Are Dams a Major Global Warming Contributor?

Don't give up that SUV just yet. A new study shows that dams are worse than burning fossil fuels! Just when you were sure it was SUV's, or livestock, or moose, or those evil babies, you get the global warming rug pulled out from underneath you for the umteenth time. The new evil is those dams!

From: AccuWeather.com Global Warming Center - AccuWeather.com's Global Warming Center is an open forum that looks at every side of the issues of global warming and climate change with scientific clarity. (Take note of the last few words "climate change with scientific clarity." let's see how clear and scientific they really are.)

In their article they trot out an "expert" who says dams "emit very high quantities of greenhouse gases even comparable to, in some cases even much worse than fossil fuels like coal and gas." said Patrick McCully, executive director of the International Rivers Network in an article from News.com.au McCully said global estimates blamed dams for about a third of all methane emissions worldwide!"

Patrick McCully says dams emit "greenhouse gases even comparable to, in some cases even much worse than fossil fuels like coal and gas." This is the clear science that AccuWeather.com Global Warming Center brags about? This is absolute nonsense!

Well, which is it? Are dams comparable to or much worse than fossil fuels? This is not a scientific statement, it is braindead propaganda being accepted by the global warming faithful as science. This report does not document studies or methods and is highly suspect. Let's take a look at a "scientific chart" released a few years ago that supposedly breaks down the sources of methane emissions.
Where in the "scientific chart" above are the dams which are responsible for being the greatest contributors of global greenhouse gas emissions? If this story by AccuWeather.com is correct then this whole chart is way, way off! These inconsistencies don't bother the fanatics and true GW scientific believers and they never will. Certainly such a gigantic cause of global warming couldn't have been missed before now!

The real problem with all of this blatant nonsense masquerading as science is the fact that they don't address the issue of greenhouse gas offsets delivered by the dams themselves. Dams are responsible for about one terrawatt of energy production worldwide and irrigate lands where plants can grow and absorb CO2. Without dams we would have to burn almost a billion tons of fossil fuels more every year. Why won't they ever, ever tell you about that? Because they hate dams, and are rabidly anti anything man-made. Such is their obsessive-compulsive disdain of humanity.

So, now we are supposed to believe that dams produce more methane than all of the tens of millions of square miles of swamps, marshes, wetlands, jungles, and bogs on earth combined? Where is the evidence? How did they measure the methane emissions around dams? Did they cover them with some really big plastic bag to trap the methane and measure it?

The emissions refered to in the article are also known as swamp gas. Swamp gas is said to have fooled many into believing they have seen ghosts or UFO's. This is a case of swamp gas fooling the faithful into believing they have seen a dam.

Swamp gas has been known by several names: ignis fatuus, will-o’-the-wisp, corpse candles, jack-o’-lantern, and marsh gas. A multitude of reliable references to and descriptions of this natural phenomenon have been found in prestigious journals such as Nature, Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, and Symons Monthly Meteorological Magazine. Some of these references are global in scope and span the years from the 19th century to modern times.

Characteristically, swamp gas is found in peat bogs, mud flats, marshes, swamps — and now dams wherever stagnant water coincides with the decay of organic matter.

In the early 1990’s, in defiance of IPCC projections, the methane concentration in the atmosphere abruptly stopped rising, and has remained nearly constant since then.

A recent scientific experiment has also yielded results pointing to the fact that all plants produce methane, and as the climate warms they produce more. In fact 600 million metric tons of methane a year are produced, 225 of those produced by plants. Now, the question is if warming produces more methane then why has the methane level been constant for more than a decade? Could it be that scientists really don't have a clue? Yet more scientific quackery!

Here's what the climate scientists have to say in their article concerning methane emissions.

I am quoting from their article - "What are the implications of all this for our ability to predict the future of the methane cycle? Let’s summarize what you’ve just read. (in their article) According to one set of papers, atmospheric methane could be suppressed in the future by controlling land fires. Or it could be that methane variations are mostly produced by wetland emission, driven by climate change as well as land use decisions, according to another set of papers. Or methane could resume its rise, toward a new steady state, because it is driven by increasing fluxes from melting permafrost peat and hydrates, according to observations on the ground.

The bottom line I take away from all this is that the available studies come to a strikingly divergent range of conclusions. We know a lot about the methane cycle, but as far as forecasting the near-term future, we have no clue. No one would build a nuclear reactor if our understanding of the underlying chemical dynamics were as fragile as this. Instead, we are taking the reins of a planetary biosphere. This is disturbing."

There you have it. "but as far as forecasting the near-term future, we have no clue." It would seem that based on their chart and the newly found evil of dams that they don't have a clue about the past either.

Let's wrap this up with a little common sense. Dams contribute to methane emissions, but they also deserve credit for reducing CO2 emissions and growing vast amounts of vegetation which uptake CO2. Dams are good! They are good for people and the environment. Period!

Global Warming Crime Wave - Shocker!

Yet another consequence of global warming - more crime! Oh God, why can't I be this creative?! No, you little people can't make this stuff up, only the folks at ABC are that smart. You can see for yourself - Climate change offers new criminal opportunities, experts warn

After reading the article it should be obvious what "powerful" minds are at work here. The first paragraph reads as follows;

"A meeting of global crime experts has conceded that climate change could spark criminal activities in unconventional areas." Did you catch that? They "conceded" as if to say that they were reluctant to admit it in the first place, but ABC came to the rescue and made them admit it!

This poor guy has been reduced to stealing bottled water. Curse you global warming!

So, what is the new global warming booty so alluring to thieves? - Water, copper wiring, and crystal meth. What?!!! Now, I can see where water might have something to do with global warming, but copper wire and crystal meth? These people must be on some serious drugs!

In case you didn't go to the article to see this gem in professional journalism let's take a look at the following statement from The commission's executive director of national criminal intelligence, Kevin Kitson -

"He says over the counter bans on pseudoephedrine drugs will start to restrict the availability of the main ingredient in crystal methamphetamines.

"We're seeing a change, for example, in the way in which clandestine laboratories are constructed," he said.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, (I'm still waiting for something about global warming) blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, ...

"We're making it very much harder for them to do that." End of story.

Now I ask you where is the global warming story? There is nothing in the story that corroborates the headline! Instead the story is about crystal meth. What does crystal meth have to do with global warming?!!!

These people are real Einsteins! This is the type of hysterical idiocy our media spews daily. What in the hell are they teaching our kids in college journalism schools? It would be better if they never went to these colleges. What a waste of time and money for the parents and students. Unfortunately one must have a degree read (indoctrination) from one of the "esteemed" journalism schools in order to get a job in the mainstream media.

As far as I can tell there are more horses rear ends in the mainstream media than there are horses! Global warming equals crime increases? - give me a break! No proof, or documentation, or evidence equals no story!

How many different ways can the GW extortioners be wrong and still retain any credibility? We have cited dozens of the more blatant examples here on Free World Survey. Somehow they get by with it. If scientists in any other field of study were this cavalier and careless with the facts they would have lost all credibility long before now. The global warming "scientists" and pundits seem to have infinite latitude in ignorance and outright fraud.

The real tragedy here is that many of the GW faithful will now see a story on drug crimes involving crystal meth (the global warming drug) and equate it with proof of climate change. They will no doubt conclude that global warming is causing the drug problem. I suppose it best to stop here before I give them any more hair brained ideas.

Global Warming Schizophrenia

Sometimes I feel schizophrenic when I read all of the self-contradictory pro-global warming studies, stories, hysterical rants, and UN proclamations. I just don’t know how the GW faithful do it! They tell us more hurricanes, less hurricanes, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink, and the list grows everyday. It is through the chaos of these stories that the truth is striving to be told. It tears little by little through the weave of their web which has caught many unawares. As much as they try, they can't mend their web of deceit forever.

Let's take a closer look at how abundant these self-contradictory claims are within the GW cult. The list below is not complete, their dire and contradictory claims are too many to count. However this will give us good insight into the schizophrenia of the GW faithful.

Normally a good movie producer will hire a professional (Script Continuity Editor) to ensure the
integrity of the story line. Making sure that the message and historicity of the movie are accurate and do not conflict with the facts either external (real world) or internal (story line). Now the continuity is important in the script because we want to stay in the same universe as our viewers.

