Love for Life

Tuesday May 29th 2007

Dear Phil,

Amen! to all of it.

However, while, as you've previously mentioned, some debate is better than no debate, we see just another example of debate going nowhere. At best, another lost opportunity -- at worst, more debate food to create more debate WITHOUT the real truth, exposed. And the truth is being spread by many sources all over the 'States, Britain and here.

Nowhere in the article is the truth;
1. - Global Warming IS a scam
2. - The REASON why the Scam has been put in place is --
The bankster's Think Tanks set up the Kyoto Protocol. "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" are deliberately beat up "issues" by the banks and Big Money to get control of world wealth and to privatise water. All usable fresh water.

(The closest [and it's NOT close] of anything in the article that would impart the TRUTH of the whole scam of GW to people, was the following remark.
Dr Christopher Landsea, former IPCC author and hurricane expert: "It is beyond me why my (IPCC) colleagues would utilise the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming . . . )
It's beyond him??

regards,

Don

----- Original Message -----

From: philip..............
To: Don............
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:11 PM
Subject: Fw: rejoice in life! well done Andrew Bolt you're a hero!

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter.................
To: bolta @ heraldsun.com.au
Cc: haynesp @ hwt.newsltd.com.au
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: rejoice in life! well done Andrew Bolt you're a hero!

Miseryguts Anti-Life Journalists Eat Their Words

Good news at last! The intrepid reporter Andrew Bolt has written this exciting pro-life piece for the Herald Sun in Melbourne. It's about the wonderful news that though the "network"-controlled commerical media will not touch it nevertheless Australia's national broadcasting commission the
ABC will--in the interests of "balance in reporting"--screen The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Alleliua!

The season is the reason...

Now, here's St Andrew!

THE ABC's staff is in uproar. There's talk of mutiny, over furiously steaming mugs of herbal infusion.

The hotter-headed have even occupied the studios (what's new?) and now man hastily-erected barricades built entirely of sandals.

You see, an order has gone out. For the first time, ABC television will have to show a documentary in July that - gasp! - doubts man is heating the world to hell.

Yes, after showing endless reports telling you there's no doubting we'll burn in hell, the ABC is running a film that says: "Well, actually . . ."

It's naturally an imported British show - which ABC journalist would so dirty their hands? - and is modestly titled The Great Global Warming Swindle.

It quotes many sceptical scientists and was a smash this year in Britain, doubtless because sane people prefer to hear both sides of a debate. But if the public here will be pleased, some of the ABC's gatekeepers are not.

Take the ABC's top science journalist, Science Show host and global warming prophet Robyn Williams.

Williams advised the ABC not to buy Swindle and says the ABC is "verging on the irresponsible" to air something "demonstrably wrong".

That's brazen coming from Williams, an alarmist who insists - with not a scientist to back him - that warming may cause sea rises of 100m this century.

Reminded on Triple J last week that the influential United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts sea rises this century, not of 100 metres but at worst 59cm, Williams stuck to his claim, despite conceding it "could be alarmist, yes".

Irresponsible? Demonstrably wrong? Hand Williams a mirror.

But I can understand the shock of his colleagues, few of whom realised there were sceptical scientists still left, other than the kind found in parks, begging for donations from top-hatted oil men, and twisting beards matted with twigs and discarded theses.

Take ABC 774 morning host Jon Faine, who on Wednesday abused a caller who said it might be nice to hear from scientists who - like him - doubted that most of this warming was caused by man, or was actually bad, or could wisely be stopped.

Scoffed Faine: "You've got something like, I don't know, the vast overwhelming majority of the world's scientists saying you're an idiot."

Sceptical scientists, he said, could be counted on his fingers: "There's no doubt you'll find a couple and then they'll tend to pull a few more in from here and there."

And now the ABC is giving air time to these "couple" of "idiot" scientists and a few crazies and crooks they'll "pull in"? No wonder ABC staff are so shocked.

But let me reassure them. Let me do what's never been done in an Australian newspaper and list some of the thousands of nice scientists who indeed are sceptics.

Perhaps then Faine might at last ask himself why he thought there were just "one or two". And why "his" ABC has so rarely let them speak or be heard.

1. Scientists who doubt there's a scientific "consensus" that we face dangerous man-made global warming.

Prof John Christy, IPCC lead author and head of Alabama's Earth System Science Centre: "I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists (who say) humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true."

Prof Charles Wax, Mississippi state climatologist: "There isn't a consensus among scientists."

Dr Roy Spencer, formerly NASA's senior climate scientist: "The only consensus I'm aware of is that it's warmed in the last century."

Prof emeritus Joel Kauffman, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia: "(M)any professors of climate science realise that carbon dioxide generated by human activity has caused little or no global warming."

2. IPCC scientists who doubt even the IPCC, said to represent 2500 scientists who all believe in dangerous man-made warming.

Prof Yuri Izrael, IPCC vice-chairman: "There is no serious threat to the climate."

Richard Lindzen, former IPCC lead author and meteorology professor at MIT: "There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons."

Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC reviewer: "The continued fairly unchanging warm weather since 1998 shows no signs of increasing, and is probably influenced by changes in the sun."

Dr Christopher Landsea, former IPCC author and hurricane expert: "It is beyond me why my (IPCC) colleagues would utilise the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming . . . I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a
process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

3. Petitions of scientists who doubt the faith.

A 2006 letter to Canada's Prime Minister signed by 60 experts in climate-related fields: " 'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified."

The Oregon Petition of Dr Frederick Seitz, US National Academy of Sciences past president, with the verified signatures of 17,800 scientists and technicians, including 2600 climate scientists: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere."

The 2005 Leipzig Petition of Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at Virginia University, and signed by about 80 prominent scientists and academics: "(W)e cannot subscribe to the
politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions."

4. Experts who once believed but now doubt.

Prof Nir Shaviv, Hebrew University astrophysicist: "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming."

Dr David Bellamy, famed green activist: "Global warming is largely a natural phenomenon."

Dr Reid Bryson, top climatologist and founding chairman of Wisconsin University's meteorology department: Temperatures are rising "because we're coming out of the little ice age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air".

Prof Tim Patterson, Carleton University paleo-climatologist: "The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

Prof Emeritus Jan Veizer, Ottawa University environmental geochemist: "The past record strongly favours the solar/cosmic alternative (to human gases) as the principal climate driver."

5. Local doubters.

Bob Carter, research professor at James Cook University: "That 20th century warming - the most recent of many previous warm phases of similar or greater magnitude - was dangerous or human-caused, or even that the warming has continued after 1998, all yet remain to be demonstrated."

William Kininmonth, former National Climate Centre head: "(A)larmist predictions have no sound basis."

Dr David Evans, former climate modeller at the Australian Greenhouse Office: "(N)ew evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now sceptical."

Ian Plimer, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University: Blaming humans is "pseudo-science".

6. Interesting doubters.

Prof Antonio Zichichi, World Federation of Scientists president: Plausible "man is not to blame".

Prof Edward Wegman, who led an inquiry for a US Congressional committee to check IPCC statistics: "The assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported."

The late Roger Revelle, the professor Al Gore says first warned him of warming: The science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action".

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of Russia's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory: "Solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040. It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on earth in 15 to 20 years."

There's dozens more, but I've run out of space. Now count: How many has the ABC let speak? Why so few?

Isn't it high time it let just some of these sceptics - at least this once - explain themselves to you?

Debate really shouldn't be this frightening. Not if the truth is on your side.

Join Andrew on blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt