Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge Green Tech Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

Top Green-Tech Sites

The Facts On Climategate

A Shameless Distraction From The Reality That Faces Earth

climate_changeIn November thousands of private e-mails were published on the Internet when a computer hacker breached the security of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) database in the UK.

The stolen data flew lickity-split around the news outlets and web sites skeptical about climate change. Even here in the US on Capitol Hill, it has given new ammo to opponents of climate change legislation. And then there’s Fox News calling the hacker a “whistle-blower”. While on his Fox News show, Sean Hannity falsely claimed the stolen emails show that the scientists “were certainly fudging” climate data; as an example, Hannity read from an email from CRU scientist Phil Jones in which he employed the word “trick” to describe his methods. In fact, the word “trick” has been grossly misinterpreted and refers to, as climate expert Bob Ward writes, “Scientists say ‘trick’ not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something — a short cut can be a trick.

Out of the thousands of the stolen e-mails the skeptics have taken a handful, few if any in their entirety to show some CRU’s researchers decided to exclude or manipulate some research that didn’t help prove global warming exists. Including one in which the director of the CRU Professor Phil Jones wrote, “In an odd way this is cheering news”, over the death in 2004 of John L Daly a climate change skeptic. Not cool.

Prompting him to apologize for the tone of some e-mails while standing by the science produced at the center. Then Jones resigned. As he should have. Science should ‘steer’ us, we are not allowed to ‘steer’ science, nor even the inference of impropriety in the collection of data.

The leaks have led to claims that the data was stolen in an attempt to undermine the Copenhagen climate talks. True or not, it is a shameless distraction from the reality of the catastrophic threat facing our planet.

“Now, we know that skeptics have and will continue to try and sow doubts about the science of climate change,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a briefing at the U.S. center in Copenhagen Wednesday, “These are the same tactics that have been used by defenders of the status quo for years. Those tactics only serve to delay and distract from the real work ahead, namely, growing our clean energy economy and finding innovative, cost-effective ways to reduce harmful greenhouse gases.”

c-grace-covercThe skeptics say there is not a consensus that humans are a “significant” factor in rising temperatures, nor that results of global warming will be catastrophic. They are absolutely correct – – WHAT?! OH Lordy! Linda done fell over to the Dark Side! — Calm down, here’s why; a survey shows 2,460 Earth Scientists and 75 Climate Scientists (the vast majority in both those categories), feel humans are a “significant” factor in rising temperatures and warn of floods, droughts, disease, and a “tipping point”. But if even one of the scientist in the remaining minority disagrees, then there is no consensus. So there, semantics, a play on words, a political ploy for media face time. Another shameless distraction from the reality that faces our planet.

When it comes down to it, it’s just the hard-core facts that matter:

According to the research, published in the journal Science in November 2005, carbon dioxide levels today are 27% higher than the highest previous level in the last 650,000 years, and methane levels are 130% higher.

taking-an-ice-core490_35564_1By analyzing the ice chemistry of a two-mile-long ice core they drilled and extracted in 10-foot sections, scientists were able to determine temperatures at various times from the past. Air bubbles trapped within the ice contain air and greenhouse gases from hundreds of thousands of years ago, enabling scientists to assess air quality at many points throughout the millennia.

The past decade has been the hottest on record prompting and urgent warning by the World Meteorological Society.

We have lost 1.5 trillion tons of ice in Greenland. The Artic melt has increased by 40%. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are 30% more acidic than in pre-industrial times.

NOAA scientists findings show pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels hovered around 280 ppm until 1850. Human activities pushed those levels up to 380 ppm by early 2006. We have shot up 100 ppm over the maximum of what nature has naturally created – ever.

2009 could be one of the warmest years ever recorded – according to Forecasters at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. They expect it to be the 5th warmest world wide despite cooler temperatures in Canada and the U.S. With 1998 being the hottest year ever.

So, that’s my two cents worth. What’s yours?

…. as the green future unfolds.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

32 Responses to “The Facts On Climategate”

  1. Dave McK Says:

    “hottest on record” only means during the time measurements have been made with thermometers.
    Hide the decline (in the IPCC report) was about hiding the global decline in temperatures since the Medieval Warming Period that preceded the Little Ice Age because it shows global temperatures warmer than we have now:
    “As the archaeologists dug through the permafrost and removed the windblown glacial sand that filled the rooms, they found fragments of looms and cloth. Scattered about were other household belongings, including an iron knife, whetstones, soapstone vessels, and a double-edged comb. ”
    It didn’t get warmer from factories back then, you see?

