Global warming research has become a very big business throughout the world. Each year billions of dollars are spent studying climate change. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), now has an annual budget that has reached more than 6 million. The Bush Administration has spent more than thirty billion dollars on federal programs involved in global warming in the last six years. In total, global warming proponents are estimated to have been funded by more than fifty billion dollars during the last decade.

This huge money stream is flowing directly into the pockets of the advocates of man-made global warming. It is a river of money that can only be shut off if it is discovered that man does not cause global warming and that climate change is really out of our control. In effect, the same people that benefit from the huge research funding pool would have to be motivated to shut it off.

The truth is that the business objective of the man-made global warming bandwagon is an increasing flow of scientific research grants and bureaucratic jobs. The worse the man- made global crisis, the better for the global warming business. In addition, the news media loves stories of fear. This makes man-made global warming a big business for television, magazines, and books as well.

Various “experts” on man-made global warming appear regularly on television to remind everyone of the upcoming global climate catastrophe in the next century. Unfortunately, its not in the interest of the media to cast doubt on man-made global warming. It is a very good business for them. The fact is that very little news media coverage is given to research that brings into doubt the so-called scientific man-made global warming consensus.

Therefore, it is not surprising that we have not heard much from the news media on the recent blockbuster report (December 2007) in the prestigious International Journal of Climatology (Royal Meteorological Society), of professors: David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia). In this report the scientists found: “that observed patterns of temperature changes over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability”. Their conclusion was that climate change is “unstoppable” and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. “Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly.”

The news media has also not made us aware that data (2005) from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’ south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. This means that both the Earth and Mars have been experiencing similar degrees of global warming. Of course, the problem for the man-made global warming crowd is that there are no humans on Mars for them to blame for that planet’s warming.

In a National Geographic story on February 2007, Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the Sun. He reasons that “The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars.”

The man-made global warming industry should remind us of the tulip bulb mania in Holland in 1636. The history books tell us that in 1593 tulips were brought from Turkey and introduced to the Dutch. The novelty of the new flower made it widely sought after. After a time, the tulips contracted a non-fatal virus known as mosaic, which altered them causing different colors to appear on the petals. The color patterns came in a wide variety and increased the popularity of the flower.

The increase in popularity of the tulip led to a rise in its price. Soon everyone began to deal in tulip bulbs. It became a very big business. Eventually things became so crazy that people were selling everything they owned, including their homes and livestock, to buy tulip bulbs. At the time, the consensus expectation was that the tulip bulb would continue to grow in value forever.

In 1636, tulips were listed on the Amsterdam stock exchange which further accommodated the tulip speculators who had become the primary market for tulip bulbs. The price of a tulip bulb at the height of this mania was ,000. In the next six weeks tulip bulbs would drop in value to less than one dollar.

Today, man-made global warming is similar to the tulip bulb mania in Holland in 1636. It is an issue that has been hyped into a huge business. The absurd consensus in Holland in 1636 was that tulips were so unique that they would continue to increase in value forever. The current global warming crowd wants us to believe that global warming is controllable and man-made. There is no conclusive evidence that global warming is man-made and all contrary evidence is dismissed and ridiculed. We are told that we must act now to save the planet or our world will be lost to a multitude of catastrophic events in the future.

The inconvenient truth of all this is that, like the Holland tulip bulb in 1636, man-made global warming hype has entered the world of the absurd. We may think the price of ,000 for a tulip bulb in Holland was silly. However, how silly is it when compared to the global warming hype of today? Indeed in the future people will look back with humor on a decade when tens of billions of dollars were spent in an attempt to convince society that the warming of Earth was due to man and not a function of the Sun.

All the way back in January 2004 Sir David A. King, the Government’s then chief scientific adviser, described global warming, and the climate change that it drives, as a greater threat to the world than international terrorism. King, who caused quite a stir with his comments, said that industrialized countries had a commitment to place a serious effort into developing sustainable energy production and carbon capture technologies.

Now, over four years on, the momentum that King called for has not materialized anywhere but in the showboating embroidery from our politicians and in the cynical green-washing from our captains of industry. The Kyoto agreement – which was widely seen as a last ditch attempt to press against the greed and stupidity that drive climate change just as much as the skybound pollutants themselves – failed. Bush decided that further research into climate change was needed before carbon taxes could be introduced. Thus, 4% of the world’s population – America – continued to account for over one fifth of the world’s carbon emissions.

A successor to Kyoto is due to be thrashed out in 2009 amidst the lushly upholstered suites and complimentary coffee lined tables of Copenhagen’s most suitable venue: the greenhouse-like Copenhagen Congress Centre. The centre will, in a completely non-symbolic gesture, be powered by its very own wind turbine. So this time, you know they mean business.
The reassurance of a windmill and some serious political hyperbole and media speculation have not been enough to persuade the UN Secretary, General Ban Ki-moon, to let the international community rest upon their…well, success would be too strong a word, but the little bit that they have managed to achieve, until the Copenhagen climate deal.

General Ban Ki-moon, talking to the diplomats gathered to celebrate the anniversary of the UN climate panel, said that the politicians should aim to make some serious headway before then this December in Poznan, Poland.

The Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012, has been largely seen as a complete failure in terms of reducing carbon emissions. 37 countries, all developed, signed the protocol, but there are some rather serious holes in the thing in terms of it getting everyone singing from the same sheet. For one, America and China failed to impose any limits under the agreement. For two, the carbon balance sheets ignore certain, little things. Like shipping and air travel. Whoops.

The fear caused by the knowledge that climate change is already affecting us has resulting in an increased impetus in the battle between action and continued inaction. The one hundred months campaign (http://www.onehundredmonths.org) for example, reckons that “We have 100 months to save the planet”, because after that we “could be beyond the climate’s ‘tipping point, the point of no return.’

Talking to Reuters, Ban Ki-moon suggested that the Poland meeting should serve as a “very successful bridge” for the later meetings in Copenhagen. It is encouraging that climate change has stopped being seen as a long term issue, and hopefully the immediacy of its effects will bring about a mature, effectual political response to the problem.

UPDATE: 11/20/09 climatedepot.com (evidence of the whole global warming scam!!!) This story broke on FoxNews this morning (certainly no other media outlet will air it) Watch Al Gore silence environmental journalist Phelim McAleer and have him removed from the conference after McAleer asks a question that contradicts Gore’s brainwashing! “Society of Environmental Journalists Annual Conference” Al Gore wants to shut down factories, destroy American jobs and end development in third world countries (which would kill millions). Gore says the time for debate is over! Well it seems Gore has indeed decided to shutdown all debate and decent concerning the Global Warming religion! Man Made Global Warming is a complete LIE, being preached to us and school children in pursuit of raising American’s taxes and destroying America’s global competitiveness. Point to consider: They say they love trees and plants (more than they love people it would seem) but they work to lower the level of Co2…which plants and trees breath! Does that make sense to you? Not very “Green” of them is it? Get educated!! Resist Gore and the brainwashing lies of the man-made Global Warming lunatics! noteviljustwrong.com

Executive search and staffing firm Sequence Systems LLC has launched new, cutting edge initiatives aimed at supporting their client’s efforts in providing innovation and excellence in environmental consulting.

The science behind climate change and global warming has presented a compelling case that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are inducing changes in the climate throughout the world.

Like Al Gore’s The Climate Project, Sequence is helping to raise the awareness of our clients and fellow citizens about this crisis and informing them about potential solutions so that all of us, together, can preserve the climate balance on which our planet depends.

To ensure a sustainable future, there is a great need to understand climate change and to manage greenhouse gas emissions in ways that protects the planet from further degradation and change while promoting economic growth, he added.

As the climate change debate and private sector market solutions have been evolving,
Sequence has already been on the forefront working with clients throughout the country to expand their staff expertise in this arena, and to provide strategic advice and implementation support for programs that protect the stratospheric ozone layer, as required under the Montreal Protocol.

We understand the vital need today for highly trained personnel who can prepare innovative climate change technical and policy analyses, in identifying viable market solutions and the capability to build real world management tools to effectively combat climate change and global warming.

Sequence is leading the way with initiatives such as searching and placing personnel to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature related to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. Today, they are actively recruiting candidates for these vital jobs and resumes may be submitted online: www.sequencestaffing.com.

Sequence, a premier executive search and staffing firm for the environmental, construction and light industrial industries, is dedicated to supporting the core industries responsible for building and maintaining the nation’s infrastructure, natural resources and environment by recruiting and placing field, management and executive-level personnel in temporary, temp-to-permanent and direct-hire positions. For more information, go to: www.sequencestaffing.com.

Dr. John Christy October 4, 2007 – SFWS Building Noon Dr. John R. Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. In November 2000 Gov. Don Siegelman appointed him to be Alabama’s State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA/Marshall scientist, and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society “for developing a global, precise record of earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate.”

It is common to see news in the paper or on television about flashfloods in the country or in other parts of the world. These are all caused by changes in the weather and environment which are usually attributed to global warming. Although you may know that these phenomena are serious and can wreak havoc in the future, you may not be aware that environmental changes may actually have a direct effect on your health. While the melting of the polar caps should be a cause for alarm, you should be more concerned about the little changes in your body that global warming can bring.

Here are some health concerns linked to environmental changes:

Extreme Rashes

Due to the rise in greenhouse gases, deadlier strains of poison ivy are on the rise. As a result, the rashes expected from more lethal strains would be worse. A Duke University study found that urushiol oil, which is the one responsible for making poison ivy dangerous, when exposed to higher levels of carbon dioxide are 30% more potent than those that are exposed in prevalent CO2 levels. In fact, some experts believe that the toxicity of poison in plants like poison ivy is already higher today than decades ago.


Heatstroke

For the past few years, more and more people in the US have died from heatstroke. The people who are at a higher risk of getting heatstroke are the elderly and the very young children. One of the main reasons why temperature is high in some places in the country, particularly during summer, is that changes in climatic patterns are affecting the region’s nighttime cooling. In Europe back in 2003, figures have shown that about 35,000 people were killed during heat waves.

Skin Cancer

Experts have estimated that over 1 million new cases of skin cancer will be reported in the US in 2008. In fact, this type of cancer is the most common in the country today. Although efforts in dramatically reducing the production of chlorofluourocarbons (more commonly known as CFCs) were successful, the damage has already been done in the ozone layer. As a result, more deadly ultraviolet rays are penetrating the earth.

Toxic Seafood

The rising ocean temperature is making sea-borne bacteria flourish. In the past decade, you will see a rising trend of red tide outbreaks in clams, oysters, mussels and other shellfishes that did not only affect fish, but also humans. Aside from making shellfish unfit to eat, these sedimentary organisms are also responsible for turning regular mercury into methylmercury, a more toxic form, which can be found in aquatic animals like shark, tilefish, tuna, king mackerel and swordfish.

Severe Allergic Reactions

People allergic to pollen are sneezing and coughing a lot more as the spring and summer seasons seem to be longer due to global warming. The increase in CO2 is also making plants produce bigger and more pollen. Furthermore, the greenhouse gases are also encouraging more fungi spores to grow.

What You Need To Do

The first thing you need to do is to start caring for the environment. The little things that you do in saving electricity and resources or minimizing garbage and pollution can go a long way in stopping the further deterioration of the planet.

Secondly, it would be wise for you to start protecting yourself from the harmful rays of the sun by using sunscreen every time you go outdoors during the day. Make sure that the sun block that you buy protects you from both UVA and UVB rays.

Lastly, boost your health by eating right and exercising daily. You may also perform detoxification at least once or twice a year to make sure that the toxins inside you will be safely eliminated out of your body and system. One product that can help you undergo detoxification with ease is Colpurin. For more information about Colpurin, simply click on to http://www.colpurin.com/.

www.ukipmeps.org ► European Parliament, Strasbourg – 20.01.2010 ► Debate Council and Commission statements – Outcome of the Copenhagen summit on climate change Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincs.), EFD group. The document mentioned by Godfrey Bloom is a paper collated by Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, from a combined research project undertaken by members of the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. You can find it on the UKIP MEPs’ website in our CO2 Scam blog here: www.ukipmeps.org ……………………………. ►Credits: Video: European Parliament Audio Visual ……………………………. FULL TRANSCRIPT Well, Mr. President, of course you can tell I’m a sceptic [there was a cut in the actual recording here] because I don’t dress like a scarecrow. I fought my way through the blizzard in Copenhagen like many of you did – interesting isn’t it that we had the coldest winter so far on record in London for 30 years. It’s the same in Poland, it’s the same in Korea, it’s the same in China. We’ve had the coldest temperatures in Florida, Arizona, Texas – the first snow in Texas, I think, for a hundred years. And of course as Giles Coren of the London Times said – my goodness me, we simply don’t get it, of course. Of course that’s what global warming is all about – we’ve got to get used to freezing temperatures. Well we’ve seen the Al Gore Hockey stick which is still, I gather, being shown in … Video Rating: 4 / 5

Climate change and global warming – indeed, how to control them – are becoming more central to politics with every new development. Sustainable energy is the method of our times, and government’s across the globe are under pressure – from each other, from environmental groups, and from individuals – to implement genuine and successful ‘green’ policy.

The E.U is one of the biggest political organisations in the world. It comprises 27 member states and under its banner are close to 500 million people. The GDP that the E.U generates accounts for roughly 30% of the world.

In terms of the world’s environment, then, it is a chief player. What is the European Union doing to combat global warming and climate change? And are they committed to the cause?

The official E.U website has this to say on the matter:

”Sustainable Development stands for meeting the needs of present generations without jeopardizing the ability of futures generations to meet their own needs – in other words, a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come. It offers a vision of progress that integrates immediate and longer-term objectives, local and global action, and regards social, economic and environmental issues as inseparable and interdependent components of human progress.

Sustainable development will not be brought about by policies only: it must be taken up by society at large as a principle guiding the many choices each citizen makes every day, as well as the big political and economic decisions that have. This requires profound changes in thinking, in economic and social structures and in consumption and production patterns.”

What is clear, then, is that the E.U see promotion of the message as central; a sustainable future is only possible with a growing conciousness and willingness on the part of the public to accept and encourage environmental policy and legislation.

If the E.U can get its citizens to accept the challenge, though, what policy can be expected from the organizations governments?

The ‘E.U Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS)’ was established to answer exactly that question. In its own words, the SDS will “gradually change our current unsustainable consumption and production patterns and move towards a better integrated approach to policy-making…[it will] reaffirm the need for global solidarity and recognizes the importance of strengthening our work with partners outside the EU, including those rapidly developing countries which will have a significant impact on global sustainable development.”

So the E.U – acknowledging its role within the world’s sphere – champions the importance of climate change as a global issue, and believes that it should be treated as such. Its method for achieving that aim is to work closely and extensively with the world’s other governmental bodies.

The SDS has 7 key areas of interest:

Climate change and clean energy
Sustainable transport
Sustainable consumption & production
Conservation and management of natural resources
Public Health
Social inclusion, demography and migration
Global poverty and sustainable development challenges

Central, then, is the simultaneous need for a maintenance of current ecosystems – to conserve and manage the continent’s current resources – combined with a development of a sustainable infrastructure for the future; investment in clean fuels, plus solar energy, wind energy and biogas.

Indeed, the E.U – through its 7 SDS points – recognises that environmental issues affect everything in our lives, because we are part of the environment, and so everything we do is affecting it also. As such, the E.U beleives that ‘Changing Behaviour’ is imperative in the fight against climate change:

”A host of cultural, economic, social and psychological factors affect the way we behave, often locking us into unsustainable consumption habits. Even those who say they will buy organic food for environmental reasons and the good of their own health may change their minds if products outstrip their budget.”

The overall challenge, then, for the European Union – along with the rest of the world’s nations – is to educate the next generation on the pitfalls of our own.

That way, the E.U can guarantee that it does not return in the future to the issues that have caused the problem in the first instance.

At first glance, there doesn’t seem like there could be any connection between global warming and seismic activity. After all, why would the earth become less stable just because it’s a little warmer?
Well, connected they are. The earth’s crust is a lot more sensitive than you might think. There are well documented cases of even the load of water in a new dam triggering earthquakes in the local area.
A number of geologists say glacial melting, in particular, will unleash pent-up pressures in the Earth’s crust, causing extreme geological events such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions.
Consider this: a cubic meter of ice weighs nearly a ton and some glaciers are kilometers thick. This prodigious weight acts to suppress tectonic movements in the underlying crust, and plug cracks where volcanic magma might otherwise escape to the surface. When the weight is removed through melting, the suppressed strains and stresses of the underlying rock are free to come to life.
As reported only this year, Harvard seismologist Göran Ekström has found a striking increase in the frequency of glacial quakes, particularly in Greenland, but also in Alaska and Antarctica.
Greenland quakes have risen from 6 to 15 a year between 1993 and 2002, to 30 in 2003, 23 in 2004 and 32 in the first 10 months of 2005, closely matching the rise in Greenland’s temperatures over the same period. Their source was traced to surges and slips within ice sheets, where rapid melting is causing water to collect under glaciers, making them glide faster into the sea, triggering quakes.
Similarly, retreating glaciers in southern Alaska are likely to open the way for future earthquake activity.
Accelerated melting of glacial ice decreases the load on the Earth’s crust, thereby decreasing the pressure holding volcanic conduits closed. Already, we are seeing evidence of new volcanic activity in Antarctica. A new, previously unknown volcano has appeared on the sea bottom in waters off the Antarctic Peninsula, in an area with no previous record of volcanic activity. Investigations into a large area of surface slumping on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet revealed a huge accumulation of water underneath that has now been shown to be due to an active volcano erupting under the sheet.
Glacial melting has a less direct but just as unsettling additional impact on global seismic activity. The reliquified water released raises sea levels and increases the weight on the ocean floor, unbalancing tectonic forces deep below the surface. Underwater quakes and therefore tsunamis could thus become more frequent. Though they get little attention, glacial melting of the Antarctic ice is already causing earthquakes and underwater landslides.
Other hotspots at high risk of submarine earthslides – similar to the one that set off the disastrous tsunami in Indonesia in 2004 – include seaward of the mouths of the Ganges, Nile and Amazon rivers, as well as much of the Atlantic and US coast (E. G. Nisbet, 2004.)
Even the shape of the Earth appears to have been significantly influenced by climate events due to changes in the mass of water stored in oceans, continents and atmosphere. Satellite data indicate the bulge in Earth’s gravity field at the equator is growing, counteracting the long-term shrinking up to 1998 due to post-glacial rebound.
Current estimates of polar ice melting are too small to explain the recent changes in the gravity field. Scientists postulate that global warming-induced redistribution of existing water mass is possibly behind the phenomenon. However, the specific cause still remains a mystery.
Dramatic climate shifts of the past have also been associated with spectacular seismic activity. During the late glacial and early Holocene periods when climate was see-sawing from one extreme to another in the interval known as the Younger Dryas, submarine landslips were widespread. For example, 8,200 years ago an enormous slip in the Norwegian Sea involving over 3000 cubic kilometers of material set off a massive tsunami more than 20 meters high. At about the same time mega-earthquakes ruptured the crust and lifted Scandinavia’s mountain backbone by 5 to 15 meters. Could it happen again?
The science suggests that as redistribution of the Earth’s mass induced by global warming disturbs the relative equilibrium of its crust, monumental forces in the form of increasing earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic activity could be unleashed. And the forecasts from some quarters are dramatic – – not only will the earth shake, it will spit fire (Bueckert, 2006).

I don’t believe in Global Warming, come and sing with me, Oooooo! Video Rating: 4 / 5

As an independent Australian researcher and scientist I have recently turned my attention to investigating and bringing out the truth about Global Warming. What I found shocked me. Climate change is happening now and there is no escaping it.

“Much more likely than not, global warming is upon us. It is prudent to expect that weather patterns will change and the seas will rise, in an ever worsening pattern, through our lifetimes and on into our grandchildren’s…Nearly everyone in the world will need to adjust. Citizens will need reliable information. So it is an important job, in some ways our top priority, to improve the communication of knowledge”. – Prof. Spencer Weart

The fact is we aren’t being told the whole truth about global warming. For a start, our best climate scientists are being muzzled, harassed and forbidden from talking to the press about the things they know but dare not say. On top of that, fossil fuel companies have been avidly campaigning to spread misinformation and confusion about climate change and global warming…. After all, the last thing they want is control or limitation over their industry…

Yet, nearly every week now a shocking climate catastrophe hits the news… Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, mega-droughts in Australia, the Asian tsunami, laval mud oozing uncontrollably out of the ground in Indonesia, stunning melting of sea ice in the Arctic, the collapse of massive ice shelves in Antarctica, floating icebergs off New Zealand’s coast, accelerating glaciers in Greenland, and only this month, the earthquake off Japan measuring a massive 8.1 on the Richter Scale they are all (yes, even the seismic activity) signs of spiraling climate change… and, we ain’t seen nothing yet!

Truth is, climate change is not some far-way problem that our kids will have to deal with, as scientists at first thought it would be. Information that has only come to light in the last few years strongly suggests that it could get a lot worse very, very quickly. It could even be bad enough to threaten our food and water supplies, and is a looming threat to low-lying, heavily populated coastlines around the world….

Already we are seeing South Pacific islands submerging under the onslaught of rising seas levels.

Every day climate extremes are being recorded around the world that dramatically exceed official predictions. Groundbreaking research continues to uncover fundamental truths about climate that have yet to be incorporated into climate models and predictions. While many official scenarios still assume that changes will unfold in a gradual, linear fashion, newly understood climate forces have the potential to create rapidly accelerating, exponential shifts.

And fresh evidence about Earth’s climate past has only recently revealed that centuries of slow, creeping variations in our planet’s climate history have been punctuated by stunningly rapid change. No longer is climate seen as an inherently stable system that gradually shifts from one state to another. Our climate system has shown that it is capable of responding to relatively small upsets with radical instability and upheaval. Could it be possible that it is happening again? My research suggests that it is.

“Large, abrupt and widespread climate changes with major impacts have occurred repeatedly in the past, when the earth system was forced across thresholds. Although abrupt climate change can occur for many reasons, it is conceivable that human forcing of climate change is increasing the probability of large, abrupt events.” – Prof. R. B. Alley

But scientists have been a bit late to wake up. It was not until 2005 that the phrase ‘tipping point’ appeared in publications on climate, implying that it could change not only rapidly, but irreversibly. Such tipping points indicate a threshold of change beyond which the system loses its stability and transforms spontaneously into a radically new state….cold to hot, warm to freezing, wet to dry, calm to chaotic. It is now understood that even small creeping changes…like current global warming… can induce sudden, irreversible flips from one climate state to another.

We are now seeing possible tipping points in the melting of polar ice caps, and the thawing of tundra, both of which contribute to the warming that triggered them, and dramatically accelerating global warming further. In this way, rather than steady, gradual changes, what we could be facing is an abrupt rearrangement of our climate.

A report by the U.S. National Research Council first suggested in 2002 that abrupt and potentially catastrophic climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future.

“The world is teetering on the brink of abrupt climate change: a change that will be so rapid and
unexpected that human and natural systems will have difficulty adapting to it “
- National Research Council.

The real question is what does it mean for our future?

It is no longer easy to deny that the climate is changing. The risk is that it may change quicker than we can fully understand or accept it. Trouble is we can’t really afford not to act now… We could easily be caught unprepared for this.

Right now in Australia, for example, we are heading into yet another El Nino event, of continuing drought conditions and extreme heat. El Nino events are becoming progressively more frequent and more intense with climate change, and are tipped to become the new “normal” climate for countries bordering the south Pacific. So we can anticipate tightening water resources and widespread failure of food crops in Australia. We will be forced to rethink the way we use…and waste… many essential resources that we have, until now, taken for granted.

My research into the latest facts on climate change reveal that this just one small aspect of the monumental climate shocks that are on the cards. Others who know, like me, are alarmed at what lies ahead. Unfortunately we missed the opportunity to avert this crisis with minor tweeks to our lifestyle and behavior, like changing light bulbs or catching the bus now and then. This late in the day we should be seriously preparing for the shocks ahead, because time is running out.

We need to rethink the way we live our lives if we want to have any future at all.

This is a volatile world. If climate shifted abruptly in the past, not just once, but repeatedly, it’s inevitable it will happen again. The question is, when?

I expect that this article has raised a lot more questions than it has answered. If you’d like to know more, you can get in-depth information and regular updates at www.WakeUp2GlobalWarming.org

The amount of land dedicated to forests, particularly old growth forests, could significantly reduce global warming. Forests are an important use of land in most countries, and in modern times they take on a new, environmental significance. Plant life scrubs carbon dioxide from the air. Carbon dioxide is a main cause of global warming and can be eliminated just by being in the vicinity of certain plants.

Trees are the best carbon dioxide scrubbers found in nature. Old growth trees are especially good at removing carbon dioxide from the air and storing it within their cells. For this reason, old growth trees need to be preserved. The lumber trade argues that the old growth trees can be easily replaced by new trees, but this is simply not the case. New trees do not possess the abilities that old trees have of preventing global warming by trapping carbon dioxide. Some proponents of cutting suggest that certain new trees are capable of trapping more greenhouse gases than the old trees. This is not true when you compare the new special trees to trees that have many decades of growth.

Several studies have been done to estimate the potential impact on global warming caused by deforestation of tropical rainforests. Loggers do not just take out mature trees for lumber. People who want to clear a place to live, work, or farm in the jungle do so by cutting and burning large portions of rainforest land.

Deforestation increases other greenhouse gases, including methane and nitrous oxide. Global warming is a foreseeable reality when the rainforest and other forests are destroyed.

Preventing global warming should first focus on cutting greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. However, deforestation comes in a close second as a cause and should also be part of conservation efforts.

When people learn that forests are important in stopping global warming, they can help preserve them by refusing to use lumber that comes from old growth forests and rainforests. Laws have been proposed to curtail logging as a way to prevent global warming. Bans on clear-cutting, a practice that destroys acres upon acres of old growth trees, have also been suggested.

It is easy and tempting to continue to blame the deforestation problem on “those people” clearing land in the rainforests. The truth is that a tree in your neighborhood is as valuable as one in the rainforest when it comes to removing carbon dioxide. It is important to think and strategize on a global scale but it is important to also act on a local scale. We may well have more impact on the actions of those in our sphere of influence than those half a globe away. Look in your backyard, is there room for a few more trees? If so go plant some.

When you think of global warming, you might envision dramatic scenes like melting glaciers and flooded coastlines. Agriculture is yet another area that will be seriously affected by climatic changes. Farming challenges may become even more intense. Today it is even more likely that a farmer will face droughts, floods, heat waves, and hurricanes. These types of weather events that are so traumatic for farming will certainly be less rare.

In regions that are already warm, global warming will cause the plants to languish in the heat. Soil evaporation rates will be very high, leaving parched earth and burned plants. Often rain will come down hard when it does come, leading to greater than usual soil erosion.

Some studies show that the news of global warming is not all bad for farming, at least not in the short run.

An increase in temperature has some temporary benefits. For a while, it will simply mean more time for crops to mature because of a longer growing season. This is especially true of regions where the spring and fall were once quite cool.

Strangely enough, all the extra carbon dioxide in the air also has a fertilizing affect on crops. This type of fertilization is most helpful for crops such as wheat, soybeans, and rice. Carbon dioxide fertilization is a beneficial by-product of global warming. However, this benefit may all be in vain. When global warming pushes ground level ozone to higher stages, the carbon dioxide fertilization is voided out by tropospheric ozone. These ozone levels are influenced by both emissions and temperature. When the temperature rises, the ground ozone levels will rise as well.

The overall predictions for farming in North America are neither all bad nor all good. Crops are expected to benefit from the effects of global warming in many regions for a short period of time. Crops will suffer in some places due to regional variations. The Great Plains are now more susceptible to drought. However, Canada will probably benefit from the added heat, causing farming of some crops to shift north.

Right now, and in the near future, global warming does not seem to pose a serious risk for North American farmers in general. There may even be some positive outcomes. However, in the long run, nothing will be able to mitigate the damage to agriculture that will occur if global warming is not slowed or stopped.

In the global warming debate, there are essentially two broad camps. One believes that the science is settled, that global warming is serious and man-made, and that urgent action must be taken to mitigate or prevent a future calamity. The other believes that the science is far from settled, that precious little is known about global warming or its likely effects, and that prudence dictates more research and caution before intervening massively in the economy.

The “science is settled” camp, much the larger of the two, includes many eminent scientists with impressive credentials. But just who are the global warming skeptics who question the studies from the great majority of climate scientists and what are their motives?

Many in the “science is settled” camp claim that the skeptics are untrustworthy — that they are either cranks or otherwise at the periphery of their profession, or that they are in the pockets of Exxon or other corporate interests. The skeptics are increasingly being called Deniers, a term used by analogy to the Holocaust, to convey the catastrophe that could befall mankind if action is not taken. Increasingly, too, the press is taking up the Denier theme, convincing the public that the global-warming debate is over.

Many critics became involved in the global-warming debate after the publication of research by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann’s study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are “likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years” and that the “1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year” of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann’s hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick’s long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick’s blade) this century.

Mann’s findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann’s work also had its critics, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.

Many critics found that Mann made a basic error that may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology, and that here was no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians. Instead, Mann and his small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their studies. I]f statistical methods are being used, the critics argue, then statisticians ought to be funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the best quality science is being done, adding that there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics.

In other words, the critics believe that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt – although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, they believe, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.

One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. As an example of the statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, the critics cite the American Meteorological Association’s 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association.

While the critic’s advice – to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics – may seem too obvious to need stating, the “science is settled” camp resists it. Mann’s hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.

To which the critics, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. They are baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.