|plages on Those Pesky Sunspots|
|ClimateForAll on Where Exactly Is Magnetic Nort…|
|Alex on Where Exactly Is Magnetic Nort…|
|RESPECTING ATHLETES… on You’re Kidding….…|
|Oriole on Where Exactly Is Magnetic Nort…|
An All Around Science Blog
Fortunately, they didn’t have to go that far. But they didn’t bother to tell anyone either. It wasn’t until after some major news outlets published this supposedly impossible feat that Josh & Co. changed their tune. Today, that same websites’ sub-heading is quoted as saying.”Jock will be leading a small crew in a world’s first attempt to Row to the 1996 position of the Magnetic North Pole.” (Notice that all they did was paste ’1996 position of the’ in between ‘the’ and ‘Magnetic’.)
Following the story throughout was WUWT. As you can see in Figure 1, the crew of “Row To The Pole” wasn’t anywhere near the North Pole or Magnetic North. They were off by over 700+ km. For many, the story ended here. Wishart, for his part, aided Climate Change fanatics in pronouncing the dangers of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the media did their best to look the other way.
I only bring this story up to segue into a more concerning matter. The matter of confusion as to the location of Magnetic North. My post is not about a polar shift or a conspiracy. I found it necessary to post that two sets of data from the International Geomagnetic Reference Field seem to question the location of the magnetic pole. Using 2 different generations of references, the speed of drift are identical and the distances are identical, but one set of data is 80km further than the other. But don’t take my word for it. Continue reading.
Or It’s Just A Shame We Can’t Hide The Decline…… Again !
Men of science that support ‘climate change’ use unethical and deceitful rhetoric in order to maintain the control and flow of money to support the biggest scam in the history of Western Civilization.
One man in particular is Terry Marsh.
In 1991, Terry Marsh supported this supposed fact from UK Groundwater:
“Another effect of climate change is likely to be rising sea levels. These may lead to the loss of groundwater resources in very low-lying coastal areas, as sea water can flow into the aquifers and mix with the fresh water.”
In 1997, Terry Marsh of the Institute of Hydrology, was quoted in the Independent (in regards to severe droughts) as saying:
“If you asked me whether I’d bet on it being climate change, then I would – because that doesn’t require me to be scientific. Our climate is inherently capricious, but lately it does seem to have been moving towards the extremes of its range.”
In 2008, The Environment Agency commissioned Terry Marsh, Lead Scientist at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) to publish findings regarding Climate Change. The CEH is a division of NERC( Natural Environmental Research Council), an annual billion dollar (annually) failed British government entity. The CEH published these findings, regarding climate change:
The key findings from this new research are:
So what we have is Terry Marsh, supporting Climate Change, using extreme language in regards to sea level rise, polar ice melt and flooding. Marsh even went as far as saying that he could say that without even being scientific.
All the while being the lead scientific member of the CEH, a division of NERC that the British gov’t gives a billion dollars to annually. ANNUALLY !
Yet here we are in 2012 and the British media is turning away from Climate Change.
So it’s no wonder that Terry Marsh has changed his tune. quite possibly to save face and any funding his precious department receives.
In the March 6th Edition of PsyOrg.Com, Terry Marsh sounds like he is doing the Climate Change Two-Step.
The Articles headline starts off with this message:
Events of the last few decades give the impression that major floods are becoming more common, but looking at the UK’s longest-running series of river-level measurements over 60 years or longer shows this isn’t the case.
Marsh went on to say:
“The records show that the frequency of river floods fluctuates over a long cycle. Looking over the past 30 or 40 years suggests flood risk is rising, but that’s largely because we’ve been in a flood-rich part of the cycle. Using a longer historical perspective, there is little evidence of any compelling long-term trend.”
There is no mention of climate change, there is no mention of, ‘Oh, i was wrong. I’m so sorry for lying to the public for 20 years.’ There is no mention of any alarming study.
For 20 years, Marsh supported the risks of floods and rising sea water in the UK as Climate Change Enhanced and got paid millions to do so.
Then as if none of what he supported matters, tells PhyOrg that the current trend, using over 100 year data, that the flow of water and sea level in the UK is a natural phenomena.
The only relevant wording to continue an alarming stance was the one by the author of the story, Tom Marshall. All Tom could muster was these words:
None of this is a reason to become complacent about the risk of floods. This research only covers those caused by overflowing rivers, and not other kinds such as urban flash flooding and coastal flooding. And while there’s limited evidence for an increase in the frequency of major river floods, those that do happen are likely to be more damaging because much of the building that’s taken place over the last century has been in risky floodplain areas.
But even by his own words, Tom suggests that any flooding wouldn’t be because of climate change, but because people are simply stupid enough to live in the flood plains.
Way to go Tom Marshall. I couldn’t have said it better.
Words of warning to you Terry Marsh…..
