The obsession for science itself is purely academic to most who dare indulge in it, but with the whisperings of greed, science become a dangerous tool. Clearly, for example, when the German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman discovered nuclear fission, it was purely an indulgence for the obsession of satisfying their curiosity that drove them to fulfill the obligation of scientific discovery. I'm sure they intended their discovery to benefit the human race, and not to destroy them, as the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had proven how evil the human race are capable of becoming. Bad politics, and not science ergo, kills good intentions and is harmful.
"We run around in circles and suppose, when the truth sits in the middle and knows"
- Stephan Hawking-
- Stephan Hawking-
The problem with "we" is that "we" are human, and human are without a doubt, full of their own agendas. Out of millions who exist at the same period of time, only a handful are sincere and truthful. When someone is lost, he tends to make a circle and end up where he started. The truth however, is what it is...the truth. Problem with the truth, is that not many like it, because most of the time, the truth hurts or can hurt someones interest. Some may even go to the extent of obscuring, twisting, omitting the truth with the purpose to achieve something. In some places like the in some politicians and lawyers vocabulary, that word had ceased to exist.
Unlike mathematics, which is a knowledge of certainty, (it is either you are wrong, or you are right...nothing in between), science on the other hand is a knowledge which runs on hypothesis then theories and finally, if the observations are confirmed by many, it becomes a "law". It is in their "theory" and "hypothesis" phase especially, is when it becomes vulnerable towards manipulations as no one knows the truth anyway.
With mostly everyone out there are busy securing their own interests, how do we know who's faking it and who's not? I mean, if women can fake orgasm and get away with it (watch the video I posted below for a simple demonstration), is there any hope in knowing the truth, that is...out there...laughing at the human species...
So how do we find the truth? Solid reasoning my friend. That is the only way. But first, for the benefit of those who thinks global warming is Woodstock going global, take a look at the simple understanding of global warming. Go ahead, click on it or read it on Wiki. And here's a simple explanation of the greenhouse effect., or HERE for a graphic summary, or you can wiki it yourself. As for the effect of global warming, I found one, posted below; (put your glasses on to read the text)
(The babbling above is just my warming up...click on to find out, watts up or watts down.....)
I found an excellent explanation by Dr Roy Spencer Phd, a climatologist and former NASA scientist, regarding how this global warming bugle may perhaps be what it is, just a spook. Read in his article "A Layman's Explanation Of Why Global Warming Prediction by Climate Models Are Wrong". Here's what I found in his side of the introduction; "Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." The last word means he's not one of the Seven Sisters boot lick-er, which says a lot regarding the sincerity in his field of work.
And here's something interesting what IPCC has to say.
According to Spencer, basically, the ongoing debate is as weather, I mean whether, the thinning clouds are the effect, or the cause to indicate their response towards natural global warming. The irony of us humans who think that we are the greatest creation of God, when the clouds are floating up there, laughing at us. For some of us, it's another way to imagine the shape of a cloud...as a big huge question mark.
If you have the time and the curiosity; here is a brilliant lecture, (roughly about 08 minutes each) given by Prof Robert M Carter, that I feel is truly worth listening to in order to comprehend the current climate change. He gives us the big picture instead of the currently perennial pedantic outlook that had caused the panic by far.
Part 1 :
Part 2 :
Part 3 :
Part 4 :
Based on the evidence provided by Bob, it is interesting to note that in the 20th century, following the Industrial Revolution that hit the civilization like MJ hit the Pop World,in the 18th and end of the 19th century, although the level of CO2 was up by 4%, ironically, there was no earthly warming noted. Is CO2 a significant cause of global warming?
Then I bumped into this article that made me chuckle it was in the cns news and this article led me to the latest findings from a study since 2001,( released on Jan. 28 2009), done by Kyle L. Swanson and Anastasios A. Tsonis, two professors in the Department of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. "They found that the Earth has been cooling since 2001 and projected that due to “global variation” the climate would continue to cool for the next 20 to 30 years."
You can read the details in has the climate shifted? or in it's html form
And nope, the sun ain't got nothin' to do with this warmin' either, read it here; Gavin Schmidt on solar trends and global warming and in pdf form.
The article is long, but what I normally do is go straight to the conclusion, hoping that I'd understand that at least. And here is what Schmidt had concluded; If you find this conclusion long (pfff...try reading the whole thing then) perhaps you can jump right down to my conclusion of their conclusion, just after all these purple writings....
" We analyzed the GISS ModelE hTi in terms of its trend, LCF against solar forcing, and a set of regression analyses, and found that it gave a realistic reproduction of the observed global mean temperature. In particular, GISS ModelE simulates a response to solar and GHG forcings roughly consistent with the observations, but the exact Figure 9. Comparison between centennial mean values for both S and GISS CTL. These time series are used to estimate the histogram in Figure 8d, showing rations derived from different combinations of the differences between the 100-year mean values. Table 7. Trend Estimates (the Proportion of the Total Warming Explained) and Standard Deviation Derived Using a Linear Model Between Tsun and Year Since 1980, Expressed in the Percentage of Similar Trend Analysis for the GISS Temperature Lean  SW06 ‘‘All years’’Estimate 7% 10% 8%Stdv ±1.3% ±1.3% ±1.3%
The trend estimates are shown as thin dashed lines in Figure 5, and ‘‘all years’’ refer to TSI reconstruction where the mean level for all overlapping years have been used to adjust the PMOD data rather than just 1980.
Contribution from each forcing is difficult to pinpoint using statistical methods alone. Linear regression does not give unbiased and robust results if one tries to attribute the effect
of different forcings on the temperature. The lack of robustness can also give rise to inflated values for the coefficients used in the statistical models of Scafetta and
West. Nevertheless, variations in S appear to have a weak effect on the global mean temperature, but cannot explain the global warming since 1980.
 We also repeated the analyses of Scafetta and West, together with a series of sensitivity tests to some of their arbitrary choices. These tests showed clearly that the published uncertainty in their estimates was greatly underestimated. In particular, the arbitrary assumption of their equilibrium sensitivity (Zeq) has a dramatic impact on their attribution of 20th century changes to solar forcing. We next showed that their methodologies were not able to robustly retrieve the solar contribution in GCM experiments where the answer was known a priori. In fact, we found that the presence of internal variability and additional forcings greatly confounded their method’s accuracy. Even in much simpler cases, examined here using Monte Carlo simulations
of synthetic climate time series, we found that their diagnostics had a very wide range in the absence of a true signal, so cannot be considered robust metrics of a solarinduced
 We conclude that as with the simpler linear regression methodologies described earlier, the SW methodology is highly sensitive to the internal variability of the climate system and the presence of colinear trends in different forcings. Given the concomitant increases in greenhouse
gas forcings over the 20th century, this implies that their published attributions greatly exaggerate the role of solar variations in global mean temperature trends.
 Claims that a substantial fraction of post 1980 trends can be attributed to solar variations are therefore without solid foundation, and solar-related trends over the last century are unlikely to have been bigger than 0.1 to 0.2C."
Set the scientific jargon aside, what this means is that "our gadget fucked up and need to be repaired. As a result of the fucking up of the gadget, the recorded data of warming was exaggerated. The impact on global panic does not fall into our jurisDICKtion, and is to be referred to other department thank you".
So now the apparatus was faulty. Hmm....
If it is not the sun, not the CO2 that is causing the "unusual global warming", what is then? I can imagine my great grandma telling us, in that shrilled voice of hers, (she said it in Arabic which had been translated to us intoBahasa Malaysia, and now I'm translating it to you to English of course) "This world is full of sinners!! That is why the world is getting hotter". So there you go, the real reason for global warming, revealed.....no need rocket scientist for that....
So what's with this Al Gore character going around alarming people with twisted facts?
If by now you still have not wondered as to why science is being twisted, well, you should. Here's another good talk by Lyndon laRouche, (for those interested, click HERE to view his views..which is quite interesting) to understand why this scam, like any other scam pertaining to manipulation of science, or just manipulation of anything, come to think of it, came about;
another brilliant lecture. But if you're short of time, I suggest you go right ahead with the final video in this post.
Now, the next million dollar question that needed answering, especially when politicians have their hands in this global warning panic, "WHO STANDS TO GAIN MOST?". Why are these alarmists going around alarming people?
Unfortunately, I'm still struggling to finish reading page 1 of "Economics for Dummies" so obviously I'm not the right person to unravel this. I would appreciate it if someone can come up with a brilliant article on "Which madafakar got away with da dough". Incidentally, someone did, even better, a documentary was produced. And it was done very well indeed. If there is any video in this post that needs listening to, it's this one. It not only explains what's going on with our environment today, in a brilliant.. brilliant manner if I may add, it also offers an interesting possibility of another out of this world reason, for the current mood swing mother earth is facing (maybe she's just menopausing...that at least could explain the dry seasons...), and in addition, it will explain the part I am dumb in...the human politics. (dumb in the part that fail to understand how human can be so inhumane and still insist to be called "human"). This video answers most of the questions boggling my mind anyway...
I thought the picture below is appropriate after listening to the documentary.
The end of human integrity is more like it......
Suddenly, I recall a verse in the Quran that states:
"Your Lord said to the angels, "I am placing a successor on earth." They said, "Would You place in it he who would corrupt it, and shed blood, while we sing
Your glory, and praise You?" He said, "I know what you do not know." [2:30]
Indeed, I have not a single clue, how humans can behave like animals..maybe we still are...still struggling to become actual human that we claim to be. Maybe that was what Darwin's theory is all about..we are not there yet, in the fully evolved form....or maybe Darwin is just as crap as the people who created "peak oil" and "scarcity of food" theories...I'm in an abyss of maybe-s...you tell me...
(Oh, don't panic...this article or rather this verbiage, ENDS HERE...so don't bother clicking onto the other rabbit hole;- it's a technical error...too busy living and no time to correct it)
...Click here to find out how deep the rabbit hole goes.....