My column on the weekend was one of a handful in Canada to expose the scandal involving Britain’s University of East Anglia and the revelation that evidence contradicting man-made global warming has been covered up, information supporting the theory made up and editors willing to publish articles on both sides of the argument fired for daring to be balanced and objective.
What is extraordinary is how few other columns and articles have appeared in the press and how little attention this story is receiving on television and radio. Imagine if hackers had found hundreds of e-mails discrediting global warming skeptics – the story would dominate for weeks if not months.
There is increasing evidence that journalists at the BBC, for example, have been told to downplay the issue and a columnist for a major Australian newspaper who wrote about climategate was stunned to pick up the newspaper to find a different column, from years earlier, published in place of his latest one!
This is serious, worrying stuff and should be of concern even to global warming believers if they genuinely care about freedom of speech.
But somehow I don’t anticipate much protest from that quarter. It’s odd how people who claim to care so passionately about the planet frequently seem to care little about the people who live on it. Climate change zealots tend to exhibit an intolerance and aggression that would make anyone question their cause.
This isn’t about saving the world but imposing on the world’s population an agenda, a conversation and a way of life that satisfies the usual types who obsess about telling others how to live and behave.
Gary, you do realize that everyone knows that the sun plays a part, Duh! It’s just the extent that humans are adding to the equation is what’s being debated.
After all, greenhouse gases would be pretty irrelevent if there was no heat from the sun to trap and re-radiate back to the earth now, would it?
And I didn’t notice that Al Gore was a part of those website I noted, so why bring him up?
Well-poisoning?
As for your “prediction”, we’ll see…especially what constitutes the “so on” part.
Is this the Hockey Stick graph you were referring to, Gary?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
I beg to differ,John Moore from CFRB has often gone on rants about AGW-Deniers and how some will us the Sun for or Climate change, Moore even cited a Website he went to that claimed the Sun has no affect on our Weather.
My views are from about 30 years of reading Scientic America, Discovery mag,Astronomy mag,and any articles from real PHD people that present the facts and not opinions that keep their grant money coming in.
You can post all those Links until your fingers cramp-up because I prefer that people give their own opinions and not merely repeat the Talking-points or catch-phrases of the month.
BTW
I don’t use pretty Cartoon-type slide shows to learn things,nor can I tolerate people on stage that speak like Barbara Hall’s whine and slow orations.
Give me YOUR opinion of the Sun’s effects on Earth, and tell me exactly what 20 more Feet of Ocean weight would do the the pull on the Moon’s orbital plane because right now it is slowly drifting away and my guess would be less tides and a every nearing Moon sucked into the shear mass of water.
Just fill up a basic Kitchen bucket and feel its weight as you lift it, then picture 20 buckets stacked up , next stack them over 75% of the Earth surface that is currently liquid water.
The angular momentum of the Earth’s spin at the Equator is 1000 MPH , now add 20 more feet of water while the Ice-Caps are gone and Earth becomes a out of control Gyroscope with the largest mass of water bulging up at Latitude 0, and Longitude 1-360 as the Equator dominates the main force.
The Marriana Trench is about 30’000 feet down in the Ocean,forget the CO2 crisis, just wait until the Sun goes nuts and Eath heats up normally by 10-20 degrees on average.
Magma and Volcano ash will make it hotter and tougher to breath .
Again.
Do you have an opinion of your own on this or will you just Cut&paste someone elses mistakes or theories?
Gary:
**Give me YOUR opinion of the Sun’s effects on Earth,**
It’s a mixture of both the sun, and man’s influences, from what I gather.
Gary:
**My views are from about 30 years of reading Scientic America, Discovery mag,Astronomy mag,and any articles from real PHD people that present the facts and not opinions that keep their grant money coming in.**
How’s about showing some of that education that you claim to have? While you’re at it, how’s about backing up your accusation about “grant money”? I could just as easily accuse the climate-deniers of being in the pockets of the energy industry.
Let’s have a look at some of those “real PhDs” gary:
For example, the members of the “Heartland Institute:
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-are-climate-change-skeptics.html
–The Heartland Institute’s list of 138 climate change experts contains many individuals with no relevant expertise or credentials.–
**You can post all those Links until your fingers cramp-up because I prefer that people give their own opinions and not merely repeat the Talking-points or catch-phrases of the month.**
No, you’ll just use the people who are “real PhD” people who agree with you, and ignorantly dismiss REAL PhDs from actual climatalogists who disagree with you, while complaining that your opposition just “repeats talking points”, while not realizing that that’s what you also do.
That’s what BOTH sides do in a debate when they themselves are not the experts in the field they’re arguing about: They do research, get information from the relevent experts and they argue the facts, or as you call them: “talking points” and use that as an excuse to ignore everything that your opponent says.
How’s about dealing with any of the facts that the people on the sites I used actually brought up instead of complaining? After all, you’re the one with “30 years of reading Scientic America, Discovery mag,Astronomy mag,and any articles from real PHD people, blah blah”
**and tell me exactly what 20 more Feet of Ocean weight would do the the pull on the Moon’s orbital plane because right now it is slowly drifting away and my guess would be less tides and a every nearing Moon sucked into the shear mass of water.**
Huh?
I see I’m wasting my time expecting someone to give their own opinion on the matter.
If you don’t know about angular momentum and gyroscopic forces from the Earths spin, that it’s pointless to post my facts from research since it would be like talking a foreign language to you.
Gore claim the worlds water level will rise 20 feet as it goes from the solid form of Ice into the liquid state. I’d have to draw pictures to make you comprehend the physics and science behind celestial-mechanic and bodies in motion that give us the Tides and Earth Quakes.
BTW
I don’t hold up the PHD guys to defend my opinions,there are lots of really stupid Educated people who sometimes become Judges, the same Judges that allow Slavery until different Judges came along a abolished it.
Being smart is not the same as being Educated with several Degrees that you bought and squeaked by the exams with a passing grade. Again, any opinion on Global warming and the Sun, or just more Links to other peoples views?
I see I’m wasting my time expecting someone to give their own opinion on the matter.
If you don’t know about angular momentum and gyroscopic forces from the Earths spin, that it’s pointless to post my facts from research since it would be like talking a foreign language to you.
***
No, it’s “pointless” because you’re a babbling loon:
Remember this?
“….a every nearing Moon sucked into the shear mass of water”?
The moon getting sucked INTO the water? The paragraph that contains that little gem is not even grammatically correct, much less physically possible.
Care to explain which “PhD” you got THAT from? Or is that an example of “your own opinion”?
That’s why a smart person goes and looks up the relevent information before speaking on a particular subject: So that they can be more sure that their opinions are informed by fact and that they don’t come off looking like loons!
Gary asked, with odd random capitalization included:
“Being smart is not the same as being Educated with several Degrees that you bought and squeaked by the exams with a passing grade. Again, any opinion on Global warming and the Sun, or just more Links to other peoples views?”
Gary needs to re-read my previous answer to him before he goes off on a(nother) baseless rant. Allow me to quote myself:
=======
Gary:
**Give me YOUR opinion of the Sun’s effects on Earth,**
It’s a mixture of both the sun, and man’s influences, from what I gather.
=======
What does this man want? An opinion with absolutely no research done beforehand, maybe?
Gary wrote:
“The angular momentum of the Earth’s spin at the Equator is 1000 MPH , now add 20 more feet of water while the Ice-Caps are gone and Earth becomes a out of control Gyroscope with the largest mass of water bulging up at Latitude 0, and Longitude 1-360 as the Equator dominates the main force.”
Hardly. Earth’s total mass is ~6*10^24 Kg. The total mass of water on earth on earth is ~1.3*10^18. That is less than a quarter of one millionth of the total mass of Earth.
Even if you stacked all water on earth within a few degrees from the equator, the net effect will still be negligible. The angular speed of Earth will slow down, but the velocity at the equator will be reduced in the order of maybe one feet per hour.
When a skater is doing a pirruett with her arms stretched out, it will make a grater difference in her angular speed if she holds her hands in a fist or having her fingers stretched out too, than having all earth’s water concentrated at the equator.
We’re talking about a day on earth becoming less than a tenth of a second longer.
That’s just some simple number-crunching on a worst case scenario (which isn’t even possible).
Gary wrote:
“I’d have to draw pictures to make you comprehend the physics and science behind celestial-mechanic and bodies in motion that give us the Tides and Earth Quakes.”