    And I’m glad the glaciers retreated. Iowa can grow corn, Kansas can grow wheat and Canadians can frolic in the snow.
    I’d rather frolick in the meadow, but most of the country is still too cold to be habitable.

  2. Linda Says:

    Hi Paul…

    The IPCC report did utilize CRU data – in part, along with data garnered from numerous other scientist and agencies like NASA, NOAA, and the EPA, just to name a few. Can you logically discount the results of all reputable agencies and scientist? No, because that would be sticking your head in the sand.

    Setting aside honest human error, miscalculation and yes the possibility of the occasional skewed data for whatever skewed reason, and if you are seriously seeking the truth about the condition of this planet, then you have got to logically lean towards the side with the abundance of plausible data. And that data is … we are hurting our Earth.

    Hi Dave,

    No one is saying the Earth’s climate is not cyclic – of course it is, but it’s the extreme pace of the changes along with the as yet, uncontrolled continual human pollution that is speeding us towards a hostile environment. Earth will right herself – with or without – humans. I prefer humans.

    And with apologies to John Lennon – all we are saying is give Earth a chance.

    Hi Theresa … Great minds think alike!

    Hi Don … True but with any data, there are many other ways to measure. Are we going to discount the other scientists as well? All I say is do keep an open mind and let’s see what shakes out.

  3. Paul Says:

    The evidence of conspiracy and scientific fraud is mounting every day as more and more of the info is analyzed. I don’t condone the illegal acquisition of the data and I personally don’t have the expertise to fully understand how the fraud was perpetrated, but I can understand why.

    The mere fact that data was manipulated to further the agenda shines a very long shadow of doubt on the whole movement. Especially when one looks at who stands to gain and how much from the hype created by that fraudulent data. I have to admit that I have never bought in to global warming, climate change or whatever the hysteria catch phrase of the day is. I am just sitting back and examining the evidence and in my opinion the movement has lost a lot of credibility.
    .-= Paul´s last blog ..Navy Leadership: What the Heck are You Thinking? =-.

  4. Theresa Cahill Says:

    ESP! My husband and I were JUST talking about this….!
    .-= Theresa Cahill´s last blog ..If You Don’t Think Women Rule, You Best Read This =-.

  5. Don Says:

    My understanding from MSNBC is that the “trick” was about hiding the tree ring data from the 1950’s on that contradicts direct measurements. The glaciers melting (Poles and mountains) and other various “on the ground” evidence certainly points to a warming world, but the science of paleo-climatology which they base comparisons from hundreds of thousands of years agos is flawed and this scandal has shed some light on that
    .-= Don´s last blog ..Home Energy Monitors =-.

  6. Don Says:

    Hi Linda, I am not saying we discount anthropocentric climate change at all, that it just silly considering the known physics of “greenhouse” gasses. I just think that nature of the debate has caused some scientists to take shortcuts and have biases. It does not help in the long term.
    .-= Don´s last blog ..Home Energy Monitors =-.

  7. Linda Says:

    Hi Don …. Absolutely true! But I see no harm in taking shortcuts as long as those shortcuts do not skew the true results. I believe that even the most learned scientists do have bias one way or the other. However, intelligent people should be aware of their bias and strive hard not to let them infiltrate the work at hand. Not only does it not help in the long term, it can put your hinny in the fryer in the short term. Just ask the ex-director of CRU. 🙂

  8. psyche Says:

    It is wrong to distort the data in any way and has proved completelty counter-productive. I don’t think what they did should be defended of excused because at least some small part of it was scientific dishinesty fo the worst sort. They have given the denailits the tiny bit of legitimacy they need to choose immediate profit over saving the planet. They have undermined the trust in science needed to solve the problem of anthropogenic climate change.

  9. Steve Says:

    Let’s be honest here. For quite some time we that have insisted that the temperature changes were cyclical were mocked as flat earthers who denied science its rightful place. In the past decade, the global temp has been dropping. Now, we learn that scientists had altered the data to create the global warming data in the first place.

