I agree that humans are adversely affecting the climate on this planet and we should be acting more responsibly.  But we must remember that statistics can be skewed to support any point of view.  Here are some things to consider:

• - Scientists are pressured to reach the conclusions that their financial backers want them to reach.  Scientists with opposing views do not receiving funding for their research and are often discredited.
• - Climate on this planet goes through major cycles, so if we focus upon a few decades of human historyinstead of looking at the natural cycle over thousands of years, we're not seeing the big picture.
• - The sun is particularly active at this point in time.  Many climate change studies only examine human activity without factoring in the sun's affect on climate.
• - All the planets in our solar system are experiencing similar increases in global temperature.
• - The term, "global warming" had to be changed to "climate change" because parts of the earth are actually getting colder, not warmer.
• - If governments are truly interested in halting climate change, why are they still investing in fossil fuels and suppressing free energy technologies?
• - To understand the hidden agenda behind climate change, one need only look at the connection between carbon taxation and Agenda 21. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-...

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

with Noa here.  It's a safe bet that any time they chime in with the phrase "National Security" they're playing the fear and race card and pulling the wool over your eyes.  Not buying it.

From all I've seen, I could not agree more.  The chemtrail issue has its side effects problems, but the primary intent IMO has been to slow down the process that nows seems inevitable IMO.  Even if we cut all emissions today, we would still have a climate change problem for some time to come IMO.

IMO the military branches do not get as caught up in political BS as much as politicians do, and they "get real" real quick when they sense a serious problem, and what is happening is very serious.  They know they will be the ones called upon when there is conflict and devastation.

It is estimated now that, at the current rate of burning of fossil fuels, the near future will be a continuous event cycle of rescue and conflict resolution due to extreme weather events.  And while all of this is so seemingly emminent, the oil industry continues on with fracking, causing earthquakes and poisoned water wells.  It is completely insane, like a snowball rolling downhill picking up speed and mass and must crash to stop.

"Many climate scientists say their biggest fear is that warming could melt the Arctic permafrost—which stretches for thousands of miles across Alaska, Canada, and Siberia. There is twice as much CO2 locked beneath the tundra as there is in the earth’s atmosphere. Melting would release enormous stores of methane, a greenhouse gas nearly thirty times more potent than carbon dioxide. If that happens, as the hydrologist Jane C. S. Long told me when we met recently in her office at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “it’s game over.” (from The New Yorker article linked below)

That article Brian outlines many of the important and very sobering issues IMO. Thanks so much for posting it.  My personal hunch is that economic concerns are pushing an agenda for getting something/anything to work, and that in and of itself scares me because short term fixes can cause unforeseen problems.

It has me wanting to quit my job and just live off of what little I have til its gone - have felt for too long now that I am just (we are) rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  Little else matters if we don't get this right and soon, and it already may be too late no matter what we do.

If we are too late, my last and best hope is that the Earth will do what it has done many times in the past - have a good old fashioned ice age that will clean up things very naturally over so many thousands of years...

That said, here is an interesting link concerning the origin of the term "chemtrails" and more on the Air Force's involvement with aerosols used in geoengineering.

Air Force Academy “Chemtrails” Manual Available For Download « Chemtrails: The Exotic Weapon

and a link on alleged policy on solar radiation management

OurEnergyPolicy.org | Solar Radiation Management–An Evolving Climate Policy Option

and a few more to muddy the debate waters even more

The Climate Fixers - The New Yorker

Geoengineering | Environment | The Guardian

Oxford Geoengineering Programme // What is Geoengineering?

Obama Takes Bold Step to Geoengineer Climate Change | Bill Chameides

The Geoengineering Option | Foreign Affairs (from geopolitical commerce central, the CFR)

USAF Enviromental Specialist Kristen Meghan | Blows Whistle On Air Force | Chemtrail Chemicals - YouTube

The Climate Fixers article is my favorite of all of these and makes me think that the Elephant in the room is what it says on the Georgia Guidestones concerning human population.  After reading that article, I don't see any solution but the reduction of numbers of our kind.  There is no other species that consumes fossil fuels like we do.  Profoundly simple and devastatingly true.  How the numbers are decreased to a sustainable population is the only question left for me at this point.

Well, time to get back to polishing brass and rearranging deck chairs.....

There is one idea that gives me hope from the Climate Fixers article, and I quote:

Early this winter, I visited a demonstration project on the campus of S.R.I. International, the Menlo Park institution that is a combination think tank and technological incubator. The project, built by Global Thermostat, looked like a very high-tech elevator or an awfully expensive math problem. “When I called chemical engineers and said I want to do this on a planetary scale, they laughed,’’ Peter Eisenberger, Global Thermostat’s president, told me. In 1996, Eisenberger was appointed the founding director of the Earth Institute, at Columbia University, where he remains a professor of earth and environmental sciences. Before that, he spent a decade running the materials research institute at Princeton University, and nearly as much time at Exxon, in charge of research and development. He believes he has developed a system to capture CO2 from the atmosphere at low heat and potentially at low cost.

The trial project is essentially a five-story brick edifice specially constructed to function like a honeycomb. Global Thermostat coats the bricks with chemicals called amines to draw CO2 from the air and bind with it. The carbon dioxide is then separated with a proprietary method that uses low-temperature heat—something readily available for free, since it is a waste product of many power plants. “Using low-temperature heat changes the equation,’’ Eisenberger said. He is an excitable man with the enthusiasm of a graduate student and the manic gestures of an orchestra conductor. He went on to explain that the amine coating on the bricks binds the CO2 at the molecular level, and the amount it can capture depends on the surface area; honeycombs provide the most surface space possible per square metre.

There are two groups of honey-combs that sit on top of each other. As Eisenberger pointed out, “You can only absorb so much CO2 at once, so when the honeycomb is full it drops into a lower section.” Steam heats and releases the CO2—and the honeycomb rises again. (Currently, carbon dioxide is used commercially in carbonated beverages, brewing, and pneumatic drying systems for packaged food. It is also used in welding. Eisenberger argues that, ideally, carbon waste would be recycled to create an industrial form of photosynthesis, which would help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.)

Unlike some other scientists engaged in geoengineering, Eisenberger is not bothered by the notion of tinkering with nature. “We have devised a system that introduces no additional threats into the environment,’’ he told me. “And the idea of interfering with benign nature is ridiculous. The Bambi view of nature is totally false. Nature is violent, amoral, and nihilistic. If you look at the history of this planet, you will see cycles of creation and destruction that would offend our morality as human beings. But somehow, because it’s ‘nature,’ it’s supposed to be fine.’’ Eisenberger founded and runs Global Thermostat with Graciela Chichilnisky, an Argentine economist who wrote the plan, adopted in 2005, for the international carbon market that emerged from the Kyoto Climate talks. Edgar Bronfman, Jr., an heir to the Seagram fortune, is Global Thermostat’s biggest investor. (The company is one of the finalists for Richard Branson’s Virgin Earth Challenge prize. In 2007, Branson offered a cash prize of twenty-five million dollars to anyone who could devise a process that would drain large quantities of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.)

“What is fascinating for me is the way the innovation process has changed,’’ Eisenberger said. “In the past, somebody would make a discovery in a laboratory and say, ‘What can I do with this?’ And now we ask, ‘What do we want to design?,’ because we believe there is powerful enough knowledge to do it. That is what my partner and I did.” The pilot, which began running last year, works on a very small scale, capturing about seven hundred tons of CO2 a year. (By comparison, an automobile puts out about six tons a year.) Eisenberger says that it is important to remember that it took more than a century to assemble the current energy system: coal and gas plants, factories, and the worldwide transportation network that has been responsible for depositing trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. “We are not going to get it all out of the atmosphere in twenty years,’’ he said. “It will take at least thirty years to do this, but if we start now that is plenty of time. You would just need a source of low-temperature heat—factories anywhere in the world are ideal.” He envisions a network of twenty thousand such devices scattered across the planet. Each would cost about a hundred million dollars—a two-trillion-dollar investment spread out over three decades.

“There is a strong history of the system refusing to accept something new,” Eisenberger said. “People say I am nuts. But it would be surprising if people didn’t call me crazy. Look at the history of innovation! If people don’t call you nuts, then you are doing something wrong.”

The Climate Fixers - The New Yorker

There is no larger use of petroleum than the phoney wars the military engages in.

Those phoney wars are based on the "scientific" NIST report that office fires on 9/11 brought down a steel framed building.

The medical establishment is totally wrong about cancer - anyone who doesn't follow their advice to poison their body with radiation and chemo but uses natural methods like marijuana, diet and laetril has a 4-5 better chance of survival.

The latest the media is reporting about global warming is that co2 is heating up the oceans. Since when does heat sink? And how is a 300% increase in a substance that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere become more important than water vapor, which can be as much as 4% of the atmosphere? The Jurasic period is when all this oil was produced - it was one of the most prolific periods of earths history and was far warmer than the climate at our current period. How can warming be a threat to life when the Jurasic was so full of life?

The scientific establishment thought the earth was the center of the universe for centuries. The history of science shows how dreadfully wrong it had been through out it's history and how it has always been influenced by political and religious forces.

