Tuesday, November 24, 2009

AGW Warning from 1989

Just some key words from the vid that stick in my head.... things like 'It's unclear whether' global warming is the cause of the problems with crops, but 'there is a 50-50 chance' if we don't do something, 'even if it's not sure', it could be a catastrophy in 2 decades.

Wait it's 2009 now....


I'm just updating this with one of my random thoughts again..... Why are people having such a hard time believing that the AGW scientists could be fiddling data, hiding data, etc in order to achieve their end goal? Haven't there been cases over the years where scientists hid, for example, possible drug side effects that they did know about but were hoping weren't going to be severe enough to be noticed? Pharmaceutical companies don't just magically create medications - these things are researched and tested and created by scientists. I don't know if there are recent cases of outright deception, but my brain is tickling in the far recesses of memory that I have heard stories over the years of people receiving compensation and others being charged for not releasing all of their findings properly. If scientists did it then, why can't they do it now? What holds them up on a pedestal anyway?

And then, what makes these particular scientists the all-knowing ambassadors when there ARE other scientists who are skeptical or downright disagreeing with their findings? Why are these scientists 'right' but the others are 'wrong'? Who determines that? It's difficult to be a person who was not trained in this field to make any sense of what is going on. But to automatically assume one group of scientists is incapable of being deceiptful just because they are 'scientists' is a little bit naive, don't you think? Especially since they claim the skeptical scientists are the ones with-holding data and manipulating results. Do you see what I am trying to say here?? Regardless of what the outcome is, both groups accuse the other of manipulating data so someone MUST BE. It IS possible... so who is it? Don't automatically assume you know how to pick sides when you have no way of checking the facts yourself unless you too are a scientist in this field and 100% sure of your findings with untainted proof to back it up. Otherwise you are just a sitting duck like the rest of us, wondering who is going to win - and which ones are being deceiptful and hiding truths from us. Remember- someone MUST be manipulating data. And they are all scientists... so where does that leave Mr Joe Public in sorting through this mess?


  1. Due to the recent revelations from the Hadley CRU, I am so mad I can't discuss this coherently!


    Liars and con artists, using "chicken littles" as useful idiots,are intent on plundering the First World Countries to buy indulgences from Third World dictators!

    The people who decried the old religion have just found out that THEIR new and sexier religion has no God either,or any basis in truth.

    The fallout should be entertaining.

  2. Excellent, and correct questions, Kez. You're thinking as I'm thinking. Logically, rationally, and for yourself.

    Also, we know that many Congressional Reps don't bother to read the legislative bills they vote on.

    Surprising or not, doesn't matter.

    What does matter is that the Obamacare bill is about 1,500 pages or so, whereas the IPCC thing has pages numbering in the six figures.

    Why would "scientists" necessarily read all those hundred-thousand-whatever pages of alphanumeric-graphical gobbleddygook before signing the infamous "consensus" declaration, when we know that many of our elected representatives don't bother to read a mere thousand-page bill before either voting for or against its imposition upon us?

    Like politicians, business folks and even priests, scientists, of course, can be corrupt, greedy, even criminal.

    So why should we believe that the alleged 2,500 signatory "scientists" necessarily bothered to carefully review the 100,000+ pages of data, which, by the way, could easily have been falsified (and we now know at least some have been)?

    Add up all the reasonable doubts and it's IMPOSSIBLE to believe anything anyone says about AGW/CC. And impossible to accept legislation which would destroy our economies and massively transform our way of life in the name of a Big Lie.

  3. Yes I have heard that the papers were huge and my thoughts on that are the same - did all of the signers read it all. And better yet - what kinds of scientists were they? Did they understand the data fully and go through it all before signing? Or did they do what the 'regular public' did and just believe that they must know what they are doing and trust them??

    I think this is too important an issue to just blindly follow it.

    On Fox News last night I saw a Democratic Strategist being asked about the treaty. The host told him to look into the camera and tell the American public (but this applies to us as well) that it's okay to send 10s of billions of dollars to developing countries in the name of this treaty. The guest refused, saying that is untrue! He said it several times.

    I read a proposal for the Copenhagen Treaty on the WWF website recently and my head was spinning at the amount of money requested. It said it right there in black and white that countries like the US and Canada who have high emission rates will have to send money in that will be distributed throughout developing countries in order for them to gain access to newer energy technology. It was spread all through the proposed treaty! Not to mention other costs like multi-million dollar yearly fees to be a part of the treaty, which was to go to administrative issues like a whole whack of different committees that are to oversee all of this.

    So why would that guy say it was untrue and refuse to tell the public that it's our duty to engage in this treaty? I read it myself. I didn't see it on some blog, I saw it on the World Wildlife Federation website where they were singing the treaty's praises.

    I think it comes down to using some common sense. My bf has worked in the oil industry for 20 years now and they have to carry around monitors that detect CO2 and other gases and alert them if the levels change even the tiniest amount (if you blow on the machine, the CO2 alarm goes off). For the past 20 years his monitor has read the same level for CO2. No matter where he has been - southern or northern canada - and no matter the weather (raining, crazy windy, etc) it does not change.