    You can try to defend a trick as a shortcut. So I would ask, if you are allowed to shortcut the data, can we shortcut the solution to the problem? Of course not. The only thing the flat earther, science denying, global warming promoters will accept is their ridiculous legislation to cure a non existent problem.

    There is a huge difference between denying “scientific conjecture” and denying scientific devices like a thermometer. If you wish to stick with your silly global warming religious notions despite the evidence that your preachers lied and manipulated data, feel free. But don’t expect the rest of us to act like you really have a point and allow you to legislate your morality on the rest of us.

  10. Linda Says:

    Hi Steve … Ok, let’s be honest here.
    First: You are way wrong that the global temp is dropping, as a matter of FACT the first decade of this century has been the hottest on record, this was announced just 4 days ago by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). FYI: Although not in this decade 1998 holds the record as the hottest year ever. Plus, I would also venture to guess that the vast majority of those temp. values were garnered from scientific devices called thermometers.

    Second: If you actually read the entire post, that I in NO WAY condone the manipulation of data to skew the results one way or another. And you would have seen the part about the sheer overwhelming majority of scientists in this area of concern are infactic about humans hastening global warming exist. But, I suppose you would catagorize them as flat earthers, global warming religious preachers, like NASA. And everybody knows what fanatic flat-earth preachers they are, right?

    Third: It is beyond me why those who don’t believe in global warming are so vehemently against us working towards a sustainable future for our children if nothing else. Are you that afraid green legislation is going to hurt you or your pocketbook? Well, it won’t. It’s good for the economy as well as the ecology. Besides that – majority rules – so let’s just see, as with the last Presidential election, were the chips fall.

    And Finally Steve: My actual religion is my spirituality and is none of your business. I don’t push or force my ‘morality’ on anyone nor do I condone such action. So, don’t come to my blog and try tagging me or the theme of this site with sarcastic remarks and name calling.

    Logical and polite debate from both sides of the issue is welcomed and wanted at this site.

    Hi Psyche – As you can see in the second paragraph to Steve, I am in no way defending anyone manipulating data. good, bad, or indifferent, but I will say that the big hooodooo is by no means a conspiracy cause they were shocked at their own results and as has been just blown out of proportion.

  11. Tom Usher Says:

    My comment on your post: speaks directly to this post too.

    I been writing against those claiming there’s a “Climategate.” My post before that one is also on this issue. Those are from ten days ago, and plenty has come out since.

    I recommend that you all subscribe (for free) to this YouTube channel: (not a blanket endorsement)

    Peace and love to all,


    My last post, which I see that your commentluv plugin has picked up, also speaks to it in a direct way, as in “what’s really going on.” Some people are seeing patterns that aren’t real but that they just want to be there. I’m speaking of the AGW deniers who are not the exact same set as those generally termed “Truthers.” I’ve seen some powerful environmentalists who are Truthers. They are rare but real.

    What’s really going on is the underlying premise of laissez-faire capitalism (not the mixed economy, per se) is selfishness. Certain people have made an enterprise out of conflating “liberty” with the following: “Don’t speak out against other persons who are polluting” and “Just don’t purchase their goods or services.” It’s a fatally flawed, faith-based system.

    The greediest of the greedy love it though even while the results often scares them because those at the top of the mammon-driven food chain, unlike the dupes, minions, and shills at the bottom, really know there is inherent harm in their chosen path. Greed is their creed, and it’s evil.


    .-= Tom Usher´s last blog ..FRIGID COLD HITS NEW LOW IN SEATTLE, AND I REPENT =-.

  12. Sandy Says:

    Alright Linda!!! You go girl! I got your back!
    Score: Intellect 1 – Raving Idiotic Rants 0
    I’m gonna be quoting you!

  13. Linda Says:

    Hi Sandy … LOL! Thanks for your support! 😀

  14. A. @ A Changing Life Says:

    Just to repeat what you’ve said in a reply to an earlier comment, even if you don’t believe that the climate is warming, or that humans have caused it, it nevertheless makes sense to control the pollution and profligate waste of natural resources that’s going on at the moment. We have to leave some sort of habitable world for future generations, and into the bargain it will eventually save us money if we reduce our energy demands.
    .-= A. @ A Changing Life´s last blog ..PhotoHunt: undesirable =-.

  15. Linda Says:

    Hi A. … Thank You!!! I was beginning to think I was beating my head against the wall. Sometimes language is such a frustrating obstacle. So again, Thank you my friend

    Hi my multi-faceted friend (Diane and you too, Theresa!) …. Bullseye! You are right on the money! (pardon the pun! – but if truth be known, money is the issue here) 😀 Now, if we could get everyone close to this realism, I believe, change is in our near future as it is coming.

  16. Diane Scott Says:

    Diane, Theresa, whoever, LOL… Just wanted to chime in again with a longer reply (not much but some). I believe the Earth is cycling. I also believe we humans are speeding up that cycling. Think 10,000 years ago, were there billions of humanoids on the planet at the time… no. Did the Earth change anyway… yes.

    Now let’s speed forward to the past Olympics in China. Was anyone concerned when the Marathoners ran through streets so smog ridden SOMEONE should have been concerned for their safety.

    We humans are pigs. We want what we want, when we want it and a majority say to hell with the rest of the world.

    Going green will (when the money is given to the right people to get the job done versus the wrong people who want to just keep doing “studies” off the backs of the rest of us funding) be a good thing. Would you rather suck up “clean” (don’t even get me started) coal or solar or wind power air?

    Time is ripe for change. It’s people that are getting in the way for all the wrong reasons.

    Instead of arguing whose right or wrong, take a look at the indexes particularly in China and/or Mexico City and/or… and ask yourself (if you don’t already have to live there) would YOU like to be “trying to breath” each day???

    (And p.s. Linda… you were right… wow LOL!)
    .-= Diane Scott´s last blog ..Fun Sunday 19 Out of 20 What’s Your Score? =-.

  17. john Says:

    i like how your religionists have hidden the truth from the heretics.

    This whole hysteria led to a fantastic diversion of energy on the left side of the political spectrum. Instead of working against war and the police state, issues on which the left tends to be pretty good, instincts were diverted to the preposterous cause of creating a statist system for global thermometer management.The costs associated with dismantling industrial civilization outweigh even the worst-case global-warming scenario.

    And methodologically, the whole thing was always nuts. If we can’t determine cause and effect now with certainty, how in the heck will we be able to determine it after the world state controls our carbon emissions, and impoverishes us in the process? No one will ever be in a position to say whether the policy worked or failed. That is not a good basis for enacting legislation.

    The left today that supports world government to stop climate change bears little resemblance to the left of 100 years ago, which favored civil liberties and social liberality and was willing to do anything to end war. Now it has diverted its energies to a preposterously unworkable scheme based on pseudo-science.

    This hysteria has gotten worse. We have representatives who want to cut down our forests due to there “carbon leakage”, and the fact that building with steel or brick would leave a bigger carbon footprint. And the folks who don’t want to cut them down want to make “tree farms” out of them, which i think is ecological unenviable. as far as squirrels, raccoons, deer, and bears are concerned.

    You people think that all the people who belong to your religion, Climate Scientology, are smart. That they’re ideas will make the earth better. I think not.

  18. Linda Says:

    Hi John

    You say, “The costs associated with dismantling industrial civilization outweigh even the worst-case global-warming scenario.” Suggesting the idea solution is stay with the status quo, so you can be counting your money with your last gasping breath. If that is what you really meant, then so be it. But there’s one problem. You’re not on this planet by yourself. Myself and about six billion other people do to and we want our home to be clean and healthy because no amount of money in the world is worth a deep cleansing breath of fresh air or a clean drink of water.

    I must say I haven’t heard about legislation to cut down our forests because of “carbon leakage”. That really defies logic, if true. As for as ‘tree farms’ go, they completely surround my homestead here in Texas and believe me, the squirrels, raccoons, and deer, around here don’t seem to have a problem at all with them. Can’t really say what the bears think, we avoid each other.

    Lastly John, don’t pigeon hole me with any of your assumptions about mine or anyone else’s religion or lack thereof. As I told Steve, don’t come to my blog and try tagging me or the theme of this site with sarcastic remarks and name calling.

    I don’t know where you’re from but, here we have freedom of speech, if you agree with me – great, if you don’t, that’s ok too. We will agree to disagree – POLITELY.

    As always, at this site, respectful and logical debate is welcomed and wanted.

    Hi Heath

    Your father raised you with the same principles as my parents raised us. Especially the ‘return a borrowed item in better condition’ philosophy.

    The soot melting the ice caps theory, that could be a plausible hypothesis, it just seems there would be about an inch of soot dusting everywhere. But in direct correlation to that is those very same carbon particles jettisoned into the atmosphere in your theory is one of the culprits acting like plastic wrap covering the sky, letting heat in, but not letting it out, ergo global warming.

    Nothing would give me greater pleasure than if the ‘we’ and ‘them’ could be totally dropped and became ‘us of the planet Earth’. Then we could turn our combined energies towards the sustainable health and well being of our planet.

    I share your frustration with all the talk and little on the action front. Or as my grandmother use to say, “It’s time to sh– or get off the pot”. But, it never seems to be that way with humans, we always have to talk a situation down to the last critical second before jumping to spit on the fuse about to ignite the dynamite.

  19. Heath Says:

    I’ve always thought that environmentalist’s have missed the boat by hitching their argument to climate change. To me, it’s cleaning up the environment. When I was a kid my dad borrowed some farm equipment from a neighbor. We cleaned it and cleaned it before we returned it. When I asked dad why, he said that when you borrow something, you return in in better condition than when you got it. And that is what we should be doing with the planet, leave it in a better condition than when we got it. (In all areas, environmental, quality of life, economic, etc… but for this site we’ll concentrate on environment)

    Like the debate that is going on here, there are differing views on climate change. (I’m not going to go into which side makes more sense in the climate debate, because to me it all misses the point) I heard 2nd hand of meteorologist that doesn’t believe in man made global warming. When asked about the melting ice caps this is what he said. He took some ashes from his fireplace and (after they had cooled) put them on parts of his lawn where snow was standing. Where he put the ash the snow melted faster. His theory is that coal plants in China is delivering soot to the ice caps and that is what is melting the snow.

    So to me, if you find economically viable solutions to things such as coal fired energy sources, it doesn’t matter if there is global warming or not. The result is a cleaner planet. So I just think that if you concentrate on things like green energy is cheaper and also helps clean up after yourself, then that is the route to go. Then there isn’t this “This scientist said/That scientist said” arguments that just distracts from the cleaner planet that we need to have.

  20. john Says:

    i don’t want to stay with the status quo. i want electric cars and cars with internal combustion motors limited to horsepower below 50. i want our government to surpass europe and japan in are rail system. i want to ban cutting trees. and i don’t want to talk about those mountain-top coal mine companies.

    a few years ago i took water samples for as ecological group here in my hometown. i did for a year until my work made it impossible.

    tree farms are not ecosystems. they’re fake.

    what’s got to me is how the left, which used be concerned with the right being a one world government policy makers, is determined to be a one world government policy makers, themselves. they don’t care about the poor people, who have come under their cape & trade schemes, which lets produces emit all the pollution they want.

    Brazil: The Money Tree

    The Carbon Connection

  21. Linda Says:

    Hi John

    I too want electric cars, or solar, or hydrogen with pure water as the only emission. I would love our rail systems to be on par with Japan and Europe, but more extensive because of our larger area. Better still, I would like those rail systems to be maglev and/or solar. And nothing would please me more than to see coal as an energy fuel totally banned all around the Earth.

    I don’t think there’s a one world government conspiracy, mostly because most politicians are not as knowledgeable as they would like people to think while talking a good game in front of the cameras. But I do believe that our environment is a one world problem, especially if you live on Earth. Everyone I know does (I think).

    I don’t care for cap and trade at all, but I guess we have to start somewhere. And the problem caring for the poor can be answered with one word – greed – in every sense of the word.

    Still I must disagree with you on the tree farms. Like I said before, I live smack in the middle of tree farms. I have seen first hand the rape of virgin forest, tearing up the land, and leaving the stumps, tops, and limbs everywhere to rot and releasing more carbon. But, I’m seeing less and less of this because tree farms don’t have to worry about crop rotating the soil. Also because they’re planted for easy access they can be cut, removed, the land cleaned (the left-overs are utilized in other products), and saplings quickly replanted – no more cutting virgin forest nor tearing the land up nor leaving rotting left overs. Their harvesting is staggered so each sector is in various stages of air cleaning growth. I see it as a most sustainable product.

  22. Brad Says:

    Hey Linda.

    Plenty of words back and forth here. You’ve heard mine.

    As far as I’m concerned my room is clean and I’m not overly concerned about all the others.

  23. Linda Says:

    Hi Brad … Yes there has been a discussion on the subject, pros and/or cons, which will continue for a while. However, my wish is that all of our rooms are clean. 😀

  24. john Says:

    I guess you didn’t see the movie “Carbon Connection” yet. these rules, cap & trade, were written FOR the industry. It allows them to keep polluting as they once were, buying shares in tree farms which destroys the ecology of natural forests surrounding them. this is no place to start from.

    Cap & trade agreements are not for the ecology. there are for the Money. tree farms are not forests. tree farms are not for the ecology. there are for the MONEY. you said it yourself. “I see it as a most sustainable PRODUCT.” forests should not be products, that you can buy or sell for MONEY. they’re much too important for that.

    The wide range of tree ages and heights in oldgrowth forests create “multi-layered” canopies. Different species, including birds, live in different canopy layers.

    Tree farms that are cut on short rotations do not have the time to develop layers of lichens, ferns and mosses which grow on the trunks and branches of trees and which are a distinct feature of oldgrowth forests.

    Oldgrowth forests support many species that require or prefer ancient forest habitat.

    This is from The Rainforest Action Network.

    Wild naturally evolving forests are an essential component of the biosphere’s life support system. Aside from providing innumerable services to humanity, forests fulfill the vital functions of preserving wildlife habitat, stabilizing the Earth’s climate, protecting watersheds, and maintaining soil productivity. They are home to most of the world’s vast array of life forms. Natural forests need to be viewed as dynamic, diverse, and integrated systems as articulated in the emerging science of conservation biology and ecology. Their whole systems character must be both protected and restored.

    I guess you can see how much i hate logging, huh? :O)

  25. john Says:

    “So, in the mean time tree farms are really doing more good than harm and saving virgin forest.”

    i agree. but what i’m concerned about is the politicians who just want money, money, money. they’ve got GW believers is their theories that turning ALL forests into tree farms is a good idea. they’ve got their foot in the door, i just don’t want them to enter the room.

  26. Linda Says:

    Hi John

    Have hope in us Global Warming believers, I no more think turning any virgin forest into tree farms or anything else is a good idea and never will. The idea of turning all virgin forest into tree farms is utterly illogical. And I would guess-timate around 99% of folks that are concerned with the causes of Global Warming feel the same way.

  27. Lissof Says:

    Rachel Carson, when her book “Silent Spring” was published in 1962, was subjected to much criticism and ridicule, mainly supported by the major chemical industries.

    As a result of the overbearing attacks by industrial sponsored interests “Silent Spring” became a popular best-selling book and probably was the start of the environmental movement in the USA.

    My own father changed his use of chemicals on the farm, and shifted over to an organic style of husbandry. This caused quite a conflict as he had a job,off the farm, as a fieldman for agricultural chemical sales. I can remember many a heated debate he had, my father finally quit the position to concentrate on “his style” of farming. As a result I gained an appreciation of the gifts Mother Earth has to offer.

    I also remember the industrial pollution of the ‘60s. Factories belched chemical laced smoke from their stacks, discharged the most disgusting chemical concoctions in our waterways, municipalities sprayed an over abundance of pesticides in the air and water over populated areas.

    My first Earth Day, The first Earth Day, I remember the excitement and enthusiasm shared by the growing concerned citizens. Earth Day 1970 led to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species acts.

    Were there naysayers claiming financial ruin, massive deterioration of human standards of living, loss of food availability, rampant inflation due to increase cost of production, the USA would become a second rate nation, well yes there was.

    Did things change overnight? No. We had the best Politicians money could buy! Therefore it was a long and drawn out battle with very concerned deep pocket moneyed interests involved, many times the flow of progress changed with the election of a new political power agenda.

    But progress was made. Today the air and water is VISIBLY cleaner, consumers have safer products in their everyday life and hazardous awareness information for the proper use of those products.

    We now have instrumentation that can measure in the parts per million/ billion even trillion for some substances. Visibly cleaner is no longer the criteria for acceptable levels of contaminants.

    Coal, oil and natural gas are carbon based fuels that have been sequestered for a very, very, very long time. It would not take Scientists to account for the oil and coal consumed during the industrial era, transactions were recorded, and an accountant could compile the numbers.

    FACT: Coal, oil and natural gas consumed, has released CO2 that was not in the natural cycling of our earth environment for a long time, and is overwhelming the ability of earth cycles to re-sequester in a form and location not detrimental to our continued enjoyment of the earth as we have enjoyed in the past.

