is not the fault of man Furio
Stella - "EfferveScienza" insert Biolcalenda month, year XX, nr. 2 - February 2010, www.labiolca.it
little experiment: Close your eyes and think of the "Global Warming." What comes to mind? If the image is being formed in your mind is to throw huge chimneys in the sky blacks dense clouds of smoke, you answered right. They are the ones, the same images that are used daily by your TV to accompany the announcement "Global Warming." Now, as we read or what we are told through the critical examination of our conscience, but no images, the moral is simple: believe it or not, that you are aware or not, you are fully accepting the equation 'heating same overall work of man. " That is exactly what the scientific orthodoxy - that the United Nations, Al Gore, the Nobel laureates, and the recent Kyoto supervertice Copenhagen - you are suggesting.
Without this truth, this fact scientific paradigm, is the least challenged by the facts.
What facts? Be ', for example che i modelli climatici usati dagli scienziati dell’I.P.C.C., il potentissimo Panel Intergovernativo sul Cambiamento Climatico che lavora sotto l’egida dell’ONU, premiato nel 2007 addirittura con un premio Nobel e i cui dati costituiscono «verità assoluta» sul tema, non sono condivisi da migliaia di loro colleghi nel mondo non meno bravi o qualificati di loro (anzi). Un esempio arriva dall’N.I.P.C.C., l’organismo «non governativo» che ha prodotto una stroncatura scientifica delle teorie secondo cui la responsabilità del riscaldamento globale sarebbe solo e unicamente dell’uomo: il suo rapporto di 700 pagine pubblicato nel 2009 («Climate change reconsidered», il cambiamento climatico ripensato) in fact, was signed by over 31,000 scientists, including 3,800 geologists and atmospheric scientists, but also mathematicians, chemists, physicists, doctors and engineers. Some leading name? Among the first signatories to Frederick Seitz, past president of the American Society Pysical and the National Academy of Sciences, died in 2008. Or Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize genius who had already denounced the falsity of the equation in the 90s' HIV equals AIDS. " "Changes related to natural sunlight or water, the man has nothing to do," provide.
Climage
on "scientific" data produced by the Panel would be questioned from here Easter. Especially after mid-November, it turned out the scandal "Climage.
Have you heard? In practice, a group of hackers stole from the server of East Anglia University more than a thousand e-mails written between 1996 and 2009 by various scientists of the IPCC and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) who work there full time, and has spread on the Internet. In those mail
scientists express doubts on the theory of global warming that they themselves carry out and, more importantly, cheerfully admitting that he manipulated the scientific evidence. Seriously. In an exchange of e-mail in 1999, to name but one, the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he used a 'trick' that is a trick to hide the drop in temperatures.
"I have just completed their makeup done by Mike (Michael Mann, another researcher) in Nature - he writes - adding the actual temperatures in each series for the last twenty years so that what Keith (another researcher) can hide decline. " And the same Mann: "We all know that this is not to establish the truth, but be prepared to dismiss the charges in a plausible manner." And so on.
cheats, then. Artfully manipulated data, even articles published in leading scientific journals on the planet. A scandal, the Climage, which swept with it the former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, environmentalist author of the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," An Inconvenient Truth, which won two Academy Awards for reporting on the dangers of our planet.
that Oscar in Hollywood right now proposed to take away, since the information of the film coincided with those "false" the researchers reported by mail. Instead
information "true" that are not systematically excluded or declassified.
For example, that the earth has experienced periods in which the levels of CO2, the dreaded carbon dioxide held responsible for the greenhouse effect, were the same as now. Even Eocene, we are talking about 20 million years ago when there was not even human traccia.
GAS SERRA
Colpa dei gas serra, dicono oggi.
Vero. Peccato che la stragrande maggioranza di tutte le emissioni sia, secondo gli scienziati «negazionisti», di origine naturale e non umana. Cioè una posizione diametralmente opposta a quella dei loro colleghi dell’I.P.C.C., i cui dati propagandati da giornali e tv indicano invece che la causa del riscaldamento globale è provocata invece al 92,5% dai gas serra di origine antropica. Tesi strana, visto che il rapporto tra i livelli di CO2 e l’aumento delle temperature non indica sempre una diretta proporzionalità. Al contrario. Il crollo di Wall Street del 1929, per esempio, fece scendere la produzione di tutte le industrie del mondo del 30%. Per return to previous levels, had to wait the end of the Second World War and the years of reconstruction 1945-50.
