The Global Power Grab

I guess it never really mattered what science said or says. My research so far has shown that many scientists have very real data-based doubts regarding the nature of co2 and it's effect on the globe. Some say that Bush and oil companies are behind these doubts, but I have found that to be highly unlikely. Why? Because the money behind finding global warming to be man made so far outweighs what any oil company or anyone does it is not even comparable. Furthermore, many scientists who have been accused are making public statements that they are being misrepresented and challenging people to check the facts. the pressure to produce pro-co2-is-evil-for-the-temperature-of-the-world-and-it-is-made-by-man research is incredible. if you want the research money, you will come up with this conclusion. That's how it works.

Unfortunately, there are many scientists who are being smeared and squelched. Paid for bias might be true in some cases, but in may it can be proven that their accusers lie when saying they are bought off (the tidy thing about money is it can be traced, or not). Men whose reputations are without stain, whose data is published, who critiques are plain for all to see, scientists from MIT, from major universities throughout the world, etc. And many are claiming that they themselves have seen the politics that is forcing the scientific world to silence them.

But it doesn't matter. no one is listening. Why not? Power. That's the answer. politicians know when to jump. REad this:


Global leaders reach climate deal

John McCain
The climate debate is over, said US presidential candidate John McCain
A meeting in Washington of global political leaders has reached a new agreement on tackling climate change.

Delegates agreed that developing countries will have to face targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as well as rich countries.

The informal meeting also agreed that a global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions.

The non-binding declaration is seen as vital in influencing a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, correspondents say.

The forum's closing statement said man-made climate change was now "beyond doubt". for the rest of the story click here.

It is plain for all to see. Here are politicians, not scientists, declaring the debate over. And now they want policy. Policy always gives power to someone. Who do you think the policy makers will give it to? And, what researcher who wants a job, a nice house and big money will dare oppose? The ones that do are being oppressed by the machine.

Here's some interesting facts I dug up while searching.

> The temperature of the globe is not conclusively proven to be caused by CO2. indeed, two graphs in the UN report, if placed upon one another show that CO2 rises just after the temperature goes up, not before, casting doubt on the causes.

> CO2 is not polution. It is a natural safe product of exhaling and oxidation. Essentially, it is plant food.

> CO2 is produced naturally in very large amounts in several ways. In our divided world it is hard to find people agreeing on what those amounts are, since that information would cast great doubt on the effects of man-made co2 on the atmosphere. There is enough confusion out there, and that is probably the intent of many. However, it should be noted that volcanos put out millions of tons of CO2 as well us tons of sulfer dioxide (so much so that in 2004, and msnbc report pointed out that mt st helen was the number 1 poluter in Washington state, due to the sulfur emissions). Forest fires far out distance cars, as can be guessed, at producing co2. underwater volcanic activity, earth quakes, methane from cows, all produce great amounts of co2. This isn't necessarily bad. whether co2 is harmful to the earth is still a debated topic among scientists who publish their data (though not among journalists). One interesting fact about co2 from a geologist at the energy department at penn state: when a tree dies, as it decays, it realeses all the co2 into the atmosphere that it absorbed during its life.

> America has more forest land now than it did in 1776. this is not a major deal, but deforestation in America does not increase co2 levels in the atmosphere (though it does in some other countries that don't care for the land as we do).

> changes in the temperature of the sun, many scientists think, is a better explanation for global temperature increase. this is a cyclical change, of course.

> before the measured global warming period discussed today, the earth had an era that was a centuries-long global cooling period, though this is rarely mentioned in journalist reports and left out of many scientific data sheets used by journalists and government agencies. Why this matters? Because we are dealing with many years and patterns of cooling and warming that go on for thousands of years.

> Ice in the Antarctic is increasing at an alarming rate, just as ice is decreasing in the arctic. In fact, historical data shows that the amount of snow on a mountain or ice in a particular region varies greatly. the problem is that measuring such things is difficult for the change is so slow that centuries are needed to see patterns.

> WE have been measuring the earth's temperature since 1880. All other measurements are extrapolated data based on studies of physical evidence in the earth. That does not discount it, but it does show that an earth this old is not easy to measure by the humans hanging around on it these last hundred years.

These are summary statements. There is much data and many voices and much for me still to learn and I will keep at it. Something that has been helpful to me is to ignore journalists when they report science and look for data beneath stories.

One thing I am certain of: The jury is still out on whether man has any significant effect on the temperature of the planet. INdeed, the hints that have come out of the UN report (it hasn't even come out yet in its final form, and the journalistic world speaks of it as if it has)include claims that there is nothing man can do to reverse the trend of a warming globe. some say it is "too late". I say, if we can't effect it in the future, why are we so sure we effected it in the past?

Another item of note: underdeveloped countries far outweigh Western nations in the Northern Hemisphere for amount of CO2, and non-co2 polutants, that are pumped into the atmosphere. That wasn't the case in the 1800's of course, but it is now. For this reason, policy that holds the west to different standards than the southern hemisphere and Asia and Eastern Europe is not only unjust, but runs the risk of punishing the peoples of the earth, by crippling the better economies of the earth, which will do nothing to help the poor, as third world nations have a way of starving their own people, while Western nations try desparately to continually fill the gap.

I'm still in a learning mode, but I know this. Making sweeping change in policy based on the theory that man-made co2 is heating up the globe is foolish. people who think their government is protecting them by such measures are tricked. This is a power-grab, plain and simple.

It is so easy for politicians to jump on the bandwagon now. AT heart, politicians in a democracy are cowards, choosing as habit whatever they think wins public opinion, willing to leave true conviction behind. I guess that is a necessary evil to have a free people. people elect, so politicians put their fingers in the wind to see which way the people are blowing. but they are also agents, with less than innocent agendas at times. they will influence public opinion as they see fit if it suits their purpose. Global warming is not a moral issue to them, it is a vehicle to gain power. the people are sheep, easily led.

my friends, don't discount the dissenting voices. listen to them. check their data. you might be surprised.

more to come.