    With the aid of Father Time, Mother Earth has been able to endow us with a very beautiful garden to inhabit during this relatively short period we have been here. If we act to convert to non carbon based energy, we may be able to leave a legacy to our children’s children’s children. If we act now we may never know the tragedy we avoided.

    If we do not act, our descendants may not have the opportunity to reverse any consequences we have left behind.

    We still have the best Politicians money can buy. We still have the self-concerned deep pocket moneyed interests. Let us hope we can energize the concerned citizen to overcome these obstacles. No, it will not drive us back to the Stone Age.

    In the meantime let us enjoy our time here on earth, slow down a little, bike a little more, enjoy a vacation in the local natural surroundings and invest more in energy conservation at home. When possible conduct business via internet (email. Go To Meeting, Power Point, etc.)

    When (not if) energy becomes more expensive, we will resort to alternative energy sources.

    When denial of access to energy becomes a weapon of war, alternative energy will no longer be an alternative.

  28. Linda Says:

    Hi Lissof

    What a great, great environmental history lesson! Very eloquent words young man, thank you very much!

  29. solarglobalgreen Says:

    It is a shame that people who never took the time to read the facts in the first place are now skewing the information for their purposes.

  30. Linda Says:

    Hi solarglobalgreen … yes it is a shame but the more we talk about it, maybe they will understand.

  31. harvey Says:

    Hi Lisa,
    I disagree with some of the points ehich are presented as facts. Because I have little time to spend typing a new post, I am pasting something I wrote yesterday.

    Source for the eight year decline number (a mere 0.05 per cent):

    This article from Speigel indicates temperatures have been more or less stable for ten years:,1518,662092,00.html

    I do not consider the IPCC numbers (the ones the UN uses) to be a valid source, as the Eastanglia emails (leaked by an insider) have confirmed the scientific numbers presented were cooked (pls note that many the participants at Copenhagen have invested heavily in the 45trillion$ prospective carboncredit market – including the chairman of the IPCC (Rajendra K Pachauri), Gore, even Obama).

    I tend to agree with Monckton (who shared Gore’s Nobel prize as a scientist, member of the IPCC) the objective of the Copenhagen reunion was to lay down the framework for global taxation/governance.
    Here is a funny/revealing video of Monckton interviewing a Greenpeace activist

    Moreover, 31.000 US scientists including 9.000 PHds signed a petition stating there is no convincing evidence greenhouse gases leads to climate disruptions.

    As for the polar ice caps, since 2007 the minimum extent has increased by 24 per cent or “370,000 square miles”
    Official source:
    According to Japanese satellite data, the 2009 curve has crossed the 2005 curve.
    As for the Antarctic, the minimum extent has been noticeably above the 1979-2000 average in 2008 amd 2009.

    PS Look into orgonite gifting and you may find an explanation to the drop/stablilization of measured temperatures over the last years 😉
    .-= harvey´s last blog ..Imagination III =-.

  32. Linda Says:

    Hi Harvey… The petition you refer to was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz, in response to the Kyoto Protocol a year earlier.

    Now I ask you how many of those scientists and PHDs were Earth Scientists which have knowledge in this area of concern? Very few, if any, especially in 1998 numbers.

    In fact one of the signatories, Frank Nuttall, a professor of medicine, said he believed the Earth was becoming warmer, despite his signature.

    Just because one has the title of scientist does not mean he is an expert in all areas. Would you really let a geologist perform brain surgery on you? I think not.

    This petition urged the US government to reject the Kyoto treaty and said: “The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.” – Really? – Please.

    Just last month Australian officials were prompted to issue a shipping warning because of hundreds if not thousands, of Antarctic icebergs floating towards New Zealand. Scientist Neal Young (glaciologist) said they were the remains of a massive ice floe which split from the Antarctic as sea and air temperatures rise due to global warming.

    Last week the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), announced the first decade of this century has been the hottest on record.

    So, we are wrecking our planet and nothing has convinced me otherwise.

    (P.S. It’s Linda – not Lisa)

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge

subscribe to forcedgreen rss reader
Don't forget to add Forcedgreen to your favorite RSS reader!

Lijit Search


FGreen Friends

Compression Plugin made by Web Hosting