    So I think "well,,, that level has stayed the same all these years. Even if they claim the CO2 is in the upper atmosphere, why doesn't it ever come down? Where does it go? Why doesn't wind or inclement weather with our gigantic high thunder clouds pull some of it down? Why is there no variation at ground level?'... Just things like that pop into my head and I store them to think about from time to time.

    I don't think many supporters of this realize what it means for our lives. I watch Ed Begley Jr talking about his solar panels and know that they cost several thousand dollars, if not hundreds of thousands, and most normal people cannot afford that. So what are we supposed to do to be more green?? He talked about riding his bicycle to premiers like we are supposed to clap for him or something --- during our first snowfall in October this year I wondered how he would like riding his bike through that sh*t because I could not even push my son's stroller through it. It was a mess. Bikes in the south might not be so bad, but up here what are we to do? Go back to Little House On The Prairie times? Or buy snow shoes? It's really ridiculous what this treaty wants countries to do but supporters just yell hurray without even thinking about what it REALLY means to our lives. Did they drive to the rally? Well SHAME on them!

  4. Speaking of riding bikes in the winter, I had a commie economics professor (he actually brought Noam Chomsky to campus, as well as making me read that nut's stuff as well as the stuff of other commies like Linda McQuaig, nothing but Leftist economists' stuff, in fact... and he always, after each and every lecture, asked us, "what impact does THIS have on equity and the distribution of income,") whom I saw more than once riding his bike in the frigid cold of winter.

    Needless to say, the Climategate scandal becomes clearer and clearer each day. Now we know that the guys who dumped the raw temp data are THE guys who were cited by the IPCC, the guys involved in the infamous "hockey stick" graph, etc... They're the most important "scientists" in the whole scandal, and to wholly discredit them is to wholly discredit the whole GW/CC thing.

    Nevertheless, I still see most politicians, the Big Old Media and the Left in general pretending that there's nothing to see here and that we still gotta "save the world" and all that nonsense. They're insane, plain and simple.

    And Harper's going to write a check for ten billion bucks to give away to other countries...

  5. Kez,
    I would have to agree with your assessment in that Mr. Joe Public is left out in the cold wondering who (if anyone) to believe. I would make a few suggestions to them in discerning the information:
    1)look for honesty (do this by watching out for inconsistency in their results.
    2)Look for 'direct' answers when questions are asked. Meaning, when someone asks a specific question and that question is then answered by saying, "look at how many people/scientists agree with this" or "the science is settled". These are not an explanation.
    3)Look for anyone who may have a financial interest in the data being portrayed a certain way.

    These are some helpful tools in sorting out the misconceptions and bogus data being fed to America.

    If you would like to review the emails for yourself, you can find them here:


    Good luck! I will be right there with you, searching for the truth...

    Nathan R. Jessup

  6. thanks Nathan :)

    Personally as soon as I read them I thought 'ha! We have you, you buggers!' and it wasn't just because I am on some crazy quest to obliterate AGW warnings. My father was somewhat of a researcher for Forestry and I know how difficult it was to go through everything and keep track of everything, but he had to do it for his work. If someone asked him a question, he could easily point to any of the past research they had done and provide the papers, examples, theories, results of testing, etc. And that was just for trying to get a handle on the Mountain Pine Beetle that's been making it's destructive journey through our forests.

    Now with something as vastly insanely important as global warming, the info is not there readily available. For every page I find for it, I find another that seems to show they are jumping at shadows. I look at sea ice tables on reputable sites and see it growing in some areas while shrinking in others, then I see propaganda showing Polar Bears dying and running out of ice. My brain takes all of that in and then I speak to people I actually personally know who live and work in the arctic. My friend's brothers are Ice Road Truckers and I have a lot of long-time friends in Norman Wells and they go further north for working. They are not seeing the things being reported and I'm sorry but I trust the first hand accounts of my friends and family over scientists that are funneling a hell of a lot more money through their hands than all of my friends added together up there.

    I also take huge issue with all of the anti-Canada sentiment out there that makes us sound like we are living under a black cloud of pollution. We have sooooooooo much untouched land out there, gorgeous and clean and safe but that gets swept under the rug and a messy oil sands project is shown to be the symbol of Canada. BULLSH*T. (sorry lol). Maybe they should show photos of how nothing could really inhabit that region before those projects started and show the new caribou crossings built after the animals decided to start migrating through there again, or the other wildlife being attracted to the reclaimed and cleaned up areas (my cousins and friends work all over the Fort MacMurray area). But no, you don't see THOSE photos, you just see the temporarily dirty stinky pics and people shun Canada. Maybe they should come over and take a trip through the Rockies to see the beauty for themselves, an unbelievable amount of unspoiled land.



These are my views and opinions. If you don't agree or think I am sadly misguided, that is your view. Feel free to share your thoughts but I also reserve my right to moderate content (IE foul language, excessive flaming, etc).