You wouldn't want to have say, a WW ll fighter pilot flying a P-51 Mustang one minute and when the camera comes back around he's flying an F-15c Eagle. Or, you wouldn't want that pilot dying in an aerial combat scene, but is shown alive and well back on base minutes later. Yet, this is exactly what is happening in the different universe of the global warming cult. Even if they knew, the faithful are not allowed to talk about it, or even let anyone else talk about it.

I will get tons of hate comments from the cult faithful for bringing this up, but it is a matter that cannot be overlooked if we are to even pretend to be open-minded. They hate, yes hate anyone who has any objection to their sacred sacrament of global warming. This is for your eyes. They will not see as they have been blinded by so called "science."

99 percent of the faithful will not have read this far and will have just jumped to post nasty comments or hastily click away. Their pathological disdain is really a phenomenon of recent history. The only other parallel of such zealous hate would be the Nazis of pre-WW ll Germany. Surely you have seen or felt their fangs of criticism in comment boards and on their websites.

What is the essence of our controversy? Stay with me for an expose which will prove profoundly penetrating and sound in conclusion.

Firstly, let us agree on a few necessary points. (Sometimes called the rules of logic)

1. Truth is that which cannot contradict itself.

2. Truth is that which is.

Now, let us reason together. If (in the real world) we have information that is self-contradictory then we know that it cannot possibly be true.

Ahead we have a list of contradictory claims by various global warming "experts." Each item has a link which I hope you will follow to see their claims in their own words for yourself to verify that I am giving you accurate information.

Predictions of global warming "experts" - Take your pick

avalanches reduced, or avalanches increased,

coral reefs grow, or coral reefs shrink

desert advance, or desert retreat,

Earth slowing down, or Earth spins faster,

fish catches drop, or fish catches rise,

forest decline, or forest expansion,

glacial retreat, or glacial growth,

hurricanes increase, or hurricane reduction,

ice sheet growth, or ice sheet shrinkage,

plankton blooms, or plankton loss,

rainfall increase, or rainfall reduction,

salinity reduction, or salinity increase,

snowfall increase, or snowfall reduction,

trees less colorful, or trees more colorful,

The "experts" claim that their climate change models have vindicated them and proven global
warming is a fact. Why do they say this? Because, they say the predictions made by their climate models have been so very accurate.

Now watch this carefully, for some folks this is tough stuff. Let's use a bit of the logic we hopefully learned by the time we graduated kindergarten. If you make computer predictions that a coin will come up heads or tails when it lands you will be right 99.9999% of the time. This is exactly what they have done with global warming. When there is a drought it is global warming. When there is a flood it is climate change. When it is unseasonably hot it is global warming. When there is a cold snap it is climate change.

It is important to note that the words used cover all possible contingencies. Notice that in the
winter when there is a cold snap they do not blame it on global warming, no, now it is climate change. This is sophistry meant to keep the faithful from questioning their own hallowed theory. What possible motives can we assign to these word games? It can only be deliberately planned deception.

Someone has thought this out. It cannot have happened spontaneously out of relative chaos.
Everyone (the faithful) seems to understand the rules of the word games of global warming somehow. How can this be? The faithful were never taught this in any classroom or forum. This can only be the result of brainwashing. If so, the planning must have been even more thorough than we have given the architects credit for.

Now the show stopper. The part I know you were waiting for. If "scientific" claims or
predictions are self-contradictory then they cannot possibly be based on the truth.

Global warming, or climate change can only have been an engineered hoax.

Ex-Clinton Official Ties Minneapolis Bridge Collapse to Global Warming

Oh, how I wish, I wish, I wish I were creative enough to make this stuff up! Just when you thought you'd heard it all. This is soooo bizarre and asinine I would have thought even the Gor(acle) faithful would reject it. Not so. Yes you read it right, the faithful are trying to blame the Minnesota bridge collapse on you and I. We make such handy villains in all of their stories. Here's how it goes. Are you ready for this thrilling chilling (I mean warming) ride in liberal logic?

First from Climate Progress.org The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics

Did Climate Change Contribute To The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?

A former member of the Clinton administration, and current Senior Fellow at the virtual Clinton think tank the Center for American Progress, (code for progressive) claimed Monday that global warming might have played a factor in the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis.

Writing at Climate Progress, the global warming blog of CAP, Joseph Romm (above) - who served as Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy in 1997 and as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary from 1995 though 1998 - stated in a piece incredibly entitled "Did Climate Change Contribute To The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?" (Note how the question is posed in the affirmative, which is used to elicit an affirmative answer.) Mr. Romm states:

I was skeptical at first, but after doing a Google search - and after NBC reported Sunday that National Transportation Safety Board investigators are "looking at everything" including "the weather" - I think it is a legitimate question to ask.

As I have pointed out in other articles, to the faithful any adverse event may be legitimately attributed to Anthropogenic Global Warming. (AGW) AWG, that's one of their big fancy words they craft to make them look and sound authoritative - smart. It means man-made global warming where I'm from. But wait, not to be outdone in the anthropo-hate speech is another one of the AGW faithful to further bless the newest holy proclamation.

This absolute jewel of liberal logic from Melissa Hortman (D-MN)

Melissa Hortman of the Minnesota House of Representatives and long time greenie - “speculated that 90-plus-degree heat Wednesday and the above-normal temperatures of the past two summers may have been a contributing factor,” and said “You wonder if this bridge was built to withstand the massive heat we have had this summer.” Or even if it was built to withstand heat, whether its structural deficiencies undermined the design integrity to a point where heat contributed to the collapse.

Did you catch what she said? “You wonder if this bridge was built to withstand the massive heat we have had this summer.” It was 91 degrees that day. Steel doesn't begin to weaken till the temps reach in excess of 570 degrees Fahrenheit. I don't recall seeing weather reports of 570 degrees for that day. She calls 91 degrees massive heat? By her standards of massive heat we should be seeing bridges falling everyday here in the desert southwest where I live. Our temps are above 105 (14 degrees more) most every day.

According to NOAA stats on Minneapolis weather the 2006 summer was hotter than this summer. (2007) Why didn't the bridge collapse in 2006 when it was warmer and the heat was much more "massive"?

Engineers design these all-weather bridges with extreme conditions in mind. They allow plenty of leeway for high temp thermal expansion in the joints. There would not have been structural buckling due to so-called "extreme heat" that day.

I don't pretend to know what caused the bridge to collapse. I don't have the facts. How is it they are promoting the least likely and most preposterous cause and getting away with it? That's like me blaming the stock market plunge on say Al Gore charging 100,000 per global warming lecture. (of which he has given over 1,000) He has made hundreds of millions off of his Church of the Immaculate Gor(acle) faithful. This is draining the economy of his followers, and adversely affecting the stock market. Now, he is also flying around giving his holy pronouncements and using up lots, and I do mean lots of fuel so this drives up the cost of gas and hurts would be investors even more.

You get the picture. As much as I would like to blame Al Gore I can't, it would be just plain nonsense. But, somehow they get away with this same sort of hyperbole constantly. I hope (and I have no doubt) Al Gore will make billions off of his useful idiots.

Don't feel too bad about yourselves there is redemption, you too can buy "Carbon Offset Credits" from Al Gore's firm and receive Gaia (Mother Earth) forgiveness for the right amount of protection money.

As long as anything bad happens in the world you can bet the Gorleones will be there to accuse, extort and offer protection for a price. And all of this while you and I are made out to be the villains and they are the global saviours! How incredibly ironic! Just you never mind that the Gorleones use more fuel in a week than we will use in our entire lives. Feel guilty yet?

Global Warping part ll

In a recent Newsweek cover story article (April 16) entitled "It's Hip to Be Green," Newsweek correspondent Anna Kuchment states with pride that young people have "woken up the the realities of global warming." She cites a survey that says a majority of teens believe we need to take "immediate, drastic" action. She also says that this generation is the first to feel the effects of climate change so dramatically because of freakish weather patterns and tragedies like the "Christmas 2004 tsunami."