All this said, I am open to the idea that there may be some truth to the idea that man is causing some warming. As I continually tell people, how many of us have had the chance to look at an ice core for ourselves? It's a game of he said, she said. So I try to base my dis-belief on the scientific contradictions I see in the global warming arguments but who knows?

David Ray Griffin, a respected 9/11 researcher just came out with a global warming book.

http://www.claritypress.com/Griffin.html

This has gotten serious, as methane seems to have gotten into the greenhouse gas picture.

What I remember reading 6 or so years ago was that there is a lot of methane ice on the ocean floor and if it ever started melting it would bubble up to the surface and we would be in for a lot of trouble.

Methane is a lot more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. I have read different articles ranging anywhere from 10 to 86 times more potent. This would cause a runaway condition where the ocean gets warmer, releasing even more methane, getting even more warmer and so on – creating a vicious cycle or positive feedback loop.

I read that a while back. Then, just this summer I started noticing articles about methane bubbles starting to come up from the ocean floor off the US east coast – articles something like this:

Climate Bomb? Methane Vents Bubble on Seafloor off East Coast: Study

I wondered if this was the runaway condition they were worried about or are these areas up and down the east coast are just isolated areas due to nearby hot magma vents or something.

Then this fall I noticed articles about methane bubbles coming up on the US WEST coast off Washington state.

Methane Being Released Off Washington Coast By Global Warming

A more recent article quoting University of Washington sources puts the ocean warming rate at half a degree each year! (BTW):

Seafloor melting releases giant plume of methane off Washington coast

Its not just about ocean temperature, the melting of the methane ice, as well as increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, also acidifies the ocean. This can kill coral reefs and cause mass extinctions of ocean life.

Also huge methane bubble plumes can effect the buoyancy of ships causing them to suddenly sink if they move over them.

Fracking also causes natural gas leaks, the biggest component of which is methane.

Methane Leaks Wipe Out Any Climate Benefit Of Fracking, Satellite Observations Confirm

All the methane concerns will be ignored by the main stream media. I watched one TV pundit say there was one aspect of global warming that they couldn't talk about on TV. I am guessing that it is the methane aspect of it.

I don't see any incentive for those sounding the global warming alarm. "Making a name for oneself" does not cut it as it is a major embarrassment if they are wrong. I do see economic incentive for those suppressing the global warming alarm: Oil Industry profits.

I have seen a lot of suspicious polls in general recently. I wonder who pays for these polls.

We DO need to stop all greenhouse gas emission and fracking immediately if we have any chance of fixing this.

If we are going to continue to produce energy through chemical combustion we should switch to hydrogen as the only by-product of hydrogen combustion is water and no greenhouse gases. It looks like the US Navy is going to do just this:

How the navy will turn seawater into fuel

Water is a safe storage medium for hydrogen fuel. One can use pulsed electrolysis to separate the hydrogen out by separating the H2O water molecule into its hydrogen and oxygen components. The pulse frequency would be at the resonant frequency of the oxygen-hydrogen bond of the water molecule. This minimizes the amount of energy it takes to break the hydrogen-oxygen bond. (Regular DC electrolysis is not suitable as it puts more energy in than you get out from burning the hydrogen.)

There are kits that you can retrofit into your car to use pulsed electrolysis on water that can boost your automobile's gas mileage significantly. I would expect most of these businesses have been bought up by the oil industry and the kits modified to not work by now. However with a little expertise and separating what works and what doesn't work, and “fixing” these broken kits one should be able to get them to work again.

Keeping the oxygen from the electrolysis in the mixture would have a turbo-like effect – like “fanning the flames”.

I am of the camp that we need to do something quick.

Thanks Mark,

These are the best arguments I've seen so far that say that global warming is something we should worry about. I so appreciate the logic, common sense and science as opposed to many bad arguments that mainstream media pushes.

Thanks,

Wendy

When in doubt, follow the money.

I'd wager that you're as convinced by your "facts" as I am by mine, Brian.

I was referring to the globalist agenda.  I can't think of a way that us common folk could profit by saying that climate change isn't entirely due to human activity, can you?

On the other hand, there are numerous ways to profit from a population who feels culpable for "global warming" eg. carbon tax, agenda 21, not to mention the scads of elite-owned environmental groups masquerading as "charities."

Now, don't get me wrong.  I love this beautiful green planet and I do all I can to preserve it.  But if we catch the establishment telling us one lie (and there are so many), why would we believe anything else they tell us?

"I find I often read or hear clear and plausible explanations as to why things are as they are that don't fit that worldview of domination and victimhood."

Really, like what, for example?