Posted by: Dahni | March 7, 2008

Eco Waco Crapo

Ecology

© 2008 03/07/08

By Dahni

 

The earth is supposed to be sick and has a temperature, which is Eco Waco Crapo.

What is Eco Waco Crapo? It is the belief system of an Eco Waco Crapist or one that studies Eco Waco Crapology. In short, it is the pretended science in ecology and climate change known to many as global warming.

It is my contention that global warming is a scam and promoted as a government controlled monopoly. There is no consensus among the scientific community that global warming exists at all. It is a theory promoted solely out of fear for control and for profit, a lot of profit!

Global warming is based on the preponderance that the earth’s temperature has been steadily on the rise over the last 100 years.

Global warming is attributed to be a man-made consequence from the pollutants being emitted into the atmosphere. These pollutants are believed to be the principal contributory factors of the ‘Greenhouse Effect.’ In a vacuum, certain gases in an enclosed environment would cause a temperature rise. In this model, six primary and man-made greenhouse gases are said to be raising the temperature on the earth and are or will produce alarming and horrible changes to life on this planet. These 6 gases in order of their quantity are: (carbon dioxide (CO2), which accounts for about 80%), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)

The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s. What else has increased since this period of time? Human population and the numbers of exhales and the excrement from mostly cattle.

Humans breathe out CO2 which is needed by plants that in turn give off oxygen. Methane (CH4), is produced from cattle in the form of manure and manure is highly prized as feritlizer for plants. Instead of global warming, we should be experiencing global Greening. 🙂

The theory of global warming is based on a model which cannot be accurately created nor does anyone know what the ramifications would be if it were accurate. The theory in order to exist CANNOT ALLOW FOR NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. The problem with the theory is, there is a lot of negative feedback to refute it. Like what?

First of all, it must be understood that to create a theory in a vacuum where everything is contolled is one thing, but the earth and everything effecting it, are not inside a vacuum. The earth and everything effecting is made up of many dynamic factors that by sheer number and occurance cannot possibly be understood or predicted.

Another bit of negative feedback involves temperature. According to the theory of global warming, the temeperature on the earth has steadily risen over the past 100 years. How much? About 1°F, which is not really a big deal right, but within the last year alone, temperature has fallen around 1°F. We have had the coldest winter and coolest summer over all the earth than in a very long time. Falling temperatures can account for greater economic losses and fatalities than slowly rising temeperatures.

Polar ice caps are melting and the polar bears have been put on the endagered species list. But even though ice has melted in one area where much of the polar bear population decreased, did you also know ice refrose in greater quantity and that according to researchers in Alaska, pregnant polar bears are increasingly giving birth? How does this negative feedback fit with the model of global warming? It doesn’t!

Back to the melting ice caps, polar ice is mostly fresh water. If this were actually a concern, the saline content of the ocean would be diluted. What would that mean?

The oceans contain 96 percent of the Earth’s water, experience 86 percent of planetary evaporation, and receive 78 percent of planetary precipitation. In a sense, the oceans are a major part of our heating and air conditioning system. Evaporation concentrates salt in the surface ocean. Increasing evaporation rates cause detectable spikes in surface ocean salinity levels. If accelerated evaporation occurred, the precipitation cycle would continue to make northern North Atlantic waters fresher. The North Atlantic is one of the few places on Earth where surface waters become dense enough to sink to the abyss.

The plunge of this great mass of cold, salty water helps drive a global ocean circulation system, often called the Ocean Conveyor. This Conveyor helps draw warm Gulf Stream waters northward in the Atlantic, pumping heat into the northern regions that significantly moderates wintertime air temperatures, especially in Europe.

If the North Atlantic becomes too fresh, its waters would stop sinking and the Conveyor could slow down. Analyses of ice cores, deep-sea sediment cores, and other geologic evidence have clearly demonstrated the Conveyor has abruptly slowed down or halted many times in Earth’s history. But the fact that global winter temperature has decreased within the last 12 months must be due to other unknown factors, because the salinity levels is not one of them. If it were, then the scenario would be more like what was seen in the movie, ‘The Day After Tomorrow.’ In this movie, everything above the equator was frozen and the earth entered another ice age.

Still, a so-called ‘consensus’ among the world scientific community has argued that global warming exists. This led to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, so named for the city in Japan where the summit of nations met. The US government designed significant portions of the treaty. President William J. Clinton, signed the agreement along with some 130 other nations in 1997, but it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. U.S. President George W. Bush later repudiated the Protocol. Despite what your opinion of either aforementioned president is, Clinton could have made the United States compliant with this treaty and Bush could have agreed with it and enforced it. In my opinion since neither case played out, it would be proof that even a blind squirrel can eventually find a nut. What did each president do (or not do), that would have shown their decisions were correct?

Consider the ramifications of compliance to the Kyoto Protocol. It is estimated that in this century, the United States (the largest contributor of greenhouse gases), complying with the treaty would be at a cost of trillions of dollars to the taxpayers. So here we are finally, at the core of the issue which is, MONEY and POLITICAL CONTROL!

The Kyoto Protocol establishes the general architecture of sequential negotiations and defines specific first-period (2008-2012) commitments for certain industrialized countries to comply with the limitations and reductions of the emissions of greenhouse gases – (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Again, CO2 accounts for about 80% and methane is number two.  Would not then the most efficient way to reduce and limit these emissions world-wide be, to prevent humans from exhaling and the cattle from defecating? 🙂

Anyway, to reach these emissions reduction targets, the Protocol offers mechanisms to increase the flexibility, reach, and efficiency of the commitments. Emissions trading allow countries to exchange emission allowances, while Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allow commitments to be offset against investments in emission-reducing projects worldwide.

Emission trading, what is that? Another term is carbon credits. Very simply, if a nation and or company are in compliance with the agreement, they can receive carbon credits. Non-compliance would mean some monetary penalty. It could also mean the country or company would be in need of carbon credits. Deals are made between emission traders and countries and companies to sell, buy and trade carbon credits. Another associative term is called, ‘cap and trade.’ You merely put a cap on something and trade the credits. It is a huge business!

The founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said global warming is “the greatest scam in history” in November of 2007.

On Monday, March 4, 2008 while speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change being held in New York City, Coleman took his criticisms further by advocating that all those involved in the sale and marketing of carbon credits, including Al Gore, should be sued “to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

The Nobel Peace Prize winner and former vice president Al Gore, had been offered an opportunity to address this conference, and his usual $200,000 speaking fee and expenses were met, but he declined. Invitations also included and were declined by NASA GISS principal scientists Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt weeks ago as evidenced by their writeup of the issue on their blog, RealClimate.org Attendance would have been easy for them since NASA GISS is located just a few blocks away from where the convention was held..

Recent polls indicate that about 50% of Americans remain unconvinced that global warming is a serious issue. Why then would Al Gore, Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt decline to speak? Would this not be an opportunity for them to perhaps convince others of this crucial issue? Could it be that they do not want to speak to the half of the nation not buying into their junk science? Could if be that if their fraud were exposed it would easily be brought to an end?

The facts are that if global warming were true and there was indeed a conseusus among the scientific community, the leaders of their cause refuse to debate the issue, and will not attend any conference that disagree with their position.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was sponsored by The Heartland Institute and was held March 2 – March 4, 2008 at the Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel in New York City, NY. It was hosted by Joseph L. Bast, President of The Heartland Institute.

If raising the taxes on gasoline were used to comply with the Kyoto Protocol, Joseph Bast in his opening remarks on Sunday said, “Reducing emissions by 60 to 80 percent, which is what the alarmists claim is necessary to “stop global warming”, would cost a lot more than $1 a gallon.”

Bast went on to say, “Al Gore, the United Nations, environmental groups, and too often the reporters who cover the climate change debate are the ones who are out of step with the real “consensus.” They claim to be certain that global warming is occurring, convinced it is due to human causes, and 100 percent confident we can predict future climates.”

“Who’s on the fringe of scientific consensus, the alarmists or the skeptics?”

“These questions go to the heart of the issue: Is global warming a crisis, as we are so often told by media, politicians, and environmental activists? Or is it moderate, mostly natural, and unstoppable, as we are told by many distinguished scientists?”

Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, when told of this conference said, “You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth.” (Denver Post, February 12, 2008).

RealClimate.org predicted that no real scientists would show up at this conference.

But in reality, more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States and representing many leading universities and institutes all across the globe did attend. They could not all fit into a telephone booth either! 🙂

The scientists and economists attending have been published thousands of times in the world’s leading scientific journals and have written hundreds of books.

A true consensus among scientists is the refutation of current theories. True scientists are skeptics as is a true consensus being made up of a body of skeptics. Disproving one theory or in proving it by first trying to disprove it, opens the field to greater understanding and the advancement of science for the betterment of all.

Follow the money and you will find a trail that leads from governments with a fist-full of taxpayer money, funding the projects and research of, the so called consensus of global warming scientists.

There is no doubt that the earth climate changes and this is clearly seen throughout recorded history. Climate cycles as do the clouds covering the earth. Things change and move around. Balance of an ordered design often requires adjustment. Personally, this is what I believe is happening, the earth is making corrections to be able to continue to sustain life upon this planet. These adjustments do, can and are making dramatic events in the weather patterns and events on earth, but will eventually reach a leveling out. But this is not something humanity can predict or control.  There is too much negative feedback to be able to catalog and understand the data, much less predict the outcome and the future.

The sun with its abundance of or lack of solar flares contributes more to temperature rise than anything we could ever do collectively on this planet! Solar flares have in the past raised the temperature, but solar flares are in decline. Do not forget, if we were truly experiencing global warming and the polar ice caps were all melting, the saline levels of the oceans would be diluted and then, hold on or actually head way south, we on our way to another ice age. Again, we have a lot of negative feed back which means, no one really knows what will happen.

Is it a good thing not to pollute? Sure. Should we recycle and protect endangered species? Absolutely! But to fill every person in the world with fear by junk science when at the core is nothing more than pursuit of profit and control, is a monopoly and an abuse of power. Screw that!

Instead of being full of fear and with empty wallets and purses, live, adapt, evolve, thrive, propagate, learn, enjoy, plan and dream and continue. That is our nature, our climate, our future and our purpose upon this planet.

Global Warming is a joke (not a funny one), but it reminds me of another joke. It goes something like this.

A scientist in his lab is doing research on a flea. He tells the flea to jump and the flea jumps. Next he removes one of the flea’s legs and repeats the command to ‘jump.’ The flea again jumps only not as well. This process is repeated until the flea is without legs. The scientist tells the flea without legs to jump, but now the flea remains motionless. The scientist records his observations and concludes, a flea without legs cannot hear?

Data may exist, but the conclusions of global warming are fraught with nothing more than opinions similar to the abusive scientist with that poor, pitiful and pathetic flea.

Junk science once alarmed us with the thinning of the ozone layer. A true consensus of science refuted that and we found the ozone layer thins, thickens and repairs itself on a regular basis. Junk science once alarmed us with the earth being flat too. A true consensus of science refuted that as well. We need to refute the junk science of global warming and be free of government control and from losing our money to the charlatans that promote this Eco Waco Crapo!

Just Imagine,

Dahni


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: