warming.  The polar ice cap recession is in a natural process of expansion and contraction.  It is currently is the latter of these two states.  So they did get it right when they said the polar ice caps are melting right?  Wrong again.  Receding does not mean melting.  Not only has the mass of sea ice at the poles has actually increased, but over all sea levels have decreased (only by a centimeter or two) over the last few years.  So buck up, WaterWorld is still quite a ways away.

So why were we lied to?  The simple answer is to further clean “Green” technology.  But it is a bit more complex than that.  Our world currently runs on the value of convenience, and it would be real inconvenient for us to switch to electric cars and smart grids and solar power.  So instead scientists took a doomsday scenario from the year 2250 and applied it to today.  Liberals took a page out of the conservatives book called “Inspiration through fear.”  Because of this fear, the Government issued several grants and tax refunds to “Green” Technology such as rechargeable batteries, solar cells, alternative energy cars, and smart grids.  With this new green tech, the world has already seen major improvements in energy conservation.  Uninhabitable areas of the United States are being turned into solar and wind farms; thus creating jobs while conserving energy.  The recycling program in many areas of the country have seen a boost in participants.  Recycling of plastics is as important as finding alternative energy vehicles to kick our dependance on foreign oil.  So were we lied to for our own good?  Simple answer yes, and its working…sort of.

There is a problem on the horizon with green tech.  The problem of course is not in solar consumption or waste byproducts.  It is actually with the stock market.  Wait the stock market?  You heard me right, the Stock Market, the dow jones, wall street, whatever you want to call it.  Right now there is a bill in congress called Cap-and-Trade.  Cap-and-Trade is a bill that is half good/ half bad.  Cap is the good part of the bill in which fines are given to companies who do not meet with environmental standards of emissions and waste.  Trade is where the real trouble comes in.  You see in the trade part of the bill companies would get rewarded for being cleaner than the standard.  And for every x points more clean you are; you get y credits.  These credits are then traded openly in the stock market.  Sounds like a great incentive right?  Wrong!!!!!  This is exactly what happened to create the financial mess this country is in now, except it was the housing market instead.  The stock option has no significant value what so ever, its immeasurable.  This bubble (see additional readings below) is just another financial disaster waiting to happen.  But we can pop the bubble before it blows up and destroys the world economy.  Read the great american bubble machine link provided below to further understand.

I hope that while reading this you have had some of your fears quelled.  Climate Change is a natural part of the Earth’s process of sustaining life, but that does not mean we should stop recycling or investing into green technology.  In fact I hope that you look closer at the hundreds of dollars you can save, thousands of jobs you can create, and millions of minds you can encourage by going green.  Good night internet, and good luck.

Additional Readings:

Lord Christopher Monckton

Al Gore

An Inconvenient Truth

Hopenhagen.org

Cap-and-Trade

The Great American Bubble Machine

Es difícil lograr que un hombre entienda algo cuando su salario depende de que no lo entienda.

Upton Sinclair (citado por Al Gore en An inconvenient truth).

 ¿Ven ese punto pálido llamado Tierra? Eso somos nosotros. Todo lo que nos ha pasado en toda la historia de la humanidad tiene lugar en ese píxel. Todos los triunfos, las tragedias, todas las guerras, todos los mayores avances… es nuestro único hogar. Y eso es lo que estamos arriesgando ahora: nuestra habilidad para vivir en este planeta, nuestro futuro como civilización. Creo que no es una cuestión política, es una cuestión moral. Es la oportunidad de terminar de una vez por todas con esa cuestión, es nuestro tiempo de asegurar nuestro futuro.

Al Gore (en el mismo filme). 

INTRODUCCIÓN

Para un profesor de cine o crítico del séptimo arte resulta todo un desafío el intentar explicar un filme tan complejo en su contenido como lo es An inconvenient truth (2006) de Davis Guggenheim. El calentamiento global, tema del filme ganador del Oscar al mejor documental, no es tan fácil de transmitir. A ratos el espectador queda empantanado en la maraña de datos técnicos y hace falta un intérprete que permita un mejor entendimiento. Este es el desafío que intentaremos asumir: intentar comunicar públicamente a través de la crítica de cine lo que es el calentamiento global. También queremos elaborar una especie de guía didáctica que le permita al estudiante visionar el filme de la mejor manera posible. Esto creará en el estudiante una conciencia ecológica y le permitirá llevar una vida de mayor responsabilidad hacia el medioambiente. Para este efecto nos valdremos no solo del filme sino de la extensa bibliografía internaútica (debidamente revelada y consignada) que se encuentra disponible sobre el asunto.

 ¿QUIÉN ES AL GORE?[1]

Político demócrata de 59 años de edad. Ex vicepresidente de Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. Inició su carrera en 1976, cuando fue elegido por Tennessee para ser parte del Congreso. Fue elegido para el Senado en 1984, y reelegido una vez más en 1990. En 1992 publica Earth in the Balance: Ecology and Human Spirit, en el cual plantea una revolución ecológica necesaria para el siglo XXI. Posteriormente, se ha transformado en uno de los líderes ecológicos más importantes a nivel mundial. Por este motivo ganó el Premio Nóbel en el año 2007.

Con Bill Clinton rigió los destinos de Norteamérica desde 1993 hasta el año 2001, año en que perdió las elecciones ante George Bush Jr. Tras perder, Gore se convirtió en profesor de periodismo por algunos meses, y después volvió a dar conferencias sobre ecología. En septiembre de 2002 condenó fuertemente la política de Bush en Iraq, denominándola “una distracción” y acusando a Bush de dañar la imagen de Estados Unidos en el extranjero.

En 2005 fundó una cadena de televisión, Current TV. Gore, ha recorrido el mundo difundiendo y divulgando el tema del calentamiento global, del cual se ha convertido en  un popular exponente gracias a sus inmejorables capacidades de comunicador que se aprecian en el filme.

Gore ha sido mencionado como candidato presidencial para las elecciones del año entrante, pero hasta la fecha niega que vaya a presentarse en las primarias. En la última entrega del Premio Oscar bromeó con Leonardo di Caprio sobre si se iba a postular o no.

 ¿QUIÉN ES DAVIS GUGGENHEIM?[2]

Es el realizador de An inconvenient truth. Director y productor norteamericano nacido en 1964 y casado con la actriz Elizabeth Shue. Se formó en televisión dirigiendo algunas series populares como ER, Alias, 24, NYPD Blues y NUMB3RS. Fue productor ejecutivo del filme Día de entrenamiento con Denzel Washington y Ethan Hawke. Al empezar a filmar Una verdad inconveniente se dio cuenta que podía mezclar la vida personal de Al Gore con su pasión por el ecologismo.

 ¿QUÉ ES EL CALENTAMIENTO GLOBAL?

Desde el nacimiento de la ecología como una disciplina que estudia e intenta preservar el medio ambiente, tenemos que el calentamiento global es el fenómeno observado en las últimas décadas en el aumento en la temperatura de la atmósfera terrestre y de los océanos.

El calentamiento también es una teoría con una variante antropogénica: las actividades humanas influyen en este conflicto medioambiental. Esta teoría predice de manera apocalíptica que el mundo entrará en un colapso si continúan las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. Se derretirán los casquetes polares, habrá inundaciones, etc.

La opinión científica oficial sobre el cambio del clima dice que la mayor parte del calentamiento observado en los últimos 50 años, es atribuible a la actividad humana (industrial, especialmente). Según el consenso científico, la principal causa del componente de calor inducido por los humanos se debería al aumento de dióxido de carbono (nótese el condicional “se debería a” que maneja nuestra fuente de Wikipedia). La temperatura del planeta ha venido elevándose desde finales del siglo XIX, cuando se puso fin a la etapa conocida como la pequeña edad de hielo.

 ¿QUÉ ES EL EFECTO INVERNADERO?[3]

Es el fenómeno por el que determinados gases que componen la atmósfera retienen parte de la energía que el suelo emite por haber sido calentado por la radiación solar. Afecta a todos los cuerpos planetarios dotados de atmósfera. De acuerdo con el actual consenso científico, el efecto invernadero se está viendo acentuado en la Tierra por la emisión de ciertos gases, como el dióxido de carbono y el metano, debida a la actividad económica humana.

Este fenómeno evita que la energía del Sol recibida constantemente por la Tierra vuelva inmediatamente al espacio, produciendo a escala planetaria un efecto similar al observado en un invernadero doméstico.