What a condescending remark. It almost feels hypocritical in the light of the simple number-crunching you could have done, Gary, to see if your catastrophe scenario of earth spinning out of control had any merit.
It’s all good and well reading science magazines, and throwing around buckets of water, but you also need some basic science education to put what you read into proper context. Calculating mass, angular momentum, and inertia should be covered in a physics101-course.
I learned it in my equivalent of your senior high-school.
WOW
I make a minor typo from a cyber-cafe keyboard and that’s suppose shoot down my whole point?
I meant that the Moon would become ever nearing by the pull from the water mass.
The Roche’s Limit is an equation created by Edward Roche in 1850 that explains the Tides and satellite attractions based on the Mass of each body. There is a point where the Moon would be ripped apart by the gravity that stretches it when the Sun pulls on one side and the Earth on the other as it revolves around the Earth in the same direction as Earth’s rotation giving it a delay in the water levels rising and falling.
I’m not claiming that the Earth will increase its Mass or Percentage of water weight,but what Al Gore is trying to say is that all the water in a Solid form on our Poles will melt and spread the weight with aa 20 foot rise in Ocean levels.
As for the skater spinning,they are focusing their weight on the Picks at the tip of the blades and that is friction and gravity still pulling them downward.
Recent GPS tests for the Oceans had two ships going different distances while all things were equal except for their part of the Ocean they were sailing on. It was discovered that oceans can have little dimples like a golfball surface because a under water Mass pulls on the water while the surrounding water has only basic gravity and its weight.
These dips are like craters on a road where a car travels further down the surface and then up the other side while another car can do the same speed on a flat road a few miles away and get to a point with less miles recorded on the odometer.
Pictures helped me understand Astronomy and 3D operation of mechanical items drawn on paper in the 2D form,so once you see how the Moon can be sucked towards the Oceans mass and Roche’s Limit kicks in,the solid water on the Poles will have to flow to the equators to make up the 20 foot rise.
Saturn is a perfect example of how a huge planet can focus its pull at the equator and make those massive Debris Rings where each onject finds it Orbital Plane by speed and mass.
If you doubt the Ocean rises will affect the Moon’s orbit, just glue some coins to your cars tires and see the wobbles as shakes as the car goes faster with a out of balance spin from the tire.
My opinion is that Roche’s Limit will be reached because the mass that used to be at the poles is shifted in line with the Moon’s Orbital plane. The melting Poles don’t affect the Sun’s pull , but it should have an effect on the Moon’s attraction to Earth because its Orbit varies from 225’000 miles to 240’000 miles roughtly.
Hello!
First off: What kind of formatting is available? I’d like to make it easier for any reader to distinguish between my own comments and quoted material…
Preferably blockquote html-tag, but bold or italics works too.
Secondly: I apologize for the breach of netiquette. Rule 2 point #10 says I may not comment in any language other than French, but I apart from my native language, English is the only other (non-computer) language I know.
Gary wrote:
“WOW
I make a minor typo from a cyber-cafe keyboard and that’s suppose shoot down my whole point?”
No. It’s you lack of understanding of physics that make your argument shoot yourself in the proverbial foot. I’ll try explain why below:
Gary wrote:
“I meant that the Moon would become ever nearing by the pull from the water mass.”
The mass of the Earth will remain constant regardless of where and in which state it’s water is, which means that the magnitude of the gravitational force keeping the Moon in orbit is the same. And will stay the same regardless if the water is frozen at the polar caps, or sploshing around close to the equator.
The only other way to affect Moon’s orbit is by changing the vector of the gravitational force. If the earth wasn’t rotating, then the mass center of the earth-moon system would sit in the geometric straight line between earth’s center and the moon’s center.
But since the earth is rotating, and the water turns around with it, the tidal waves displaces the center of gravity and changes the gravitational force vector slightly off the rotational center of earth. This results in a force that accelerates the moon in its orbit. As the moon accelerates, it trades its kinetic energy for potential energy, which is the same as increasing its orbital radius.
No matter if there is little water or a very lot of water, as long as there is water, the rotation of earth around its axes and the moon’s orbit around earth in the same directions will _always_ transfer rotational energy from earth (slowing down earth’s rotation) to the moon (pushing it away from earth).
Why not check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration ? It’s an excellent article, though lacking in drawings explaining the vector change.
Gary wrote:
“I’m not claiming that the Earth will increase its Mass or Percentage of water weight,but what Al Gore is trying to say is that all the water in a Solid form on our Poles will melt and spread the weight with aa 20 foot rise in Ocean levels.”
And I’ve already told you that even if _all_ water on Earth was concentrated at the equator, the difference in mass displacement is less than a quarter of a millionth of Earth’s total mass. Which means in the big scope of this, no one would realise there was a difference at all unless they were using _very_ precise instruments.
Gary wrote:
“As for the skater spinning,they are focusing their weight on the Picks at the tip of the blades and that is friction and gravity still pulling them downward.”
You missed the point. The figure-skater can change her rotational speed in the pirouette by stretching out or pulling in her arms to her body. Concentrating more of her mass away from her rotational axis slows her down while still keeping her angular momentum constant. I’m trying to explain that the displacement of earth’s water barely creates a measurable difference, and a difference _way_ too little for any human to detect without technical help.
Gary wrote:
“Pictures helped me understand Astronomy and 3D operation of mechanical items drawn on paper in the 2D form,so once you see how the Moon can be sucked towards the Oceans mass and Roche’s Limit kicks in,the solid water on the Poles will have to flow to the equators to make up the 20 foot rise.”
Wow. This actually explain much of the astounding statements you’ve made. But look, you need to read the text and the numbers in the article and not only look at the pictures. Again, the truth hides in the numbers:
Gary wrote:
“My opinion is that Roche’s Limit will be reached because the mass that used to be at the poles is shifted in line with the Moon’s Orbital plane.”
Please…
Earth’s Roche limit for the moon is ~9500km. That’s just above Low Earth Orbit! A quarter of the distance to Geostationary Orbit. The orbital period at that point would be 6 hours!
The Moon would have to crash into communication satellites before coming close to the Roche limit.
I beg of you, please, take the physics101 course at any college close to you. The assertions you made lately (with regards to hard science) are just ridiculously void of any substance. I’m not saying this to be mean, but in the hope that you through some science education won’t make statements that make educated people laugh at you and call you ignoramus.
It will so greatly improve your ability to influence people in subjects you think are important.
Gee, glad to see nobody around here is hypersensitive or gets their Science from wikipedia.
From now on I’ll use the title Dr.Gary, this way I can spew what every I want and hide behind WiKipedia for my shield of proof.
BTW
After you cut off a chunk of a car tire and glue it elsewhere to that tire ,let me know how things go for the Mass not being affected for it’s spin.
I remember when schools tried to push the theory of Oil being a fossil fuel because it was only found above the layer for Dinosaurs and ergo…it had to be dead dino material.
But drilling got deeper and then there was the Tar Sands in Alberta and the Oil under the Saudi deserts and Ocean beds.
The “expert” at USA Senate review for AGW was asked how all that Oil in Alaska got there if it was never warm before Al Gore knew about Global Warming in the 90′s .
The “expert” insisted the Earth’s Plates had shifted and carried the dead dinos up to Alaska while the surface temps were cool above.
Speaking of Physics 101, my Teacher argued with me about my view on Atoms and the Planet sturctures in our solar system which mocked me in class as ignorant of the Science.
Alas , in about 20 years from that time I had seen my theories proven right by new Technology and more powerfull Computers to split hair with math calculations.
Please don’t think that mocking will change my views because I don’t use Internet-Based WiKipedia for my enlightenment on life and Science.
Happy new year Michael Mann, now the Whistle-blower Laws in the USA are being used to expose Climategate since Tax Dollars funded Mann’s research thanks to Sen.Boxer who called it Email-gate for illegal PC hacking to get the info.
Now other Peer Review buddies will be given the chance to come clean on the emails since nobody had really denied they were accurate in content but only in Context.
Florida just had a sudden case of Falling-Iguana’s from Global Warming while Texas had several inches of Global Warming floods in the form of crystalized water vapour (snow).
Hello
Dr.Gary wrote:
“From now on I’ll use the title Dr.Gary, this way I can spew what every I want and hide behind WiKipedia for my shield of proof.”
