Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Location: Wellington
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:24 pm Post Subject:
Stuff.co.nz is a National website that consolidates all the papers top stories. I am assuming that this story is in todays Dominion Post. I only read online news so don't quote me on that....
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 969
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:48 am Post Subject:
i think the global warming myth was generated from way back, with a few useful purposes in mind..........it has been used to cover the chemtrail program
when the chemmers started, they had no firm way of knowing how much resistance there would be
much propaganda has been laid around, here and there, in the classic disinformative tradition, saying that the chem initiative is to compensate for the disastrous effects of man-made emissions
the pilots involved are presented as patriotic heroes
if you are wondering why this pitch , appealing to the lowest reflexes , like guilt and fear, is not more prominent, the reason is, it doesn't have to be
the chemmers must be rubbing their hands together, over how easy it has been to keep 911, the gun-control massacres, and chemtrails in the bag
even with the gaping hole of this free internet , unexpected in their plans, people have obliged in the most wonderful way, by never looking around, never looking up, and in general, keeping their eyes in a box and their noses in the trough
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:33 pm Post Subject:
New Zealand researcher Dr Kesten Green, the subject of the Stuff article ( http://www.stuff.co.nz/4472519a7693.html ), is the real deal. He and his associate Prof J. Scott Armstrong have done an efficient job on dissecting and exposing the methods and conclusions of the IPCC for what they are - deeply flawed.
Here is a link to their complete peer reviewed 27 page report in PDF form, for which, incidentally, they received no outside funding:
GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS
VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS
by Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong
We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical.
The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In
effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and
obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’
predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We
have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.
In accessing how the media handle such subjects it is always interesting to see how New Zealand's largest newspaper, The New Zealand Herald, presents it. In short, they didn't. It is quite obviously editorial policy to avoid giving any publicity to opponents to the IPCC dogma. No doubt one of the 'benefits' of having our media owned by overseas interests...
However their religious conservative and somewhat grumpy columnist, Garth George, did manage to sneak in an article attacking the IPCC and "the ridiculous Kyoto Protocol":
George makes a lot of sense, particularly with regard to the negative implications for New Zealanders in having our politicians and officials accept unquestioningly the belief in CO2 driven 'Global Warming'
Some extracts:
Quote:
For, as the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change held in New York City last month announced in its conference theme: "Nature, not human activity, rules the climate."
The conference was attended by 500 scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policy-makers and business leaders, and included three New Zealanders - Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, and Owen McShane, of Kaiwaka, both of whom were speakers; and Auckland's Terry Dunleavy, founding chairman of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).
In its Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, issued after the meeting, the conference declared: " 'Global warming' is not a global crisis."
The declaration was written by Mr Dunleavy, assisted by Tom Harris, of Canada, newly appointed executive director of the ICSC, and Viscount Christopher Monckton, a retired British international business consultant, policy adviser, writer and inventor.
The declaration affirms that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by scientific methods and avers that the global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a necessity for all life.
Quote:
It affirms that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future direction of global climate change.
Such policies, it says, will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering.
And, it notes, warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder.
Quote:
The declaration has received more than 400 signatures so far from scientists and other experts from around the world, and more are signing each day.
Now why this forthright declaration did not receive prominent coverage in the press anywhere in New Zealand, including this newspaper's vaunted Green Pages, I have no idea. It was, after all, a Kiwi initiative.
It seems that so-called global warming has created an international hysteria, encouraged by scientists and politicians who are talking through their pockets, and that no amount of common sense will divert the doom-sayers from their misguided and deeply dangerous path.
You would think that in pragmatic New Zealand at least, the Manhattan Declaration, and others like it, would be greeted with great relief and joy.
Except that our politicians, who seriously miscalculated the cost of Kyoto Protocol carbon credits, are scrabbling to dig themselves out of the cowshit.
For those interested here is the complete text of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change:
Quote:
International Conference on Climate Change
New York City, 2-4 March, 2008
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
“Global warming” is not a global crisis
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend –
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008
If you want confirmation that Global Warming has become akin to a religion, you only have to witness how National MPs Lockwood Smith and Maurice Williamson were hounded by journalists on the subject:
Notice how 'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change' have become synonymous, rather than the two issues that they are. One could quite reasonably believe in 'Climate Change', for example, but disbelieve 'Global Warming' - or at least what that term has come to mean in our society...
Quote:
Lockwood Smith: … I don’t know what this is about, my position is totally consistent with National’s position.
Espiner: What I’m asking you is whether you believe in global warming.
Lockwood Smith: My position is totally consistent with National’s position.
Espiner: Lockwood, I’m asking you whether you believe in global warming.
Lockwood Smith: I’m telling you what my answer is.
Espiner: What is it?
Lockwood Smith: That I totally support National’s position.
Espiner: Do you believe in global warming?
Lockwood Smith: I totally support National’s position.
Espiner: Why can’t you tell us yes or no?
Lockwood Smith: Because the important thing is what I support.
Espiner: I understand that you said to the AA conference that you thought that [climate change] wasn’t happening.
Williamson: That’s not true. What I said to the AA is that I wasn’t going to comment on any other member’s policy, I was there to talk about roading.
Espiner: Do you believe in climate change?
Williamson: I believe in the National Party’s policy.
Espiner: But do you yourself believe in it?
Williamson: I believe in the National Party’s policy.
While there is good reason to believe that some parts of the climate change debate are flawed and that perhaps the earth does go through natural climatic changes over large amounts of time, is is it not also prudent to think that maybe our polluting ways are making this cycle more severe than it would have been.
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 969
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:30 am Post Subject:
i'm of the view that nobody knows the answer to that question, Deano, and while there is "directed" (sic) "research" (sic), your chances of finding out are diminished to practically zilch
i'm with you on this one, Deano. certainly it is always a challenge to find one's way through all the evidence, quasi and otherwise; all the information being pumped out, to try for some reasonable approximation of the true picture.
it does look like the climate change card is being flashed much too often these days through all sorts of media, not to become suspicious about the motives.
one such motive could well be preparation to explain away chemtrails as our leaders' heroic effort to save us from global warming.
yet, before the whole climate change thing got taken up in such a big way by the propaganda machine, and even now, one just knows that all this wild carbon polluting can't be good for life on this planet in the medium to long term.