 ¿EN QUÉ CONSISTEN LOS GASES DE INVERNADERO?[4]

Son aquellos cuya presencia en la atmósfera contribuye al efecto invernadero. Suelen incluirse los siguientes: Vapor de agua (H2O), dióxido de carbono (CO2), metano (CH4), óxidos de nitrógeno (NOx), ozono (O3), y Clorofluorocarburos (artificiales). No todos los componentes de la atmósfera contribuyen a este efecto. Los gases de invernadero absorben los fotones[5] infrarrojos emitidos por el suelo calentado por el sol.

 ¿QUÉ PLANTEA AN INCOVENIENT TRUTH?[6]

El documental explora la información y las predicciones que tienen que ver con el cambio climático más experiencias personales del ex vicepresidente. Por medio de las notas y conferencias que ha presentado por todo el mundo, Al Gore revisa la evidencia científica del calentamiento global, discute sus aspectos políticos y económicos y describe las consecuencias que cree que el cambio climático provocará si los gases de efecto invernadero producidos por el hombre no son drásticamente reducidos en un periodo de tiempo corto.

La base de la argumentación de Gore es que el calentamiento global no es una falacia y es producido por la actividad del hombre durante muchos años. Esta argumentación está sostenida por investigaciones actualizadas que son expuestas de manera didáctica. Se muestra, por ejemplo, el retroceso de numerosos glaciares mediante fotografías tomadas a lo largo de varias décadas.

Gore también menciona un estudio de investigadores del Instituto de Física de la Universidad de Berna y el EPICA que muestra datos del núcleo del hielo de la Antártida que muestra concentraciones de dióxido de carbono más altos en la actualidad que durante los pasados 650.000 años.

Otro aspecto que menciona el ex vicepresidente es una investigación de la Dra. Naomi Oreskes en 2004 consistente en la revisión exhaustiva de 928 artículos científicos sobre el cambio climático global publicados en la década que va de 1993 al 2003. La investigación, publicada en la revista Science, demostraba que la gran mayoría de artículos cada artículo o bien atacaba al calentamiento global a la acción del hombre o bien no comentaba nada al respecto. En definitiva, esta gran cantidad de artículos no mostraba –según el documental- un consenso de parte de la comunidad científica sobre el calentamiento global.

 ¿CUÁLES SON LOS PUNTOS VALEDEROS DE ESTE FILME?

A nuestro entender los siguientes puntos resaltan positivamente en el documental:

1.- Recursos didácticos multimedia. Mapas, gráficos, histogramas, clips, uso de dibujos animados

2.- El lenguaje didáctico de Al Gore, sin titubeos, didáctico, pedagógico, nada ampuloso.

3.- La organización y exposición del material.

4.- Crea una conciencia ecológica en el espectador.

5.- Educa y entretiene de manera simultánea.

6.- Al final aparece la canción I need to wake up de la rockera Melissa Etheridge que logra levantar el espíritu ecológico del receptor.

 ¿CUÁLES SON LOS PUNTOS DÉBILES DEL FILME?

A nuestro entender los siguientes puntos son los menos fuertes en el documental:

1.- Todo gira alrededor de Al Gore rozando el culto a la personalidad. Este mesianismo es exagerado ya que en ningún momento la trama se aleja de la figura de este político.

2.- Es una película muy corta (92 minutos). Quizá alargarla habría devenido en un filme aburrido, pero el riesgo habría valido la pena para explicar mejor temas que requieren de más amplitud.

3.- Hay demasiada información para que un neófito pueda entenderla en un cien por ciento. En un alumno de una maestría de Comunicación Pública de la Ciencia, esto llama la atención ya que lo ideal sería que todos los pasajes del filme sean entendibles.

 ¿ES APOCALÍPTICA LA VISIÓN DEL MUNDO QUE PLANTEA EL FILME?

Sí. Se presenta a una Nueva York anegada por las aguas, una Florida inundada, más y cada vez más peligrosos huracanes, un empeoramiento de la sequía, glaciares que retroceden y casquetes polares que desaparecen. Otro ejemplo apocalíptico: Aparece la foto de las famosas nieves del Kilamanjaro en un antes y un después. Se nota claramente que la cantidad de nieve ha disminuido en su espesor. 