Here is the latest headline and excerpt about the flooding in India:
Dr Qamar, who is also the lead author and architect of the country’s first Draft National Climate Change Policy, said Pakistan is heading for increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, which includes frequent floods and droughts.
“We need to adapt and plan for that,” he said and added, the formulation of Draft National Climate Change Policy is the first step in this direction.
He said the rains in Sindh are the highest ever recorded monsoon rains during the four weeks period. Before the start of these rains in the second week of August, Sindh was under severe drought conditions and it had not received any rainfall for the last 12 months.
The last severe rainfall flooding in Sindh occurred in July 2003, he said and added, but this time the devastating rains of 1150 mm in Mithi, Mirpurkhas 676 mm, Diplo 779 mm, Chachro 735 mm, N. Parker 792 mm, Nawabshah 547 mm, Badin 512 mm, Chhor 456 mm, Padidan 381 mm Hyderabad 249 mm etc during the four weeks period have created unprecedented flood situation in Sindh.
According to Dr. Qamar, the total volume of water fallen over Sindh during the four weeks is estimated to be above 37 million acre feet, “which is unimaginable.”
He said that the rainfall was predicted well in advance by Met Office and the disaster management agencies were well prepared.
I just love how predictions are now based on extreme events. Forget previous predictions. Lets just continue to blame climate change and use only frequency as an indicator for man-made involvement.
UPDATE: No news is good news.
The winner James Fong of the Oursay.org project called ‘Climate Agenda’ ,did not get to join the panel group at the Wheeler Center.
The web page that clarified that the winner would go to the New News Conference can be seen here but the Oursay website doesn’t have a link to get to that page now.
Having dug around, the only information regarding the New News Conference was by the Public Interest Journalism Foundation and the winner from the previous Oursay.org projects’ winner Kevin Rennie.
Having looked at the PIJF website, one gets the sense that the keynote speakers present, the members of the panel, and the articles singling out climate skeptics failed to produce a head hunting job that the Fairfax Media Group attempted to undertake.
Instead, what we do know is, is there is only one article on the web that discusses the results of the project, and of course that is only the Fairfax Media Group paper(s). No other news reported on this propaganda that attempted to put climate skeptics in a sort of class as witches.
A ‘Climate Skeptic Witch Hunt Failure’ would be my headline’, but Fairfax CEO Greg Hywood at the moment is doing everything possible to put this behind him.
Otherwise, the article that started all of this, ”Who Is Funding Climate Change Skeptics?“, would have created a media storm if Mr. Hywood could have gotten away with manipulating the media.
So, No news is good news.
An interesting story(propaganda) is brewing down under.
On August 10th, 2011, Michael Bachelard wrote, “Who Is Funding Climate Change Skeptics?“
Here is an image of that article:
The source of this article comes from OurSay.Org . OurSay.org is hosting an online media event called, “The Climate Agenda.”
In their words, they say:
“Worried about climate change? Furious about the carbon tax? Confused about the science? Walkley-award winning journalist Michael Bachelard will lead The Sunday Age team investigating the 10 most popular questions on OurSay which will be featured and updated on The Age’s Climate Agenda website.”
The website encourages its readers to post a question, then have others vote on it. The person who’s question has the most votes, gets to be part of a three member panel that will attempt to answer the question.
Later in the article, Michael Bachelard writes:
The top question so far, with more than 230 votes, listed by Jason Fong soon after the project opened on Sunday, asks: ”The very point of Australia’s carbon tax is to reduce global warming. How much will reducing 5 per cent of Australia’s around 1.5 per cent contribution of global CO2 emissions reduce global temperature by?”
The second most popular question question asks The Sunday Age‘s reporters to find out who, if anyone, is funding prominent climate change ”sceptics” in the media, including Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt and Sydney radio broadcaster Alan Jones, and whether those people had a vested interest in maintaining ”the industrial status quo”.
While the top vote-getter was on topic about carbon tax and reducing emissions, the headline here is about the second most vote-getting question on who funds skeptics.
The very next day, Andrew Bolt, who is mentioned in the article, takes the article to task.
Andrew was mostly defending against this question/statement that he mentions as question 3(notice that the statement has moved from 2 to 3 now) on his blog :
“There are some very vocal and seemingly influential climate change sceptics who have been given well supported platforms by some media organisations in Australia. 2GB’s broadcasting of Alan Jones and News Limited’s publishing of Andrew Bolt is a couple of examples that spring to mind. It appears that these media organisations have the goal of destroying the credibility of anyone who supports the science of and actions to mitigate the effects of human civilization’s influences on earth’s climate. Do these media organisations obtain funding from any corporate, organisational or individual entities with a vested interest in maintain the industrial status quo where unlimited greenhouse gas emissions are largely the norm?”
