Warbird Information Exchange

Since the 1980s, many climatologists have claimed that
human activity has caused the near-surface air
temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in
history. Industrial carbon dioxide emissions, they say, will
soon result in a runaway global warming, with disastrous
consequences for the biosphere. By 2100, they claim, the
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will double,
causing the average temperature on Earth to increase by
1.9°C to 5.2°C, and in the polar region by more than 12°C.
Just a few years earlier, these very same climatologists had
professed that industrial pollution would
bring about a new Ice Age. In 1971, the
spiritual leader of the global warming
prophets, Dr. Stephen H. Schneider from
the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colorado, claimed
that this pollution would soon reduce the
global temperature by 3.5°C.1 His
remarks were followed by more official
statements from the National Science
Board of the U.S. National Science
Foundation, ”. . .[T]he the present time of
high temperatures should be drawing to
an end . . . leading into the next glacial
age.” In 1974, the board observed,
“During the last 20 to 30 years, world
temperature has fallen, irregularly at first
but more sharply over the last decade.”2
No matter what happens, catastrophic
warming or catastrophic cooling, somehow
the blame always falls upon “sinful”
human beings and their civilization—
which is allegedly hostile and alien to the
planet.
In 1989, Stephen Schneider advised: “To capture the public
imagination . . . we have to . . . make simplified dramatic
statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.
. . . Each of us has to decide the right balance between being
effective and being honest.”3 This turned out to be an “effective”
policy: Since 1997, each of approximately 2,000
American climate scientists (only 60 of them with Ph.D.
degrees) received an average of $1 million annually for
research;4, 5 on a world scale, the annual budget for climate
research runs to $5 billion.6 It is interesting that in the United
States, most of this money goes toward discovering the change
of global climate and its causes, while Europeans apparently
believe that man-made warming is already on, and spend
money mostly on studying the effects of warming.

http://library.thinkquest.org/3876/iceage.html

Just The Facts

There were about 11 different ice ages.
The ice ages were during the earth's 4.6 billion years of history.
The last ice age was called "The Great Ice Age" and was 11,000 years ago.
During the "Great Ice Age" over a third of the earth was covered in ice. During the ice age the air had less carbon dioxide in it.
Right now we are living in a mini ice age.
There are two explanations of why the ice ages might have occurred: 1.The temperatures were much colder so it never rained, only snowed. 2. The earth changed its tilt away from the sun.

sorry to say that 21st Century Science Tech is one of Lindon LaRouche's publications... that guy's even more wacko than some of the left wing groups, and I wouldn't trust anything published by him.

If we can spend a trillion dollars and thousands of lives going to look for WMD which were never there...

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3899807

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19131

The so-called naysayers--more accurately, non-alarmists--include numerous respected scientists, several dozen of whom recently argued in a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

More importantly, if Time is going to discuss economic motives, it should do so across the board, not selectively to discredit one side. The perception that global warming is something to be "very worried" about is the sine qua non of billions of dollars in annual government contracts to researchers and universities, and millions of dollars in annual direct mail contributions to eco-activist groups. "News" magazines such as Time profit greatly by spreading alarm, because scary stories and scarier covers sell copy.

In addition, many companies hope to profit from the regulatory constraints of a carbon-rationed economy. Carbon controls boost the market shares of companies that produce "alternative fuels," generate electricity from low- and non-carbon fuels, or manufacture high-end (ultra-energy-efficient) appliances.

There are special interests on both sides of the climate policy debate, even as there are objective scientists and idealists on both sides. Time presents a childish caricature, not balanced news for adults.

Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright, February 1998: “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, February 1998: “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: “When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.”

French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: “There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right...in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.”

President Bill Clinton, December 1998: “Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.…I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again….” Clinton, July 2003: “…[I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in ’98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back there.”

General Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat….Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons….He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean [D], September 2002: “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.” Dean, February 2003: “I agree with President Bush—he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given.” Dean, March 2003: “[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons.”

Former Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation Robert Einhorn, March 2002: “How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner.”

Senator Bob Graham [D-Florida] and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: There is no doubt that…Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs….In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.], December 1998: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Senator John Rockefeller [D-W. Virginia], ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, October 2002: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years….We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority – if necessary – to disarm Saddam, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our society."
– Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002, Congressional Record.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal and murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. And we all know the litany of his offenses. The reason I think we need to really think about him is because he presents a particularly grievous threat through the consistency with which he is prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate a former American president. He miscalculated his own military strength and he miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

"That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose and destroy its weapons programs. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it's not new. Since the end of the Persian Gulf War we've known this."
– Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003, Georgetown University.

"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. ... [T]he only exit strategy is victory. This is our common mission and the world's cause."
– Kerry, March 20, 2003, at the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
– Kerry, Dec. 16, 2003, campaigning in Iowa

"Americans really need to understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. ... Saddam has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction."
– Kerry, Dec. 16, 1998, press conference.

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already-existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
– Kerry, Sept. 6, 2002, the New York Times.

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company

what will happen in 2012?
The Maya believed that their world would end on Dec 21, 2012. Of all the dates put forth by prophets and cultures for a doomsday, this is one with an authentic almost eerie feel to it. But what will happen? A global cataclysm is one possibility. Presented here is enough information to help you decide - be you an expert or a beginner.

Survive 2012 is a non-fiction book in progress. After two periods of working on it, I am keenly awaiting have the time to finish it (right now my priority is accumulating funds...).