 ¿QUIÉNES ESTÁN A FAVOR DE LA PELÍCULA?

La agencia noticiosa Associated Press contactó a un centenar de prestigiosos climatólogos y les preguntó sobre la veracidad del documental. Debido a que el documental aún no había sido exhibido ampliamente muchos de estos investigadores no lo habían visto ni habían leído el libro de Gore[7], pero los diecinueve científicos que sí lo habían hecho dijeron que el ex vicepresidente había interpretado correctamente las ideas científicas. Gore maneja correctamente la ciencia, según estos científicos contactados a través de teléfono o correo electrónico: el mundo se está calentando y se trata de una catástrofe provocada por el hombre a causa de la quema de combustibles fósiles.

 ¿QUIÉNES ESTÁN EN CONTRA DE LA PELÍCULA?

Es importante presentar las supuestas equivocaciones que tiene el filme, ya que se suele pensar que en este tipo de películas la comunicación pública de la ciencia es infalible.

Los pequeños errores que los científicos de la Associated Press encontraron no eran gran cosa, según el artículo investigado[8], “mucho, mucho menos significativos que los errores en los que incurren los políticos en sus breves alocuciones sobre el asunto”, comentó Michael MacCracken, que solía ocuparse del programa nacional sobre los efectos del calentamiento global, y que ahora es jefe científico del Instituto Climático de Washington.

Algunos científicos afirman que Gore confundió los casquetes polares cuando dijo que el efecto del Acta para el Aire Limpio es percibible en los hielos del Antártico; cuando en realidad se trata del núcleo helado de Groenlandia. Otros pensaron que Gore había simplificado el efecto causa-efecto entre el gas invernadero clave, el dióxido de carbono, y el aumento en las temperatura[9].

Richard S. Lindzen, Profesor de Ciencia Atmosférica de MIT escribió lo siguiente contra el filme: “Una característica general del enfoque del señor Gore es el ignorar de manera continua el hecho de que la Tierra y el clima son entes dinámicos. Siempre están cambiando inclusive sin ninguna intervención externa. El tratar todo cambio como algo macabro es algo incorrecto. El tratar todo cambio de la forma en que él lo hace es mucho peor”.[10]

En junio 26 del  2006 en el Wall Street Journal, Lindzen añadió: “El estudio de la revista Science, escrito por la Dra. Naomi Orestes y que cita Gore en el filme es inadecuado porque de los 928 artículos escritos entre 1993 y 2003 bajo el membrete de Global Climate Change tan solo 913 tienen resúmenes[11], y 13 de los 913 dictaminan de manera explícita que sí existe un consenso científico sobre el tema”.

Roy Spencer, principal científico investigador de la Universidad de Alabama en Huntsville escribió una carta abierta en mayo 25 del 2006 criticando la presentación que hace Gore en el filme sobre la ciencia del clima: “Las medidas de temperatura en el Ártico sugieren que en los años de 1930 también había calor mucho antes de las emisiones de gases de invernadero. Señor Gore, ¿alguna vez no se preguntó usted si en las concentraciones de hielo de entonces las temperaturas también eran bajas?”.

El Dr. Tim Ball, ex profesor de Climatología de la Universidad de Winnipeg, reaccionó contra el argumento de Gore de que hay una disminución del grosor de la capa de hielo del ártico desde 1970. El científico escribió lo siguiente: “La superficie que Gore eligió en su documental fue un simple y único corte transversal de una parte del ártico durante el mes de octubre de 1960 cuando todo estaba en la mitad del período de congelamiento. Los achicamientos que se dieron en 1990 sucedieron en el cálido mes de septiembre y fueron captados por el documental usando una tecnología totalmente diferente a la de los años sesenta”.

 ¿CUÁL ES LA RESPUESTA POLÍTICA DEL FILME?[12]

El presidente Bush contestó “Lo dudo” ante la pregunta de si vería o no el documental. Y añadió lo siguiente: “A mi juicio debemos clarificar si los gases de invernadero han sido causados o no por la humanidad o a través de efectos naturales, debemos mas bien enfocarnos en la tecnología que nos ayudará a tener mejores vidas para proteger el medio ambiente”. Gore respondió de esta forma: “Toda la comunidad científica ha llegado al consenso en el tema de que los seres humanos son responsables por el calentamiento global, por lo que no entiendo que Bus haya expresado una vez más su duda ante la verdad”. De esta declaración se deduce el por qué se tituló el filme como Un verdad inconveniente (incómoda, en español).