Anna Kuchmant, states "A higher percentage of young people also say they understand global warming well and believe it results from human activities as opposed to natural changes in the environment." If these young people really understand global warming as she crows then they should avoid Anna Kuchmant and the Newsweek propagandists. Here's why:

A tsunami is not a weather event caused by global warming! Newsweek correspondent Anna Kuchment and her boss, Managing Editor, Richard Stengel should know that a tsunami is "a series of waves created when a body of water is rapidly displaced on a massive scale by an earthquake, volcano, or meteorite." Tsunami's are not caused by global warming! This nonsense is pure propaganda - just one more example of journalistic fraud out of many.

If this were an isolated example I wouldn't be so alarmed, but this is becoming the asinine rule in modern journalism! You would think this would harm their credibility. Not these days! It's quackish bafflegab like this that makes people who are awake doubt global warming, and for good cause!

Oddly, according to the media reports, warmer temperatures never seem to have any positive effects on plant or animal life or food production. They never mention the people who won't die of cold related causes. This should serve as a warning that there is an agenda being promoted.

Did Newsweek's Managing Editor, Richard Stengel and correspondent Anna Kuchment pass Elementary school science? They need to go back to remedial school and get out of the news business right now! They are dumbing people down. Stupidity is contagious.

Well, I don't really believe they are that stupid. I believe they are deliberately lying to the children in order to scare them into accepting global warming as a man-made present danger. This is manipulation and thought control. They are doing this all under the color of authority. It is evil no matter how you look at it. There are two kinds of people; those who want to control others and those who want to live and let live. These control freaks are showing us that they will do just about anything to advance their agenda.

When we look throughout history and we examine evil people such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and the present global warming fanatics we see one common solid thread - the desire to control others. They want control and should be viewed as extremely dangerous. If they are willing in these early stages to lie to the children what else are they capable of?

You may be saying right now that I am exaggerating. Did you know that many scientists who speak against global warming have had their careers destroyed for not agreeing with these fanatics?

Still think they are no danger? At the Live Earth concert Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tells us what he has in store for global warming deniers, "This is treason and we need to start treating them as traitors." The crime of treason is a capital offense and is punishable by death. Are these fanatics live and let live? No, they are the worst kind of human beings. They want power and control. You will embrace their religion of man-made global warming or else!

Still think I am exaggerating? French President Jacques Chirac provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, who in 2000 said Kyoto represents "the first component of an authentic global governance." Let's translate; global warming is to be the foundation of global government. You see, it's all about control and power.



Let me translate the slogan above: Global warming above all - even the truth.

What do the Global Gestapo have planned for deniers? Grist Magazine's David Roberts said, "the solution... (sound familiar?) we should have war crimes trials for these bastards - some sort of climate Nuremberg." He's definitely not alone. This from Media With Conscience, "Our planet the Earth - is under acute threat from Climate Criminals threatening the Third World with Climate Genocide and the Biosphere with Terracide (the killing of our planet)" So deniers are being labeled as Climate Criminals guilty of Climate Genocide and Terracide.

Guess who is guilty? Only the deniers. The Al Gores and David Rothschilds of the world who together emit more green house gasses in one day than most small towns are the Climate Saviors. What a twisted eco-theology!

How many times have you heard that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that man-made global warming is a fact? Well, here are some serious scientists who are debunking the scaremongering on climate change. Scientists like MIT's Richard Lindzen, former Colorado State climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr., the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer and John Christy, Dr. Hans von Storch, a noted German climate researcher, Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, Colorado State University's William Gray, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Oregon State climatologist George Taylor and astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, to name a few. There is no scientific consensus on global warming!

The real scientists listed above are in the sights of the eco-whackos. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling the truth. Why would they risk it all if they were lying? I've heard of people risking it all for the truth, but never for a lie.

The global warming fanatics are telling you what they have in store for you. It is very reminiscent of Hitler's Mein Kampf which most dismissed as merely the empty rants of a madman. They couldn't have made a more terrible miss-calculation!

      

      

    

Fuzzy Math of Climate Change - Astounding!

Let's take a quick tour of some blatant journalistic malpractice and outright scientific bankruptcy surrounding global warming! What you are about to read can only be categorized as propaganda, it certainly is not journalism or science! The problem is that it comes with a color of authority from respected media. I wonder if anyone noticed the outlandish fuzzy math used in the first global warming article below? The editor, author, and contributing scientists certainly didn't seem to notice or care. Or did they?

This from the "Respected Scotsman News" Mon 30 Jul 2007 Quoting as follows:

Hurricane count doubles

"A DRAMATIC increase in the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms can be fully explained only by global warming, scientists said yesterday. (What scientists?-Who? This looks credible already.)

In the past 100 years, the average number of tropical cyclones forming in the Atlantic each year has doubled. Of these, roughly 55 per cent have been powerful enough to be categorised as hurricanes."

Did you catch that? Here it is again, now watch close. "In the past 100 years, the average number of tropical cyclones forming in the Atlantic each year has doubled." Here is where you really have to be a world class scientist to understand the astounding dangers of global warming.

If the average number of tropical cyclones is doubling each year then after 100 years we would have more cyclones every year than there are grains of sand on all of the world's beaches! Let's do some of the math.

For example:

Year 1 = 1 Cyclone
Year 2 = 2 Cyclones
Year 3 = 4 Cyclones
Year 4 = 8 Cyclones
Year 5 = 16 Cyclones
Year 6 = 32 Cyclones
Year 7 = 64 Cyclones
Year 8 = 128 Cyclones
Year 9 = 256 Cyclones
Year 10 = 512 Cyclones
Year 11 = 1,024 Cyclones
Year 12 = 2,048 Cyclones
Year 13 = 4,096 Cyclones
Year 14 = 8,192 Cyclones
Year 15 = 16,384 Cyclones
Year 16 = 32,768 Cyclones
Year 17 = 65,536 Cyclones
Year 18 = 131,072 Cyclones
Year 19 = 262,144 Cyclones
Year 20 = 524,288 Cyclones
Year 21 = 1,048,576 Cyclones
Year 22 = 2,097,152 Cyclones

Now, only a true global warming scientist (such as the ones who colluded on this article) could ever wrap his mind around this stuff! Below is the average day in the summer of 1919 according to the "scientific" data above. Hawaii was hit by a typhoon every 16 hours on average and in 1920 they were hit by one every 8 hours. I did not know there were so many hurricanes back then! Where are they now?



Now, we still have 78 years to go, but you get the picture. This is an asinine statement that only blinded true believers could digest. Unfortunately most readers will just gloss over this brazen lie without noticing. Yet, others will continue to spew this idiocy as another global warming plank with which to beat the deniers over the head as though it were a fact. In this dumbed down world no amount of reasoned refutation will sway their stubborn orthodoxy.

This wild statistical slight of hand and propaganda from the global warming ministers is the most powerful argument I know of for instilling fluency of math and logic in our children. The useful idiots wallowing in and spewing this junk science cannot think for themselves and are lost. Our next generation does not have to suffer this fate if we can just wake up before it's too late. The faithful of the climate change shaman will prove that ignorance is a costly virtue in the brave new world.

Where have all of the cyclones and hurricanes been for the past two years? We should have had more not less if the global warming ministers and their faithful are correct even in the least. The propagandists boast that their predictive models are accurate. What nonsense, what incredible nonsense!

Please indulge me for a moment and take a look at this from LiveScience another ever spewing fount of self-contradiction. They state: “All science is fallible,” Oreskes told LiveScience. “Climate science shouldn't be expected to stand up to some fantasy standard that no science can live up to.” (So much for global warming being a "certain fact" as Al Gore and "the scientists" are fond of crowing.)

Instead, a variety of methods and standards are used to evaluate the viability of different scientific explanations and theories. One such standard is how well a theory predicts the outcome of an event, and climate change theory has proven to be a strong predictor." End of quote. A strong predictor? Where are all of the devastating hurricanes you had the faithful so hysterical about?

The "journalist" and "scientists" who conspired to crank out this obscene nonsense are either liars, or are incompetent or both. I believe they are both.

Unfortunately the global warming hysteria is built on one asinine plank after another that somehow got constructed into a paradoxical house of global warming worship.

Perhaps the real paradox here is that I will be the one who is denounced as the liar and denier of the "facts"!