Amazing…
People who wants to be taken seriously as an authority usually writes their name in its academic format, like Michael Coren PhD.
Saying, or writing Dr.someone is more colloquial. Which should be the first indication that I do not really present myself as a high academic. Why didn’t you even bother to google “Dr. Mabuse”? Being a media person (10 years older than me even) I would have thought you’d recognize Dr. Mabuse.
Here’s a clue: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023563/
Sheesh…
Dr.Gary wrote:
“After you cut off a chunk of a car tire and glue it elsewhere to that tire ,let me know how things go for the Mass not being affected for it’s spin.”
I never denied that such a tire could become unbalanced. But you’re willfully denying some basic scientific facts in your comparison between your tire and Earth: One is the weight ratio of the displaced water. To compare earth and your car tire, the rubber chunk would have to weigh less than 3mg (if the tire weighs 10kg) and the earth would have to spin 100’000 times faster.
Secondly, your piece of rubber is solid. Water would distribute evenly around the equator, balancing out most of the imbalance that would be too small to have any noticeable effect in the first place.
That’s why your “analogy” with the unbalanced tire is bunk.
Dr.Gary wrote:
“Speaking of Physics 101, my Teacher argued with me about my view on Atoms and the Planet sturctures in our solar system which mocked me in class as ignorant of the Science.”
That was cruel of him. It’s one thing to inform someone that he is ignorant of a subject. That’s just stating the fact, in your case. It’s another thing to mock someone about it, especially children. I would have thought, you being 50years old, you’d have thicker skin and also a desire to remedy your ignorance. Apparently I was wrong on both accounts.
Dr.Gary wrote:
“Please don’t think that mocking will change my views because I don’t use Internet-Based WiKipedia[sic] for my enlightenment on life and Science.”
You’re saying this in a manner that makes me think you believe that everything in Wikipedia is untrustworthy. When in fact, Wikipedia has proven to about as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica in regards to science articles.
In one fell swoop you have dismissed all the explanations I’ve written to show you that you are mistaken about what would happen should all polar ice melt. I posted the link to Wikipedia not because it’s the definitive authority on scientific facts, but because the article explains as good as any science school-book how it works. If you don’t like Wikipedia, then consult any other science page, like NASA (unless you distrust them also… I mean, what do they know about astronomy anyway?). It will give you the same numbers on the Roche limit. Not because it is a matter of opinion, but because it’s hard science and math. It’s quantifiable.
Finally, I never claimed any academic titles as evidence or “proof” that I’m right. I’m an electronics engineer, and amateur astronomer.
I challenge you to show I was wrong about Earth’s Roche limit (and its relation to geostationary orbit) and that the mass of displaced water could never be more than a quarter of a millionth of Earth’s total mass.
If you show me wrong, then I will change my mind. As a skeptic, it is my duty to follow the evidence.
Science is _the_ standard for acquiring knowledge about the natural world.
I’ve made a mistake.
I got too caught up in my argument, and for a moment confused Dr.Gary with Michael Coren. (When I checked Coren’s age and profession)
Appart from that, my arguments still stand. A simple google would have showed Gary where my handle comes from, and a click on the link where I come from.
I will leave the off topic finger pointing rubbish of the previous comments be….their absurdities speaks volums by themselves! I do want to say thanks Michael for pointing out a very real freedom of speech threat that is being foistered on free thinkers & people who don’t buy the sky is falling of Gore & the other ‘shrill whistles’ out there. Proof more? Check out a book titled “UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING”(every 1500 years) by researchers S.Fred Singer & Dennis T. Avery pub in 2007. They do an excellent job of not only refuting the Global Warming/Climate Change Hystryonics but they also expose the glaring attempts by politicians & funding agendized scientists to Post only one version of ‘truth’ on an unsuspecting environmental readership. To create reports (vis a vis IPCC) with approximately 130 world ranked & recognized scientists giving signature approval only to BACKROOM CHANGE & EDIT A F T E R that fact is nothing short of Fraud & scurilous Deception. Anyone wanting to believe the world is dying by mans pollutive discharges is their prerogative; but to cover up & repress alertnate opinions & research to the contrary is scandalous at best & Nazi all over again at worst. LET FREEDOM of RESEARCH & OPINION through, if you Please!