 Los dirigentes de la Agencia para la Protección del Medioambiente y de la NASA no la han visto, y el consejero científico del presidente dijo que la película estaba en su lista de asuntos pendientes.

John Howard, presidente de Australia, se negó a ver a Gore cuando este último visitó Oceanía para promocionar el filme. “No acepto consejos de películas”, dijo el estadista quien añadió que tampoco filmaría el Tratado de Kyoto.

En Inglaterra, el líder conservador de la oposición, David Cameron, urgió a la gente a ver el filme con el fin de entender el calentamiento global.

En Costa Rica, Gore se entrevistó con el presidente Oscar Arias (ex premio Nobel de la Paz), y fue bien recibido por él y otros políticos, además de los medios de comunicación.

En España, el primer ministro José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, después de entrevistarse con Gore declaró que el filme sería incluido en los planes curriculares escolares. De paso, fue nominado al prestigioso Premio Príncipe de Asturias.

 GUÍA DIDÁCTICA DE USO EN EL AULA[13]

 El estudiante deberá contestar las siguientes preguntas antes de ver el filme:

 ¿Qué es el calentamiento global, los gases de invernadero y el efecto invernadero?

¿Quién es Al Gore? Investigue sus datos biográficos.

¿En qué consiste el Tratado de Kyoto y qué países se han negado a firmarlo?

Investigue la ficha técnica del filme.

Visite la página web del filme antes de verlo: http://www.climatecrisis.net

 El estudiante deberá contestar las siguientes preguntas después de ver el filme:

 Revise este ensayo escrito por el profesor Marcelo Báez y exponga las críticas a favor y en contra que ha tenido el filme.

¿Por qué se dan los conflictos del calentamiento global en nuestro planeta?

¿Cuáles son los países más afectados del mundo?

¿Qué ha hecho Estados Unidos respecto a este problema?

¿Cuál es la evolución de la temperatura desde la edad media hasta nuestros días?

¿Cómo han evolucionado las olas de frío a través de la historia?

¿Por qué nuestro planeta está al borde del caos a nivel climático?

¿Qué podemos hacer los seres humanos para cambiar todo esto?

Baje la letra de canción I NEED TO WAKE UP de Melissa Etheridge, tema principal del filme, y explique el mensaje de la misma.

Escriba cinco de los consejos que aparecen al final del filme y la forma en que piensa llevarlos a cabo.

CONCLUSIÓN PERSONAL

Creemos que el filme, pese a los errores que los puristas pudieran encontrarle, es altamente didáctico e ideal para ser transmitido en materias como Apreciación cinematográfica o Historia del cine. La guía que hemos elaborado permite degustar de mejor manera el filme y un tema tan complejo como el abordado en el documental. Pensamos que Al Gore es el político que mejor entiende el problema del calentamiento global. La gente suele hacerle caso a las figuras públicas. Si un personaje desconocido hubiera protagonizado este documental, no habría existido ningún tipo de impacto social, ninguna respuesta política de las altas esferas. Por su condición de ex funcionario de estado, Gore tiene un alto índice de credibilidad y todo lo que plantea en su película tiene una intención claramente educativa. De hecho, el político y ambientalista ya había publicado anteriormente un libro sobre ecología y este problema del calentamiento. Así que no se trata de un advenedizo sino de un comunicador público de la ciencia perfectamente comprometido con su época y su sociedad. He allí su valor global.

[2] Datos tomados de INTERNET MOVIE DATA BASE: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0346550/bio

[3] Información reelaborada de http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efecto_invernadero

[4] Información reelaborada de http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_de_efecto_invernadero

[5] Cada una de las partículas que constituyen la luz y, en general, la radiación electromagnética en aquellos fenómenos en que se manifiesta su naturaleza corpuscular  (Tomado del DRAE: Diccionario de la Real Academia Española de la Lengua).

[6] Información tomada directamente del filme y reelaborada por el autor de este trabajo.