Yet, as demonstrated in 2001, Professor Martin Hertzberg, meteorological U.S. Navy, despite the collapse of the industrial CO2 continued to rise. The 21% increase over the last century. "How can - Hertzberg wonders - if in the last hundred years, from 1880 to 1980, temperatures have risen by only half a degree?".
THE MEDIEVAL WARM
We spoke of the historical periods.
All scientists accept the existence of a "hot season" (even three degrees higher than today) of between 950 and 1450.
It also authentic reports of 1421 by an expedition in the Arctic Ocean with a fleet of the Chinese that "he had encountered no ice in the area." The same Greenland (from 'Greenland', Earth Green) was named after the first Viking settlements that are obviously well-cultivated after it was discovered in 985 by the navigator Eric the Red.
not alone. After the medieval warm period, also well documented by a UN report of 1996, only to be erased "mysteriously" In the analogous relationship in 2001, what do you get? A cold period, indeed a veritable "little ice age." About three hundred years, with its peak between 1550 and and 1700 resulted, according to the studies of the Danish researcher Henrik Svensmark funded by the British Royal Society, 'from the reduced solar activity and cosmic ray irradiation increased, which reduced the cloudiness of the climate. " Temperatures in Europe fell by only 1.5 degrees within a century, and then fall again during the coldest period, and finally get up around 1750. A rise that continues to this day. Are thus about 400 years that the planet is warming, not 150 as claimed by the theory of environmentalists.
ICE AND CO2
And that will melt the ice? 'Periodic variation, "they say warming skeptics. To which is added in the last month the clamorous discovery of ETH, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, that is not true that the melting of glaciers in our Alps is a new phenomenon. Indeed, according to the Swiss glaciologist, in the 40s of last century glaciers are retreating much faster than today because of the greater amount of solar radiation (about 8% more). At that point, in comparison, today the extension has actually increased by 4%. And this - they add - "despite temperatures of 70 years ago would be lower than today."
not only on the ice, unfortunately. The more you go up, plus data differ from those praised by the IPCC
The theory of global warming in fact provides an even higher temperatures in the equatorial troposphere, ie the band is 10 kilometers from the Earth: a pity that in this area is registered refreshments.
WORLD GOVERNMENT
Blame the sun, then. Or should we blame the water if you like. Many studies indicate that the increase of carbon dioxide has always followed a warming climate. "It is the warming of the oceans that causes the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way," said Hertzberg, and thousands of scientists dell'NIPCC "The man has nothing to do", also points to Professor Antonino Zichichi, State (among others) of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that "the intervention of human activity affects less than 10% for climate change 'and the latter are mainly determined" by the energy of the sun and volcanic activity. " Volcanic activities such as those recently discovered under the ice of the Arctic Ocean by a scientific expedition funded by NASA also: dozens of volcanoes at 4,000 meters under the seabed that shoot jets of very hot material at a speed of 500 meters per second.
Dozens of underwater volcanoes in full swing. Already we can imagine the effect on the ice. So why are volcanoes under the Polo North has not heard of it? For the same reason they are conveyed only the news consistent with the 'scientific truth'. There are theories behind the official flower of teachers than on "truth" have built prestigious professorships and careers. There are, of course, huge economic interests at stake.
And there are global, real elites which can be accessed by appointment and not by democratic election, which seem to hang on all sides except from the public. As seen with the WHO, the World Health Organisation, and its forward-terrorist and unpacked (but rather lucrative for the pharmaceutical manufacturers of vaccines) in fact pandemic of influenza type A.
No, them maybe we should not trust too much. Or, returning to bomb on Climate Change, the 'commitment to spend "about 1% of world GDP taken in Copenhagen by the chair of Barack Obama (question: who's money?). A policy by the unpredictable social consequences, especially in a period of terrible economic depression like this. There have in fact those who shout the pretext for the establishment of a single "world government" with supranational supervisory bodies, the same work already glimpsed during WHO pandemic alert, limitations on personal freedom, and perhaps a lot 'policy of "family planning" to reduce the population of the planet (after all the fault of our heating, no?) even as it invokes the "Green Prophet" Lester Brown of the environmentalists.
why TV can be seen in the images that the chimneys throwing smoke. Why
"with sufficient repetition and psychological knowledge of the people involved would not be difficult to show them that a square is actually a circle."
He has not written a scientist of the IPCC or the WHO, but Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for Adolph Hitler.
0 comments:
Post a Comment