- Mark Dennis
To which Andrew responds, “The answer to question three is “no, no funding to influence the debate”. Indeed, the official policy of News Ltd(Rupert Murdock) is to “give the planet the benefit of the doubt”. But look at the sponsors, backers and designers of this Sunday Age project. Haven’t their funds and support influenced the Sunday Age’s coverage? Is this ethical?”
(A pictorial tale of bulldozers and bullshit)
The above photograph was taken 9 days before Logan Pass opened on June 24th, 2010. This and the following images for 2009 and 2011 show increasing snow accumulations. None of this had been predicted. Instead, the 2007 predictions made by Dan Fagre, the NOROCK global alarmist, from Glacier national Park, had predicted fewer snowfalls and earlier springs. We will get back to him in a minute.
But first, lets take a pictorial ride through the lies and crap that become known as global warming.
How’s this for a headine:
MALABANG, Lanao del Sur — An intensified information campaign on the ill-effects of drug abuse and climate change have been waged by the 51st Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army within its area of responsibility (AOR) here.
Boy ! Nothing beats thuggery better than having your government tell it’s children that its standing army is there to protect them from drugs and climate change !
A war on drugs and climate change in the Philippines. This has to be the oddest news to date.
Further in the story we find what this is in reference to.
Lieutenant Colonel Ceasar Marlon Yadao, commander of 5IB said, “We want the people and the other government agencies in our AOR to know that 5IB is with them in the fight against illegal activities of some individuals, especially, on the illegal drugs trrade and anti-illegal logging.”
Later in the article he says,”The purpose of the said information drive is to encourage the youth to participate in the government massive campaign.”
So hold up a second. Anti-illegal logging is now also climate change. And what better way to encourage our youth, than get the army to address the high schools on how to fight against drugs and global warming.
Is that what we have come to. Comparing drugs to climate change?
And the Philippine army wants the school kids, in their area of responsibility, to know that they are with them in the fight over climate change.
Now there is one government I would hate to have to exhale in front of.
Up against the wall traitor. You have been found guilty of breathing !
FIRE ! ! ! ! !
Having spent many a day and night, seeking out the AGW camps around the web, I am constantly told how marginal my blog is, or some other negative comment about the blogging here at Climate For All.
I’ve never really considered how my blog can be used to attack my comments from other websites, so I thought I would at least attempt to put something on the record about what I think of this type of attack.
Because I don’t give a shit?
Many of the attacks in debating my understanding about global warming, has warmista’s attempting to debunk me because of my ‘marginalized stupidity’, or ’having noticed that even other skeptics avoid my website’, etc…
I am not persuaded to write what I write, based on whether or not you read my blog or comment to it.
It’s fine if you do and it’s fine if you don’t.
I only wish to encourage others to think for themselves.
My views that I make available are but a statement of my position on global warming. Period.
It is my way to let everyone know that I am not some anonymous blogger.
It also shows that I’m willing to research and investigate the science, rather than assume the science is ‘settled’.
I suppose if I wanted to, I could be more obliging and accommodating, but I really don’t have time to hold any ones hand.
And I think that those that think along those same lines understand that.
Sites like WUWT and CA and ICECAP can have all the glory and recognition for their exemplary work.
I just want it to be known for the record where I stand, and not because I seek any ones approval.
I won’t win any popularity contests, that’s for sure.
Even amongst my friends, I have been considered at times overbearing and abrasive.
But if the truth be know, I am genuinely beneficent. It’s not till after a time, that even the most skeptical of my friends were won over.
That’s not to say I don’t continue to be viewed as abrasive, it’s just I am better understood to be kindly to those closest to me, while leaving those beyond my realm of influence without the luxury of that sensibility.
The science behind global warming, pro or con, is not for the weak-hearted. You show a moment of hesitation or doubt, and you have just become a casualty of the war.
Since, I do neither, all the alarmist has for his arsenal is to debunk my blog.
So to that, I say, so what?!
Hows that working out for ya?
The Environmental Work Group, a Greenpeace thinktank, wants you to become a vegetarian.
The EWG has this new report out called:
According to EWG calculations, if everyone in the US went vegetarian and there was a corresponding reduction in meat production
of that same amount, it would be the equivalent of removing about 255 million metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere.
While total annual GHG emissions is nearly 30 Billion metric tons(EPA estimate), the percentage of reduction in annual GHG’s would be less than 1%.
This report doesn’t come out and say this. I had to go dig out the information in the reference section near the end to find it.
The report, written by a policy analyst, not a scientist, uses real pretty graphs and fine language, but does everything to hid the fact that if Americans stopped eating meat, it barely puts a dent in total GHG emissions.
By Peter Griffiths | July 22, 2011
Here is another article from the U.K.’s Energy & Evironmental Management(EAEM) website:
You have to like this guys moxy though. Story starts off well enough, until you actually read it. It is already understood that FWS will not make any determination for Listings based on climate change. This is nothing more than a plea for help, made toward the unsuspecting.