[7] Al Gore lanzó un libro titulado también An inconvenient truth al mismo tiempo que el filme.

[8] Fuente consignada en la nota No. 9.

[9] Hasta aquí los datos corresponden al artículo “Expertos climáticos: la ciencia en el documental de Al Gore es correcta”. Martes, 27 Junio 2006. Disponible en http://www.astroseti.org/noticia_2314_Expertos_climaticos_ciencia_del_documental_Gore_correcta.htm

[10] Este párrafo y los siguientes toman información del artículo “An incorrectly claims scientists praise Gore’s movie” de Matt Dempsey disponible en el siguiente sitio web: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

[11] Los abstracts o resúmenes son textos que se insertan al principio de un ensayo para sintetizar lo más importante del mismo. En la comunidad científica un ensayo que carece de abstract o resúmen no es bien visto.

[12] Tomado de http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_inconvenient_truth#Political_response. Traducción del autor de este trabajo.

[13] Guía elaborada por el autor de este trabajo.

A few years ago, Randall banished fairness from his household in the presence of his children. He said “There is no fairness here. There never was fairness here. Furthermore, henceforth there shall be no fairness in the future.”

When you have children, you become enlightened to the reality that it is quite impossible to cut all of the pieces precisely and perfectly equal.

Also, kids get some sort of sick joy out of having 1/2 % more of something than their fellow siblings.

Reality check:. . . there is no such thing as fair. The playing field has always been tilted in favor of the smarter, the faster, the better prepared, and ones willing to work harder than those who may be less fortunate.

And yes, the wealthy have better options. The well-connected have better chances. The talented may be noticed over the average.

You may be thinking to yourself that I am about to espouse something with the words “Fox News” in it.

Au Contraire.

You see “fairness” is the battle cry of the Democrat, the liberal, who happens to be in the loosing position.

The conservative, when beat, takes responsibility. We lost. We are to blame. We shall do better.

The liberal cries out “Unfair!” . . . Heh,. . . its my turn.”

or better yet. . .

“You cheated!!”

I was angry at the stupidity of the American people for the outcome of this election.

And for that . . . . Sir Lladnar is profoundly sorry. He apoligizes.

You see, Obama voters, its not your fault that you are stupid. You are not to blame for your thoughtless lives and ignorant beliefs.

It is my fault. It is the conservatives fault.

We were wrong to try to sell you, the “American Idol” generation, on substance, on issues, on principles.

Hell, most of you couldn’t put together an articulate statement about what you believe and why.

What you do know is packaging, marketing,  showmanship, glitter, and shiny stuff.

And. . . we conservatives shall remember this lesson. Next election we shall push your buttons, pull your psychological triggers, and astound you with our “but wait there’s more”, and a better than best money back guarantee.”

I have come to the reality that it is just about the packaging. . . . and not the package. . . after all it is technically a “popular” vote electoral process.

I know this message will be potentially upsetting to Obama voters who after reading this and waiting for a few days shall begin to understand that you were insulted.

Hey. . . thats OK.

After a good night sleep . . . . . you’ll forget. . . . and your goldfish level intelligence will transport you to whatever make-believe nirvana hallucination you currently live in.

Love

Randall Taylor

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123, THE AMERICAN FRIEND, HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES, DAWN OF THE DEAD, WILD STRAWBERRIES, PULP FICTION, THE BIG LEBOWSKI, 8 1/2, PSYCHO, TORN CURTAIN, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS,  BROADWAY DANNY ROSE, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, TIME INDEFINITE, DR. STRANGELOVE OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB, HALLOWEEN, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, HELLRAISER, DECONSTRUCTING HARRY, EYES WIDE SHUT

One of the privileges of being pastor at Immanuel is that I get to meet with members of the Immanuel community to talk about their lives. I recently had a powerful twenty four hour period in which I had contact with three members around their vocations. I want to share what three Immanuel folks contribute to the world so that you too can have a sense of the true impact of this amazing congregation.

