The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!

[dannybananny]

Global warming: less meat = less heat, less meat = more food for people, less meat = brighter future

Everyone can fight climate change by not eating meat one day a week, urged Sir Paul McCartney at a European Parliament public hearing on "Global Warming and Food Policy: Less Meat = Less Heat" on Thursday. The panel of global warming and food policy experts, including Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, urged legislators to encourage people to do more individually to fight climate change.
Livestock account for 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions, which is double the share of transport, according to the 2006 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report "Livestock's Long Shadow". Many speakers also highlighted the inefficiency of producing meat, rather than crops, to feed the world.

More at:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/064-65644-334-11-49-911-20091130IPR65643-30-11-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm


This is realy becoming hilarious, eat less meat to save planet from Global warming, what are they going to say next:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKq0j-5RuYI&feature=player_embedded

European Parliament, Brussels, 03.12.2009
Debate: Hearing on Global Warming and Food Policy : "Less Meat Less Heat" - Sir Paul McCARTNEY and Professor PACHAURI, Chairman of the IPCC
Speaker: Paul Nuttall MEP, UKIP, Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament.
Includes excerpts from the introduction of the hearing by Jerzy Buzek MEP, President of the European Parliament and Jo Leinen MEP, Chairman of the Environment Committee.
Also includes three short excerpts from Sir Paul McCartney at the press conference given shortly after the hearling.

Nick Griffin MEP: THE ONLY DISSENTER AT THE CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2OWOf9geNI&feature=player_embedded

 

[StrangeCaptain]

[quote author=dannybananny]

This is realy becoming hilarious, eat less meat to save planet from Global warming, what are they going to say next:

[/quote]

This argument has been made by some vegetarians and environmentalists for a very long time. They cite figures having to do with the amount acreage it requires to feed a certain amount of livestock and how much food results from these livestock as compared to the amount of vegetable food the same acreage could produce.

For me, realising that psychopathology is a more fundamental problem here on earth than overpopulation caused me to think differently about this. I am not convinced anymore a priori that there is not enough food on the planet to feed everyone. When one realises how much food is wasted due to pathological systems of distribution and the wastefulness in general in the "developed" societies of the world, I think the possibilty raises itself that everyone could indeed be fed.

I muse now on the fact that before global warming became "scientific fact," many environmental groups such as Greenpeace had a big focus on gender-bending chemicals such as PCBs and dioxins and on environmental justice. Greenpeace was against recycling plastic because the recycling process produces the same poisons as the original manufacture. And environmental justice... This has to do with the study of inequity between economic classes with respect to the amount of exposure to environmental toxins.

Now these ideas have been eclipsed by the so-called immediacy of the global-warming problem. The PTBs seem to like to multi-task, and the global-warming scare has seemed to also remove the focus of environmental groups on issues that truly touch on the psychopathological power structures that rule the world currently.

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=dufusnews.com]1-19-10 IPCC: Oops!

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided some welcome comic relief today, announcing that it's 2007 report predicting the melting of Himalayan glaciers by 2035 "may have been incorrect."

It seems that neither Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine nor the other Dr. Howard were as thorough in vetting their sources for this data as first reported. Basically, they got it from a guy (1999 Article in The Scientist); who got it from another guy (1999 phone conversation with Dr. Syed Hasnan), who was "only speculating...not based on any precise scientific data"; who got it from his brother-in-law's sister's manicurist; who got it from a vision she had while popping some funny mushrooms. When confronted about this monumentally idiotic error, Dr. Fine responded, "Mmmmmm.....I resemble that remark."

The other scientists on the IPCC: Dr. Groucho, Dr. Harpo, Dr. Chico and Dr. Gummo were unavailable for comment.[/quote]

 

[durabone]

Just when I was about to conclude that the Ice Age thing was simply "Alternative Three" prattle...

Seeing unknown scientists attack AGU 2007 claiming the Ice Age was coming left me thinking that they were simply planted to fight the AGU Scientists' global warming theory. Several during that conference claimed that the unknowns were sponsored by BP & ExxonMobil.

Here we have an entire site devoted to the idea that the Ice Age is upon us!! It's enough to make a person dizzy. I just concluded one study that examined shallow earthquakes along the Western Canada / Alaska shore. The idea is that the weight of the glacier is declining, causing a new type of quake. That doesn't sound like freezing to me!

Most of central Europe will soon be covered in ice

10 Feb 10 - Renowned physicist Vladimir Paar has revealed that Europe could be just five years away from the start of a new Ice Age, says this article in the Croatian Times.

Most of central Europe will soon be covered in ice, says Paar, "including Germany, Poland, France, Austria, Slovakia and a part of Slovenia." The freeze will be so complete that people will be able to walk from England to Ireland or across the North Sea from Scotland to northern Europe.

"This could happen in five, 10, 50 or 100 years, or even later. We can't predict it precisely, but it will come," he added.

And the professor said that scientists think global warming is simply a natural part of the planet.

Professor Paar, from Croatia's Zagreb University, has spent decades analysing previous ice ages in Europe and what caused them.

"The reality is that mankind needs to start preparing for the ice age," says Paar. "We are at the end of the global warming period. The ice age is to follow. The global warming period should have ended a few thousands of years ago, we should have already been in the ice age. Therefore we do not know precisely when it could start – but soon."

"Food production also might be a problem. It would need to be produced in greenhouses with a lot of energy spent to heat it," commented the professor, who remains optimistic despite his predictions.

It will still be possible for man to survive in the ice age, but the spending on energy will be enormous.

 

[Joe]

Here's the link to the original

http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2010-02-10/8836/Croat_scientist_warns_ice_age_could_start_in_five_years

 

[vinin]

I have been reading regular articles on SOTT by Alan Caruba of “Warning Signs”, all extremely one sided (anti-global warming) and not supported by any reasonable amount of relevant evidence. I have started to wonder why SOTT which operates as

.. research project of the non-profit Quantum Future Group (QFG). The project includes collecting, arranging, and analyzing news items that seem to best reflect the movement of macrocosmic quantum energies on the planet. This research further includes noting whether or not human beings, individually and/or collectively, can actually remember from one day to the next the state of the planet, and whether they are able to accurately read that information and make intelligent decisions about their future based on that knowledge. (see About SOTT)

..would repeatedly include opinion of a conservative writer spewing out against scientific consensus without providing factual base? The science behind the effect of greenhouse gases is very simple and solid. All the data support that more and more of sun energy stay on earth and exceed the cooling effect of other factors like sun activity variations, Earth axis shifting, or aerosol emissions by human and volcanoes. Of course large catastrophes can easily overwhelm all the other forces and lead to ice age, but that is not the topic of Mr. Caruba.
Just being against consensus (whether in science, politics or history) does not automatically qualifies something as “accurate information” helping making “intelligent decisions”, still need some good deal of facts and research.
As of global warming, the consensus has established as is regardless and to the contrary of prevailing political and economical influences. Unless they played double game, pretending to be against or ignoring it while secretly plotting pro-global worming agenda? Somehow I doubt so.

 

[Joe]

I have been reading regular articles on SOTT by Alan Caruba of “Warning Signs”, all extremely one sided (anti-global warming) and not supported by any reasonable amount of relevant evidence. I have started to wonder why SOTT would repeatedly include opinion of a conservative writer spewing out against scientific consensus without providing factual base?

He does provide a factual base: the scientific evidence that the earth has, throughout its history, gone through warming and cooling periods, and we happen to be at the (possible) end of one of those warming periods..

The science behind the effect of greenhouse gases is very simple and solid. All the data support that more and more of sun energy stay on earth and exceed the cooling effect of other factors like sun activity variations, Earth axis shifting, or aerosol emissions by human and volcanoes.

How can you say that "The science behind the effect of greenhouse gases is very simple and solid" when it has been shown that they have deliberately cooked the data? Is fraud a part of scientific research in your opinion?

Just being against consensus (whether in science, politics or history) does not automatically qualifies something as “accurate information” helping making “intelligent decisions”, still need some good deal of facts and research.

We're not "against consensus" (can't speak for Caruba) we're against lies and deception.

As of global warming, the consensus has established as is regardless and to the contrary of prevailing political and economical influences. Unless they played double game, pretending to be against or ignoring it while secretly plotting pro-global worming agenda? Somehow I doubt so.

Not sure what you mean here.

 

[vinin]

Parceval,
From you response I conclude that the SOTT editors are of same opinion as Mr. Caruba. That is sad. I guess I will have to wait till the Arctic is free of ice in the near future in hope you reconsider your sources.
To answer your comment:

He does provide a factual base: the scientific evidence that the earth has, throughout its history, gone through warming and cooling periods, and we happen to be at the (possible) end of one of those warming periods

It is a general knowledge that the earth is going through natural warming period, which has lasted for the last 10,000 or so years. Nobody argues with that. The feature of the current climate change is that it is very fast, about 100 times faster than the natural warming.

How can you say that "The science behind the effect of greenhouse gases is very simple and solid" when it has been shown that they have deliberately cooked the data? Is fraud a part of scientific research in your opinion?

The science behind the effect of greenhouse gases is based on higher absorption of light in near infrared spectrum. That is the emission from warm earth that is trapped in the lower atmosphere. This science is solid and even global warming deniers argue against it. Hard to argue with basic physics.
Those leaked emails from one research institute out of hundreds (Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England) did not reveal any “data cooking”. They contained discussions on how to treat data available for all scientific community. Scientists in private communications often use language some people may consider suspicious. It is that language some activists tried to spin as evidence of distorting the data. Since then, six separate official inquiries all cleared the researchers of scientific misconduct. Any natural scientist familiar with the subject could see from the original communications there was nothing wrong. Besides, all the data obtained and analyzed by thousands others since that continue showing worming trend.

We're not "against consensus" (can't speak for Caruba) we're against lies and deception.

Obviously I did not generalize to all SOTT publications. I am all with you against lies and deception. That is the reason I posted my comment in the first place.

Quote from: Uralsky on Yesterday at 10:42:15 PM
As of global warming, the consensus has established as is regardless and to the contrary of prevailing political and economical influences. Unless they played double game, pretending to be against or ignoring it while secretly plotting pro-global worming agenda? Somehow I doubt so.

Not sure what you mean here.

I meant
Most of political establishment and corporations act actively against the scientific consensus (acceptance of the main made global warming), or at minimum ignore it. Hard to imagine such an intricate conspiracy when some political forces fool majority of scientific community into “cooking the data” while themselves being openly against it.

At the end, I just wanted to engage into a legitimate discussion about important topic. Is not it what this forum about?

 

[Beau]

At the end, I just wanted to engage into a legitimate discussion about important topic. Is not it what this forum about?

Of course that's part of this forum. I don't see anywhere in Percival's post where that would indicate otherwise. Why do you feel like he is trying to stifle open discussion? He asked some legitimate questions about what you have written. That is to be expected on this forum.

 

[Bobo08]

He does provide a factual base: the scientific evidence that the earth has, throughout its history, gone through warming and cooling periods, and we happen to be at the (possible) end of one of those warming periods

It is a general knowledge that the earth is going through natural warming period, which has lasted for the last 10,000 or so years. Nobody argues with that. The feature of the current climate change is that it is very fast, about 100 times faster than the natural warming.

It has been shown that ice ages generally begin after a very wam period, which flips over into an ice age in an extremely short time.

How can you say that "The science behind the effect of greenhouse gases is very simple and solid" when it has been shown that they have deliberately cooked the data? Is fraud a part of scientific research in your opinion?

The science behind the effect of greenhouse gases is based on higher absorption of light in near infrared spectrum. That is the emission from warm earth that is trapped in the lower atmosphere. This science is solid and even global warming deniers argue against it. Hard to argue with basic physics.

It is as simple and solid as the theory that you can simply reduce intake calories to treat obesity. Nature is a bit more complex than that.

Those leaked emails from one research institute out of hundreds (Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England) did not reveal any “data cooking”. They contained discussions on how to treat data available for all scientific community. Scientists in private communications often use language some people may consider suspicious. It is that language some activists tried to spin as evidence of distorting the data. Since then, six separate official inquiries all cleared the researchers of scientific misconduct. Any natural scientist familiar with the subject could see from the original communications there was nothing wrong. Besides, all the data obtained and analyzed by thousands others since that continue showing worming trend.

The above is just the official line. Those who followed that leak closely, read the actual emails and did additional research know that reality is different. SOTT happened to cover that extensively. It's all in the database if you care to do a little research for yourself.

Quote from: Uralsky on Yesterday at 10:42:15 PM
As of global warming, the consensus has established as is regardless and to the contrary of prevailing political and economical influences. Unless they played double game, pretending to be against or ignoring it while secretly plotting pro-global worming agenda? Somehow I doubt so.

Not sure what you mean here.

I meant
Most of political establishment and corporations act actively against the scientific consensus (acceptance of the main made global warming), or at minimum ignore it. Hard to imagine such an intricate conspiracy when some political forces fool majority of scientific community into “cooking the data” while themselves being openly against it.

What planet are you living on? Is carbon tax evident of the establishment being against global warming? Is the fact that all the talking heads on the media just KNOW that global warming is happening evident of the establishment being against global warming?

At the end, I just wanted to engage into a legitimate discussion about important topic. Is not it what this forum about?

Have you read the catastrophe series on the left of the SOTT home page? The topic of global warming leading to ice ages is covered in a lot of detail there. It would save everyone's energy if you could get up to speed on the available research first.

 

[Laura]

Parceval,
From you response I conclude that the SOTT editors are of same opinion as Mr. Caruba. That is sad. I guess I will have to wait till the Arctic is free of ice in the near future in hope you reconsider your sources.
<snip>

At the end, I just wanted to engage into a legitimate discussion about important topic. Is not it what this forum about?

This is called "The Cassiopaea Forum". The Cassiopaeans have given a number of clues about the coming Ice Age. There are quite a few articles on SOTT that are from other sources about this, not to mention my "Comet Series".

Just go to sott, use the search box, enter "global warming" with quotes, and start reading.

If that doesn't help then, I think, based on your attachment to corrupt science that you would feel happier interacting on a different forum.

 

[beetlemaniac]

Hi Uralsky, you could also check this video out. A Professor Bob Carter explains in detail what's wrong with the imposed consensus on global warming.

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

 

[SeekinTruth]

Hi, Uralsky. As has been suggested, you have a whole lot of getting up to speed on this matter. What about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that were much higher many millions of years ago? There's mountains of evidence that CO2 is a lagging indicator NOT a cause of "global warming." What about the Medieval Warming period followed by the mini ice age during the Maunder and Dalton Minimum periods? There was no industry during the Middle Ages -- way before the Industrial Revolution. This was one of the things that has been trying to be hidden by the Anthropogenic Global Warming propagandists posing as "scientists." Among some other instances of cooking the data was trying to hide the fact that global temperatures warming has stopped since 1998, if not earlier.

So there's plenty of evidence pointing to the whole man-made global warming being another big hoax. There's plenty of REAL science pointing to the fact that we're on the verge of another Ice Age, which as was mentioned, come about MUCH, MUCH faster than what is thought in the mainstream. Perhaps you could do some real research, leave aside your programming, and see what the real evidence shows?

 

[Yozilla]

It has been shown that ice ages generally begin after a very warm period, which flips over into an ice age in an extremely short time.

Yes I totally agree with this and I try to explain this to my friends reminding them of well known terrifying scenes- before The tsunami in Indonesia, sea water retreated like some kind of great ebb tide...

I mean that cold fronts are a kind of suspended - maybe "accumulating potential" for triggering next ice age - warm weather periods are prolonged & extended (reminding me at above mentioned sea retreat) .... So maybe I could refer to this as extended amplitude of warm front which will be balanced with torrential thrust off freezing cold air that will glaciate everything on it's way...

 

[vinin]

Thank you all for comments. As suggested, I will read all I can find on that topic on Cassiopaea and SOTT before going further into discussion.
Let me answer some of you questions shortly.
Heimdallr:
it was not my intention to question openness of the forum. Sorry if I made this impression.

Bobo08:

It has been shown that ice ages generally begin after a very wam period, which flips over into an ice age in an extremely short time.

Agree. Yet it does not rule out warming effect from manmade gases. All it says to me is that in absence of man a new ice age could start rather quickly on geological time scale.

What planet are you living on? Is carbon tax evident of the establishment being against global warming? Is the fact that all the talking heads on the media just KNOW that global warming is happening evident of the establishment being against global warming?

What carbon tax? Well, you may have carbon tax in some European countries but not in US (except two states). Even if we get carbon tax in the future that will happen in spite of political resistance to it.

Laura:

This is called "The Cassiopaea Forum". The Cassiopaeans have given a number of clues about the coming Ice Age. There are quite a few articles on SOTT that are from other sources about this, not to mention my "Comet Series".
Just go to sott, use the search box, enter "global warming" with quotes, and start reading.

If that doesn't help then, I think, based on your attachment to corrupt science that you would feel happier interacting on a different forum.

My original post was a comment invited by a SOTT publication of Mr. Caruba. I am aware of C’s clues about potential climate change. As I mentioned in the original post:

Of course large catastrophes can easily overwhelm all the other forces and lead to ice age, but that is not the topic of Mr. Caruba.

My point is that using someone’s opinion just because it happened to state same conclusion as you are looking to confirm is not a particularly good approach if one wants to establish well researched scientific base. In other way, there may well be an Ice Age coming but not because of the reasons presented by Mr. Aruba.

After reading more on Cass and SOTT I may change my view (as happens in science) or I may come back to try changing yours (as happens too). Besides, I presume you would expect to find some of the C’s predictions not happening in accordance with their 71.7% accuracy rate.
I have changed my views number of times in the past when new data becomes available. Never considered myself attached to any particular orthodoxy. And I believe there is no corrupt science: there science, sometimes not absolutely accurate but evolving, and there is non-science.