SRM/GEOENGINEERING

[trichrider]

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics

Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later

Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de

Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov

Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

Abstract

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in
which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction
must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Electronic version of an article published as
International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364
, DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X,
c
World
Scientific Publishing Company,
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

 

[foomar]

One of the more damming studies on the safety of GM foods was led by biologist Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen

The study by seralini that is used by the anti GM fraternity is a dreadful piece of work that fails for several reasons.

Séralini is co-founder of CRIIGEN, the ‘Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering’ (www.criigen.org). This is an organization that has an extremely negative opinion when it comes to genetically modified crops and is undertaking an active campaign against them.
This is not the first time that Séralini and his team have presented research findings that, according to them, indicate the potentially harmful effects of genetically modified organisms. Scientists and official advisory organizations, such as EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), consigned all these earlier studies to the bin because there was no scientific underpinning for the conclusions that they presented.

This short and readable pdf explains why it is so flawed.

 

[trichrider]

oh my! (sarc)

 

[sprinkl]

Saying you dont believe conspiracy theories is one silly thing(ffs learn some history), but saying anything not 100% contra monsanto I can only say that you've made it on my new troll list.

This is rather interesting, http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-contributions-to-us-house-and-senate-candidates/5336404
Not to say they're conspiring or any of that nutty nonsense but it does seem like those people could have double agenda's if you read between the lines. Whilst smoking crack and shooting meth at the same time, offcourse. Otherwise thats just paranoid...

 

[harold]

Well those that think gmo's are safe to eat, then please gobble them up! Your find out the hard way of course.

 

[SativaBreather]

Well those that think gmo's are safe to eat, then please gobble them up! Your find out the hard way of course.

it'll be good for the evolution of our species
all the fucking idiots will die off

 

[trichrider]

Saying you dont believe conspiracy theories is one silly thing(ffs learn some history), but saying anything not 100% contra monsanto I can only say that you've made it on my new troll list.

This is rather interesting, http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-contributions-to-us-house-and-senate-candidates/5336404
Not to say they're conspiring or any of that nutty nonsense but it does seem like those people could have double agenda's if you read between the lines. Whilst smoking crack and shooting meth at the same time, offcourse. Otherwise thats just paranoid...

what this indicates...is it's not necessary to read between the lines.

GMO Crops and Labeling: Barack Obama and the Monsanto Betrayal

By Jon Rappoport
Global Research, May 08, 2014

Under the selective radar of mainstream media, Barack Obama has been carving out a whole new level of support for Monsanto and other destructive biotech giants.
From Scott Creighton, “Obama Pitches India Model of GM Genocide to Africa”:

“At the G8 Summit held two weeks ago at Camp David, President Obama met with private industry and African heads of state to launch the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a euphemism for monocultured, genetically modified crops and toxic agrochemicals aimed at making poor farmers debt slaves to corporations, while destroying the ecosphere for profit.
​

“But African civil society wants no part of this latest Monsanto aligned ‘public private partnership.’ Whatever will the progressives do now that their flawless hero has teamed up with their most hated nemesis [Monsanto] to exploit an entire continent like they did to India not that long ago?…
​

“With a commitment of $3 billion, Obama plans to ‘partner up’ with mega-multinationals like Monsanto, Diageo, Dupont, Cargill, Vodafone, Walmart, Pepsico, Prudential, Syngenta International, and Swiss Re because, as one USAID representative says ‘There are things that only companies can do, like building silos for storage and developing seeds and fertilizers.’
​

“Of course, that’s an outrageous lie. Private citizens have been building their own silos for centuries. But it’s true that only the biowreck engineers will foist patented seeds and toxic chemicals on Africa.”
​

Under the guise of replacing the “donor-recipient model” of charity with “smart business development that’s a win-win for everybody,” a new level of corporate-government colonialism is aimed at the continent of Africa. The new and improved strategy means bigger profits for the few and greater suffering and displacement for the many.
Support self-sufficiency for the small farmer? Expand the number of small farms growing nutritious and non-toxic food? Never heard of it. Not on the agenda—except in false propaganda statements and promises.
No, instead, the idea is putting small farmers into debt to Monsanto for GMO seeds and highly toxic herbicides, so they can grow (until they go bankrupt) noxious GMO food crops. Small farms will eventually be snapped up by big ag corporations.
Obama? A warrior against corporations on behalf of the people? It’s long past the time for ripping that false mask away.
During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.
These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: “Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”
Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.
Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in assuring that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”
Then came the reality.
After the election, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.
After the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:
At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.
As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.
As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.
As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.
As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.
As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.
We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.
Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.
The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.
And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.
Monsanto GMO alfalfa.
Monsanto GMO sugar beets.
Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.
Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.
Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.
Syngenta GMO stacked corn.
Pioneer GMO soybean.
Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.
Bayer GMO cotton.
ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.
A GMO papaya strain.
And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.
This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.
You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.
From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for gardens and clean, organic, nutritious food is nothing more than a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.
Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.
We are talking about a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.
Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.
To those people who fight for GMO labeling and the outlawing of GMO crops, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:
Wake up.
Sources include:

http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/02/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government-part-2/​

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/09/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government/​

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-labeling-gmo-genetically-modified-foods​

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/feb/15/update-obama-goes-rogue-gmos-tell-him-say-no-monsa/​

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/​

http://news.yahoo.com/not-altruistic-truth-behind-obamas-global-food-security-174700462.html​

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ-tph5s_GM#t=2873

[YOUTUBEIF]NZ-tph5s_GM#t=2873[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF2JY5abNXQ

[YOUTUBEIF]RF2JY5abNXQ[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[SativaBreather]

some pictures of normal vapor and no chembows the images of which are a figment of my imagination - Im deluded, I need help. I hope foolmar will come offer me a comforting explanation to put my silly little head at ease

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeqdFJphGT0

[youtubeif]IeqdFJphGT0[/youtubeif]

Arizona Senator Kelli Ward Convenes "Chemtrails" hearing on 6/25/2014



Published on Jun 26, 2014

Kingman Arizona - 6/25/2014: Citizens from Kingman and surrounding communities attended a forum convened by Senator Kelly Ward, MD.

Officials from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) proved poorly prepared to deal with the medical and technical aspects of the complaints repeatedly claiming they had no jurisdiction in FAA matters.

Senator Ward suggested a second meeting would follow. This was a welcome comment by those in attendance.

Although Senator Ward is a physician, not even she could be of any help in assessing citizens' medical complaints in her designated role as politician.

Citizens ultimately dominated the session with solid testimony establishing that unmarked aircraft have been repeatedly spraying aerosols from unmarked military aircraft while civilian airliners were leaving no trails, even while flying in the same air space as the unmarked jets..

Several lab results revealing high concentrations of toxins were submitted to ADEQ as evidence of contamination.

 

[harold]

im predicting plenty of spraying (and haarp) for the manufactured heatwave coming this friday.

 

[foomar]

some pictures of normal vapor and no chembows the images of which are a figment of my imagination - Im deluded, I need help. I hope foolmar will come offer me a comforting explanation to put my silly little head at ease

Nothing sinister in any of those pictures , as usual.

Natural cirrus or wind sheared contrails , no real difference between them as they both consist of ice crystals.

The chembows are simply a refraction effect caused when sunlight passes through these crystals at a certain angle , usually when the sun is low in the sky , the colour and intensity being dependant on the crystal size and uniformity.

Its not complicated , just basic optics and atmospheric science , but apparently well beyond your limited comprehension skills.

Once someone has been alerted to the trails in the sky and told they are not natural products of combustion in jet engines, they either reject the notion or they buy into the fantasy.
Once vested into the misidentification they are easily lead down any path a convincing individual is able to lead them. If they interpret the trails as a threat, they are even more resistant to any logical explanation to the contrary.
The conspiracy then becomes the umbrella under which to place all their other fears and misgivings about what they don't understand or are angry about.
I believe it becomes the one easily verifiable piece of evidence they use or fall back on to prove the evil intent and far reaching capability of "THEM."

So what other junk theories do you believe in ?

 

[SativaBreather]

some of foolmar's buddies, he's definitely had a few too many shots

 

[foomar]

So you think vaccination is another conspiracy , guess you also believe the crazy 911 theories , princess Di was murdered by the establishment , fluoride is dangerous and any other crap you find on a website or youtube that has zero evidence to support it , as long as you think its the government/illuminati/jews behind it.


Wakefields retracted paper was based on just 12 cases , he was paid to come to a conclusion that suited the lawyers who funded him to enable litigation , a completely worthless piece of research that was ripped to shreds by peer review , or anyone with a basic grasp of the scientific method.

This systematic review and meta-analysis has found no association between vaccination and the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. The cohort studies included in the systematic review had information on more than a million children from four different countries.

This was a valuable and rigorous piece of research that will hopefully reassure parents who have any concerns about getting their children vaccinated against childhood diseases.

Anti vaccination has become a profitable business despite no evidence to support this stance , that's the real conspiracy.

There is now a flourishing network of private laboratories offering urine and blood tests of the sort carried out by Mr Shattock—all of no recognised diagnostic value. There is a substantial business sector selling dietary supplements, vitamins, minerals, enzymes and all manner of special dietary products —all of no proven therapeutic value. The common feature of both tests and supplements is their exorbitant cost, suggesting that high profits are being made from peddling interventions of no proven value, often to desperate parents, many on low incomes.

There are other beneficiaries of the anti-MMR campaign. Private GPs are now making profits of several hundred percent from selling separate vaccines. Lawyers are eagerly collecting legal aid fees by inflating the hopes of parents that they may gain substantial compensation for the alleged damages from MMR through the pursuit of litigation. It is not surprising that both are enthusiastic supporters of Dr Wakefield's crusade. It seems that Britain's investigative journalists are so smitten by Dr Wakefield's charisma and so credulous towards junk science, that they are reluctant to investigate the real abuses generated around the anti-MMR campaign

Conspiracy theories are held by people who want to feel important, but are not , imaginary inside knowledge of something significant is a great way of feeling important , but ultimately delusional and a waste of precious time.

One day , hopefully soon , you will come to your senses and realise you have been played.

 

[bentom187]

So you think vaccination is another conspiracy , guess you also believe the crazy 911 theories , princess Di was murdered by the establishment , fluoride is dangerous and any other crap you find on a website or youtube that has zero evidence to support it , as long as you think its the government/illuminati/jews behind it.


Wakefields retracted paper was based on just 12 cases , he was paid to come to a conclusion that suited the lawyers who funded him to enable litigation , a completely worthless piece of research that was ripped to shreds by peer review , or anyone with a basic grasp of the scientific method.

Anti vaccination has become a profitable business despite no evidence to support this stance , that's the real conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories are held by people who want to feel important, but are not , imaginary inside knowledge of something significant is a great way of feeling important , but ultimately delusional and a waste of precious time.

One day , hopefully soon , you will come to your senses and realise you have been played.

You do realize it does not matter what you think the true purpose of health care or vaccination is right ? It only matters to people smarter than you. They can use it for anything they want .



CIA promises to stop using fake vaccine programs to spy - even though scheme helped capture Osama Bin Laden
The pledge came after the use of fake medical programs was criticized by public health academics who were concerned about the safety of workers
The CIA will also stop using genetic materials obtained this way
Pakistani doctor Shakil Afridi was used to get DNA samples from children at Bin Laden's compound
Al Qaeda leader was later killed at same compound in Navy SEAL raid

And for the love of state, would you at least link some of the crap you post. For all we know its from wiki.

Ill just address your logic, "people I disagree with are paid" , "people who I agree with are not" or am I getting this right ? You believe there is nothing lucrative and their careers don't hinge on agreeing with agendas for money. It goes both ways.

Here are a few examples. Its late over here so you will excuse me if I don't pour over the sources you have not linked in your quotes.

120 'peer-reviewed' studies retracted after being exposed as computer-generated fraud

CDC's Vaccine Safety Research is Exposed as Flawed and Falsified in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal

Inside the FDA Mafia

 

[trichrider]

A Bayesian Approach for Uncertainty Quantification of Extreme Precipitation Projections Including Climate Model Interdependency and Non-Stationary Bias
Maria Antonia Sunyer

Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Miljøvej building 113, Kgs. Lyngby 2800, Denmark. masu@env.dtu.dk
Henrik Madsen

DHI
Dan Rosbjerg

Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark
Karsten Arnbjerg-Nielsen

Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark



Abstract

Climate change impact studies are subject to numerous uncertainties and assumptions. One of the main sources of uncertainty arises from the interpretation of climate model projections. Probabilistic procedures based on multi-model ensembles have been suggested in the literature to quantify this source of uncertainty. However, the interpretation of multi-model ensembles remains challenging. Several assumptions are often required in the uncertainty quantification of climate model projections. For example, most methods often assume that the climate models are independent or/and that changes in climate model biases are negligible. This study develops a Bayesian framework that accounts for model dependencies and changes in model biases and compares it to estimates calculated based on a frequentist approach. The Bayesian framework is used to investigate the effects of the two assumptions on the uncertainty quantification of extreme precipitation projections over Denmark. An ensemble of regional climate models from the ENSEMBLES project is used for this purpose.

The results confirm that the climate models cannot be considered independent and show that the bias depends on the value of precipitation. This has an influence on the results of the uncertainty quantification. Both the mean and spread of the change in extreme precipitation depends on both assumptions. If the models are assumed independent and the bias constant, the results will be overconfident and may be treated as more precise than they really are. This study highlights the importance of investigating the underlying assumptions in climate change impact studies, as these may have serious consequences for the design of climate change adaptation strategies.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00589.1?af=R
....................

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says he remembers the morning he spotted a well-known colleague at a gathering of climate experts.

“I walked over and held out my hand to greet him,” Dr. Christy recalled. “He looked me in the eye, and he said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Come on, shake hands with me.’ And he said, ‘No.’ ”

Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither. Not that the earth is not heating up. It is, he says, and carbon dioxide spewed from power plants, automobiles and other sources is at least partly responsible.

But in speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing. Dr. Christy’s willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles. His frequent appearances on Capitol Hill have almost always been at the request of Republican legislators opposed to addressing climate change.

“I detest words like ‘contrarian’ and ‘denier,’ ” he said. “I’m a data-driven climate scientist. Every time I hear that phrase, ‘The science is settled,’ I say I can easily demonstrate that that is false, because this is the climate — right here. The science is not settled.”

Dr. Christy was pointing to a chart comparing seven computer projections of global atmospheric temperatures based on measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons. The projections traced a sharp upward slope; the actual measurements, however, ticked up only slightly.

Such charts — there are others, sometimes less dramatic but more or less accepted by the large majority of climate scientists — are the essence of the divide between that group on one side and Dr. Christy and a handful of other respected scientists on the other.

“Almost anyone would say the temperature rise seen over the last 35 years is less than the latest round of models suggests should have happened,” said Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a California firm that analyzes satellite climate readings.

“Where the disagreement comes is that Dr. Christy says the climate models are worthless and that there must be something wrong with the basic model, whereas there are actually a lot of other possibilities,” Dr. Mears said. Among them, he said, are natural variations in the climate and rising trade winds that have helped funnel atmospheric heat into the ocean.

Dr. Christy has drawn the scorn of his colleagues partly because they believe that so much is at stake and that he is providing legitimacy to those who refuse to acknowledge that. If the models are imprecise, they argue, the science behind them is compelling, and it is very likely that the world has only a few decades to stave off potentially catastrophic warming.
Continue reading the main story

And if he is wrong, there is no redo.

“It’s kind of like telling a little girl who’s trying to run across a busy street to catch a school bus to go for it, knowing there’s a substantial chance that she’ll be killed,” said Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “She might make it. But it’s a big gamble to take.”

By contrast, Dr. Christy argues that reining in carbon emissions is both futile and unnecessary, and that money is better spent adapting to what he says will be moderately higher temperatures. Among other initiatives, he said, the authorities could limit development in coastal and hurricane-prone areas, expand flood plains, make manufactured housing more resistant to tornadoes and high winds, and make farms in arid regions less dependent on imported water — or move production to rainier places.

Dr. Christy’s scenario is not completely out of the realm of possibility, his critics say, but it is highly unlikely.

In interviews, prominent scientists, while disagreeing with Dr. Christy, took pains to acknowledge his credentials. They are substantial: Dr. Christy, 63, has researched climate issues for 27 years and was a lead author — in essence, an editor — of a section of the 2001 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the definitive assessment of the state of global warming. With a colleague at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Dr. Roy Spencer, he received NASA’s medal for exceptional scientific achievement in 1991 for building a global temperature database.

That model, which concluded that a layer of the atmosphere was unexpectedly cooling, was revised to show slight warming after other scientists documented flaws in its methodology. It has become something of a scientific tit for tat. Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer’s own recalculations scaled back the amount of warming, leading to further assaults on their methodology.

Dr. Christy’s response sits on his bookshelf: a thick stack of yellowed paper with the daily weather data he began recording in Fresno, Calif., in the 1960s. It was his first data set, he said, the foundation of a conviction that “you have to know what’s happening before you know why it’s happening, and that comes back to data.”

Dr. Christy says he became fascinated with weather as a fifth grader when a snowstorm hit Fresno in 1961. By his high school junior year, he had taught himself Fortran, the first widely used programming language, and had programmed a school computer to make weather predictions. After earning a degree in mathematics at California State University, Fresno, he became an evangelical Christian missionary in Kenya, married and returned as pastor of a mission church in South Dakota.

There, as a part-time college math teacher, he found his true calling. He left the pastoral position, earned a doctorate in atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois and moved to Alabama.

And while his work has been widely published, he has often been vilified by his peers. Dr. Christy is mentioned, usually critically, in dozens of the so-called Climategate emails that were hacked from the computers of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Center, the British keeper of global temperature records, in 2009.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

“John Christy has made a scientific career out of being wrong,” one prominent climate scientist, Benjamin D. Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote in one 2008 email. “He’s not even a third-rate scientist.”

Another email included a photographic collage showing Dr. Christy and other scientists who question the extent of global warming, some stranded on a tiny ice floe labeled “North Pole” and others buoyed in the sea by a life jacket and a yellow rubber ducky. A cartoon balloon depicts three of them saying, “Global warming is a hoax.”

Some, including those who disagree with Dr. Christy, are dismayed by the treatment.

“Show me two scientists who agree on everything,” said Peter Thorne, a senior researcher at Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center who wrote a 2005 research article on climate change with Dr. Christy. “We may disagree over what we are finding, but we should be playing the ball and not the man.”

Dr. Christy has been dismissed in environmental circles as a pawn of the fossil-fuel industry who distorts science to fit his own ideology. (“I don’t take money from industries,” he said.)

He says he worries that his climate stances are affecting his chances of publishing future research and winning grants. The largest of them, a four-year Department of Energy stipend to investigate discrepancies between climate models and real-world data, expires in September.

“There’s a climate establishment,” Dr. Christy said. “And I’m not in it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/u...of-suspicion.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=3
.................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha--6guaf-w#t=11

................
RUPERT SHELDRAKE 'SCIENCE DELUSION'

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=B331060C4116F2A8C1A567070DE05A9A

 

[foomar]

It only matters to people smarter than you. They can use it for anything they want

They seem to be doing a pretty good job so far.

Vaccines are technological miracles, one of the success stories of medical history. They have saved more than 20 million lives over the last two decades–2.5 million in 2003 alone – and prevented countless disabilities. They have wiped out smallpox, which once killed up to 5 million people a year and left others disfigured or blind. They have almost eradicated polio.

Publications
State of the World’s Vaccines and Immunization, published by WHO, UNICEF and the World Bank in 2002
The State of the World’s Children 2004, published by UNICEF
The Case for Childhood Immunization, published by the Children’s Vaccine Program at the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) in 2002

Websites
UNICEF: <www.unicef.org/immunization> and <www.unicef.org/supply>
WHO: <www.who.int/vaccines/>
World Bank: <www.worldbank.org>
Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI): <www.vaccinealliance.org>
Vaccine Fund: <www.vaccinefund.org>
Children’s Vaccine Program at PATH: <www.childrensvaccine.org>
The Vaccine Page: <www.vaccines.org>
Safe Injection Global Network: <www.injectionsafety.org>

 

[SativaBreather]

no right thinking person gives a fuck about anything the UN, UNICEF, WHO or World Bank have got to say. They are all belly of the beast organisations. Foolmar, you have no concept of the history of those institutions, who set them up, owns them and the agenda behind their existence. If you did you would not base your point of view on anything based on them

 

[bentom187]

They seem to be doing a pretty good job so far.

Vaccines are technological miracles, one of the success stories of medical history. They have saved more than 20 million lives over the last two decades–2.5 million in 2003 alone – and prevented countless disabilities. They have wiped out smallpox, which once killed up to 5 million people a year and left others disfigured or blind. They have almost eradicated polio.

Publications
State of the World’s Vaccines and Immunization, published by WHO, UNICEF and the World Bank in 2002
The State of the World’s Children 2004, published by UNICEF
The Case for Childhood Immunization, published by the Children’s Vaccine Program at the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) in 2002

Websites
UNICEF: <www.unicef.org/immunization> and <www.unicef.org/supply>
WHO: <www.who.int/vaccines/>
World Bank: <www.worldbank.org>
Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI): <www.vaccinealliance.org>
Vaccine Fund: <www.vaccinefund.org>
Children’s Vaccine Program at PATH: <www.childrensvaccine.org>
The Vaccine Page: <www.vaccines.org>
Safe Injection Global Network: <www.injectionsafety.org>

You went right by the point I was making about alternative uses that we have no control over.