More than Kleenex and a Glass of Wine

First, I went to lunch with Ted and finally figured out what he does. And I was so inspired. Remember Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth? At the end of the movie, there were some specific suggestions about how the viewers could put what they learned into practice. Al Gore and company really wanted to get people to act, because they believed that the globe was truly in danger. Ted works for the woman who designed that. Don’t you love that? She went on to start her own company to help other film makers create the impact they want. Because they don’t want someone to cry at the end of the movie, go home and have a glass of wine, and wake up the next morning and forget the whole experience. So they hire Ted or one of his co-workers to design a strategy that makes sure their movie will really have the impact they want it to. I’m so inspired and proud to know Ted and to have him as part of the Immanuel community.

Sitting Down to Stand Up for Healthcare

The next morning I attended a sit-in outside the offices of Blue Cross Insurance Company. The sit-in was organized by Sam, who has been attending Immanuel much of this year. Sam works for a non profit organization called “Center for the Working Poor” and organized the Los Angeles expression of a nationwide “Patients not Profits” sit in under the Mobilization for Health Care for All. After marching at the entrance to the building and hearing testimonies of people whose loved ones had been hurt by the policies of Blue Cross (including Sam himself, whose mother held a similar sit in years ago before she died from cancer, in part because of unhealthy practices of Blue Cross), a group staged an illegal sit-in and were arrested for civil disobedience. Sam spent the entire weekend in jail, because he refused to give his personal information until Blue Cross relented of its practices. He was finally released, contrary to his desires, as a way to avoid further attention being brought to the matter. Sam was interviewed Tuesday morning by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.

Bridging Ancient and Modern Ways of Healing

I went from the sit in to have lunch with Chris. We meet quarterly to talk about our respective spiritual journeys. Chris has been on a path of becoming a healer for several years. Chris founded an organization in Los Angeles that offers poetry workshop in juvenile detention facilities as a means of transforming lives rather than simply warehousing alleged criminals. Over the years, they have expanded what they do to work with young people before and after they are incarcerated as well. Chris began to witness spiritual darkness in some of the youth he worked with. He began to access ways to address the darkness. Along the way he connected to some primitive paths of healing whose origins are in Latin America and Africa. As he has learned more about these primitive paths, he has grown in his own intuitive abilities to bring healing to people. He is currently being asked to dialogue with neurologists about ways to heal trauma that affects people’s brains.

What are you doing in the world to inspire and transform? What stories are you hearing about what others in our community are doing? I invite you to share those stories on this blog. Who knows what new connections might be made to bring deeper healing to us all?

An Inconvenient Truth

Today in my Development of Geographic Thought class in NUS, we had presentations on three different strands of thought namely Political Economy, Social Theory and Nature & Society. These three strands of thought have been significant in the development of geographic thought in Human Geography and are  taught only during the Honours Year. There were 10 groups in all and 3 were set to present on Nature and Society. The reading/article they were supposed to critique as part of the assignment was Timothy Luke’s ‘2008 paper on ‘The politics of true convenience or inconvenient truth: struggles over how to sustain capitalism, democracy, and ecology in the 21st century’ found in Environment and Planning A, Vol.40(8), pp.1811-824.

The groups took varied approaches to deconstruct Luke’s paper on Al Gore. You could say that this presentation/assignment entails discursive analysis on a discourse analysis of a film! But in any case, the alternative approaches as contended by my classmates were Eco-feminism, Political Ecology and Post-colonial/Post-structural. These approaches in Human Geography form the contemporary academic arguments that we can use to critique and critically analyse popular films and movements such as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

Gore is said to be overly masculinist and to be promoting sustainable degradation in his 2006 hit film. Also, my classmates argued that Gore’s effort towards climate action only served to reinforce the American hegemonic relations and can be considered a form of neo-colonial management of the entire planet! The film is also criticised as overly Anglo-American and Gore fails to acknowlege his positionality as a White male.

I guess the take home message for all of us is to be sufficiently critical towards climate change movements and popularist “greening” cultures that are so prevalent today. We must understand that there are always underlying motives and political structure which we often overlook. In order to make informed choices in our bid towards climate change and doing our part, we need to stay viligant and true to this cause by adopting a critical lens. Having said this, that is not to say that Al Gore hasn’t done a good job in relaying the message of urgent climate action to a vast majority of Americans and people around the world. His efforts are commendable (and he’s already won a Nobel Peace Prize for it!) but fail to recognize many micro-politics of environmental change that come with climate change.

Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize