brtanner | Thursday, Oct. 22nd | View on Thrive: What On Earth Will It Take?
Pardon perhaps an overlong comment which I also put up on Foster's blog on Climate Change:
There is a very important piece of the scientific evidence that is missing ...
Foster_Gamble replied | Saturday, Oct. 24th | View on Thrive: What On Earth Will It Take?
This is a critical piece for humanity to look bigger and more humbly at our place as holons in the holarchy, Bruce. Thanks for posting it. I hope people will ...
View the full discussion on Thrive: What On Earth Will It Take?
There are even discussions about the space mission to the Moon was false, just a fake photo shoot, so how do we believe any statement coming from any of these people involved!
Quote: brtanner • 3 days ago There is a very important piece of the scientific evidence that is missing from the conversation so far. That is the work of Henrik Svensmark and his team at the Danish National Space Institute in Copenhagen. They've essentially proven a complex relationship between the strength of the solar magnetic field which, when strong, can prevent the penetration of high levels of cosmic rays into the solar system, and the physical pathways by which cosmic rays create low-altitude cloud formation nuclei. In short, when the field strengthens, as it did in the last decades of the 20th century, fewer cosmic rays reach Earth, fewer low altitude clouds are formed, and the planet heats up, as it observably did at that time.
You can find more information in a video called The Cloud Mystery -
- on the quest to publish Svensmark's research. A review of the video is on my blog at: http://bit.ly/1GXy1Ew - Svensmark's work was, after tremendous political wrangling, duplicated in greater detail by a team at CERN, who confirmed the results, but were gagged from any discussion of the implications of their findings to climate science. There is also a wonderful book on the subject by Nigel Calder and Svensmark called The Chilling Stars, which I highly recommend.
I would also like to quibble with the use, by people who believe in "anthropogenic global warming," of the term "climate change deniers." This term is, in itself, an expression casting aspersions on and marginalizing people they disagree with when they might consider engaging them in a conversation or debate.
When it comes to understanding the climate, it has been demonstrated that NASA and other global institutions are "adjusting" the temperature data for the last 200 years or so to create a false impression of the relative warmth of the climate historically. They are also essentially ignoring the most reliable sources of temperature data, those from satellites and ocean buoys (the Argo buoys). Even the IPCC, in the actual science portion of their 2014 report, admitted that there has been no significant warming in the last 18 years or so. As their "Summary for Decision Makers" went out of the way to create the impression that we, none-the-less, face a warming emergency, one would suspect that they didn't want the real situation to be revealed.
It is also never mentioned in main-stream discussion or COP21 propaganda that in 2013 NASA scientists published a paper based on a carefully crafted study they did called SABER, which showed that the evidence is that CO2 actually COOLS the planet, rather than trapping heat. After NASA went ahead with the publication, Dr. James Hansen, one of the most vociferous mavens of global warming invective, strangely announced his resignation from NASA to devote his time to telling young people about the dangers of AGW. You can read more about this (with more links) at: http://bit.ly/1lR17jJ
The science is not "settled." There is much more research to be done. It's important, as well, to consider the great deal of evidence that the global push for sacrificing the good of humanity and the freedoms of the human family in the name of preventing global warming emerged from, and continue to be supported by, elite interests (i.e. the same people who brought us "Big Oil" and profit from the degradation of the ecosphere).
Also, no discussion on the climate situation can be taken seriously without also considering the effects of, and motivations behind, the current massive programs of geoengineering and climate manipulation creating droughts, flooding and weaponized storms around the globe. How can we plan a human response to any alleged emergency, when the facts aren't acknowledged and we don't even know what our "governments" are up to?
And, BTW, I don't either work for "Big Oil" or receive any funding for my research.