Recommended

how are you doing recently?
I would like to introduce you a very good company.  
Do you want electronic products. All items are original and brand, new with lower  price.
website    www:omrcmr.com      E-mail:omrcmr@188.com     MSN:omrcmr@hotmail.com
Good luck

---

Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up now.

Dear sir/Madam

Dear sir/Madam :
  I am sorry to bother you. We are a wholesale company and a direct agent here, we operate (eg, such as mobile phones, laptop computers, televisions, cameras, etc.) electronic products.
As the financial crisis, falling commodity prices, if you need please contact us.
Thanks.    Website: www:tumrum.com        E-mail: tumrum@188.com        MSN: tumrum2009@hotmail.com
Sincerely yours.

---

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

Stop Corporate-Sponsored Wolf Slaughters

Target: Cabela's and Sportsman's Warehouse
Sponsored by: Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund

Care2petitionsite

What is a "predator derby?" It's a contest, where people compete to see who can kill the most wolves and other animals over a two-day period. What is a predator derby, really? It's a relic, from a time when we didn't know how important wolves are to the health of the American west.
Cabela's and Sportsman's Warehouse -- two major outdoor retailers -- sponsored three wolf-killing derbies in Idaho, held by the misleadingly named Sportsmen for Wildlife. Even worse the fees paid by derby contestants were funneled to support anti-wolf lawyers and lobbyists whose job is to keep wolves off the endangered species list and in the crosshairs.
Grassroots opposition has already convinced Nikon to drop its sponsorship of the predator derbies. Now its time for Cabela's and Sportsman's Warehouse to hear from citizens concerned for wolves and the American west.
Demand that Cabela's and Sportsman's Warehouse stop sponsoring wolf-killing predator derbies.

Please go HERE to sign the petition! They need some more signatures to be able to take action. It will only take you a minute. Send it to all your freinds, or post their page on Facebook or Myspace

Thank you!

Turkish girl, 16, buried alive for talking to boys

Half of the murders in Turkey are Honor Killings. Honor Killings is done by muslims and is done because a daughter does something to disrespect her family’s honor. In this case below, a daughter was simply speaking to boys. Do you think it’s radical or moderate muslims that commit these crimes? Most likely both sides. Islam is a dangerous religion.

Robert Tait in Istanbul guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 February 2010 19.03 GMT

Death reopens debate over 'honour' killings in Turkey, which account for half of all the country's murders.

 

The hole where the girl was buried alive by her relatives.

Turkish police have recovered the body of a 16-year-old girl they say was buried alive by relatives in an "honor" killing carried out as punishment for talking to boys.

The girl, who has been identified only by the initials MM, was found in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-metre hole dug under a chicken pen outside her home in Kahta, in the south-eastern province of Adiyaman.

Police made the discovery in December after a tip-off from an informant, the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported on its website.

The girl had previously been reported missing.

The informant told the police she had been killed following a family "council" meeting.

Her father and grandfather are said to have been arrested and held in custody pending trial. It is unclear whether they have been charged. The girl's mother was arrested but was later released.

Media reports said the father had told relatives he was unhappy that his daughter – one of nine children – had male friends. The grandfather is said to have beaten her for having relations with the opposite sex.

A postmortem examination revealed large amounts of soil in her lungs and stomach, indicating that she had been alive and conscious while being buried. Her body showed no signs of bruising.

The discovery will reopen the emotive debate in Turkey about "honor" killings, which are particularly prevalent in the impoverished south-east.

Official figures have indicated that more than 200 such killings take place each year, accounting for around half of all murders in Turkey.

Whittemore Peterson Institute’s XMRV study

WHITTEMORE PETERSON INSTITUTE

The spectrum of neuro-immune diseases including: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS), Atypical MS, Fibromyalgia and Gulf War Syndrome, share common abnormalities in the innate immune response inc, which result in chronic immune activation and immune deficiency.

We have detected the retroviral infection XMRV is greater than 95% of the more than 200 ME/CFS, Fibromylagia, Atypical MS patients tested. The current working hypothesis is that XMRV infection of B, T, NK and other cells of the innate immune response causes the chronic inflammation and immune deficiency resulting in an inability to mount an effective immune response to opportunistic infections. (See XMRV paper in Science.)

This discovery opens an entire new avenue of Neuro-Immune Disease related research and our discovery has brought to this field world-renown immunologists and retrovirologists building our team of collaborators to translate our discoveries into new treatments as soon as possible.

Because retroviruses are known to cause inflammatory diseases, neurological disease immune deficiency and cancer the discovery of XMRV has far reaching implications for the prevention and treatment of not only lymphoma, one of the potentially devastating complications of ME/CFS but prostate cancer and perhaps many others.

As National Academy of Sciences member and expert retrovirologist, John Coffin wrote in the commentary accompanying our landmark publication in Science "One New Virus-How many Old Diseases". We look forward to translating this discovery into treatment options!

Reeves out- cause of celebration for CFS patients

Cinder Bridge Blog wrote:

William C. Reeves, head of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research Program at the CDC, is moving on. Effective February 14, he'll become senior advisor for a another department within the agency. Dr. Elizabeth Unger will temporarily replace him.
Those of you who have ME/CFS have probably heard about this already, and almost certainly know why it's cause for celebration. For everybody else, here's the deal.
Reeves has led the CDC's CFS program for around a decade. During that time, he has done nothing to bring us closer to a cure, or even marginally effective treatment. Instead ...

• He has diluted the definition of ME/CFS to include people who instead suffer from clinical depression.
• Armed with the new, diluted definition, he has promoted the belief that childhood trauma and sexual abuse are linked to ME/CFS. The 2009 paper supporting this assertion fails to cite an earlier study, which found that people with ME/CFS are less likely to report such abuse.
• He has championed cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy, which may have small benefits for people with clinical depression, but do nothing for people with ME/CFS. In fact, graded exercise therapy can actually harm people with the disease.

In October of last year, the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro Immune Disease announced that it had found a strong link between ME/CFS and a retrovirus called XMRV. The discovery shone a bright light on Reeves' biases. Immediately following the announcement, he told the New York Times that "We and others are looking at our own specimens and trying to confirm it. If we validate it, great. My expectation is that we will not."
Will Reeves' move represent a significant change in the way the CDC deals with the disease? Will they take the program in a different direction? No idea.
It's possible that the CDC saw which way the wind was blowing in the wake of the XMRV discovery and decided to make Reeves the fall guy. Maybe they intend to go back to business as usual after he leaves, hoping that his removal alone will appease angry sufferers and advocates.
If that's the case, they're very wrong. It won't appease us. But it is still cause for celebration.
I like the way the wind is blowing.

THE MMR VACCINE IS NOT HOLY WATER

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO
February 17, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

For nearly a decade, the British General Medical Council (GMC), the equivalent of a U.S State Medical Board on steroids, has been taking Dr. Andrew Wakefield to task for daring to suggest that autism could be caused by the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. This week proved that the inquisition continues. The Times UK published a report written by commissioned journalist, Brian Deer, claiming that “confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses” have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data.[1] Deer claims that Dr. Wakefield’s “misleading and inaccurate” research about the MMR has lead to reduced vaccination rates and a resurgence of measles. And while the bickering about the MMR continues, the number of children who have been lost to autism continues to soar.

Before the 1990s, U.K. researchers estimated four to five cases of autism per 10,000 people in their country. By 2006, the number with autism had escalated to 39 per 10,000 and the number with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) stood at 77 per 10,000, making the total prevalence of all types of ASD 116 per 10,000, or one in every 86 children.[2] Barely one year later (2007), researchers at the Cambridge University's Autism Research Center in London released a report estimating that one in every 58 children in the U.K. (not just boys) suffers from "some form of autism disorder."[3]

The current population of the United Kingdom is estimated to be nearly 61 million.[4] One in every 58 equates to 1.7 percent of the population. The reality of that statistic should make one gasp: more than 1,000,000 citizens in the U.K. will become mentally handicapped adults, living on drugs and in group homes to manage their behavior. In twenty years, more than a million persons will be absent from the ranks of engineers, shop owners, doctors, lawyers, policemen, firemen and teachers. In addition, a significant portion of the population will be needed to care for adults who will be incapable of self care. Who will pay these costs?

Adults with severe autism could live very long lives. Some may have asthma and others bowel disorders, but unlike children with a true genetic disorder such as Down's syndrome, autistic adults could live well into their 70s or 80s. Who will care for them? Feed them? Bathe them? Who will wipe their bottoms? Persons with severe regressive autism have not lost their health; they have lost their minds. What if one in 58 children were suddenly going blind or becoming deaf? If vaccines were the suspected cause, would doctors continue to robotically vaccinate and explain away the travesty -- blaming genetics -- then try to fix the problem by increasing the number of seeing-eye dogs and cochlear implants? How much destruction of human life is necessary before the medical profession stops genuflecting to a methodology that should have become a relic of history, similar to bloodletting and skull trephination to release evil spirits?

The United Kingdom is a relatively small country. What will this society look like, with one million autistic adults in its midst? Imagine this as the opening scene of a movie, set in 20 years from now in 2029:

…The opening camera shot scans a British street, typical and narrow, bustling with activity. As the camera zooms in, it becomes apparent that something is disturbingly wrong. Dozens of adults with blank stares are wandering aimlessly through the streets flapping and shouting frequent, unintelligible words. Shopkeepers are concerned for their safety as these over-sized, unemployed adults, mostly men, bang on doors and nearly break windows, searching for food and shelter. Overwhelmed social workers do their best to keep these strong, frightened souls under control but with little success…

This science fiction story may become a reality show in a few short years. But this won’t be happening only in the UK. Autism rates across the globe are exploding. While the World Health Organization does not maintain global statistics on the prevalence of autism, reports from individual countries indicate the alarming scope of the problem.

Numerous studies have placed the rate of autism in India at approximately 1 in 500, or nearly 1.7 million autistic persons.[5] A report by China Central Television reported at least 1.8 million people (including 400,000 children) have autism in China, a number growing by nearly 20 percent per year.[6] Both of these countries have three times the population of the US but we nearly as many children with autism, nearly 1.5 million.[7] Perhaps Dr. Wakefield could see the future as he tried to stop the triple-vaccine jab from ruining the future of not only his country, but the entire world.

The recent decision on February 13, 2009 by the Special Court of Federal Claims, referred to as the “Vaccine Court,” perpetuates the travesty and once again defends the MMR as though it were Holy Water in a syringe. The ruling stated that claims connecting the MMR vaccine and autism were "speculative and unpersuasive." More than 1,500 news outlets proclaimed that the MMR did not cause autism. And while the paid mouthpiece of the vaccine industry, Dr Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia chirped, “It's a great day for science, it's a great day for America's children when the court rules in favor of science," hundreds of children are regressing daily in front of their parent’s eyes after a vaccine. How dare our government – and a doctor who took an oath to do no harm -- call them liars?

Several years ago, Dr. Wakefield and I were speakers at an autism conference in Dallas. On Saturday evening, Andy delivered the keynote speech at a dinner that doubled as a fund raiser for the sponsoring organization. I remember his words, and his stately British accent, as clearly today as the night he spoke them.

He told of his journey from a conventionally trained medical doctor into the world of autism.

Parents implored him to examine their children who had developed autistic tendencies and severe bowel disorders soon after receiving the MMR vaccine. Was there a connection? Colonoscopies were performed and the tissue samples from the each of the children surprisingly contained vaccine-strain measles virus. In 1998, he was the lead author in a paper published in The Lancet which concluded, “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described…Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.”[8]

The personal and professional attacks began shortly after his case report was published. It was impossible to predict that this single, observational paper would lead to years of vile phlegm being spewed at him for the mere suggestion of an association between a vaccine and autism. He concluded his story with a reflection that, had he foreseen the onslaught that was to follow, perhaps he would have treated the children without fanfare and without publishing his findings.

Undeterred by the verbal and legal assaults, his research continued. He told of a time when he hand-delivered well-designed studies to a top Merck executive, imploring him to examine the data that strongly suggested an association between the measles virus and autism. In a follow up conversation with this very senior executive, Dr. Andy asked, “Did you bother to read any of those studies I gave you?” The Merck executive flatly replied, “We don’t have to.”

We don’t have to? Does that mean Merck makes the rules about the MMR? Does that mean Merck can deny the research of Dr. Wakefield, and subsequently, many others who have seen a correlation between the MMR and autism? One thing is certain: The good doctor poked a stick in the eye of an unfriendly giant named Merck. The giant joined forces with his powerful buddies in the Public Health Department and British National Health Service. Together, they have worked every angle to ensure that Dr. Wakefield’s reputation would be destroyed and any connection between the MMR vaccine and autism would be negated. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the renewed attacks on Dr Wakefield began within days of the Vaccine Court’s proclamation that there is no connection between the MMR and autism.

At the close of his speech, Dr. Wakefield directly addressed the conference speakers and the activist parents in the room. He chose his words carefully and delivered them with laser focus. He asserted that those who work tirelessly to expose the truth about vaccines are the last hope for seriously ill, vaccine-injured children. “We must continue,” he said, “no matter how difficult the road, no matter how serious the consequences. We must fight for these children….because if we put down the flag and surrender when the going gets a little bit tough, who else will do it? Who will dare pick up the torch and carry it forward if we quit? There will be no one...not one. And the next generation of children…and the next…will be forever lost.”

The profoundness of his words hung in the air; there was no movement for a very long time. Each person knew, unequivocally, he had spoken truth directly into the heart. Our resolve was strengthened and united. The future of humanity hangs in the balance. One by one, hands slowly came together. The applause crescendoed to a roaring, well-deserved standing ovation.

That was November, 2003. The dogged determination of many who work tirelessly to expose the damage being done by vaccines is making a difference. The world is waking up because the health problems of our children are no longer anomalies. Parents are questioning the once-size-fits-all vaccination policies dictated by the minions of pharma. They are refusing to inject their precious babies with more than 100 vaccine antigens and measureable amounts of carcinogenic chemicals as a pre-requisite for school.

Moms and dads are standing firm, resisting the pressure from White Coats to vaccinate. They have done their homework and they are not frightened by the so-called “vaccine-preventable diseases.”

They are finding caregivers who support their decisions, leaving behind the pediatrician whose primary purpose is to give shots on a schedule decided by medical bureaucrats. Parents are embracing the fact that children can be healthy with plenty of sleep, ample exercise, clean hands, fresh water, good quality food and vitamins.

Whistleblowers and brave hearts are more often executed than honored for their courage. By refusing to recant his scientific findings to save his license to practice medicine, Dr. Wakefield is facing the tyranny of medical power. Barbara Loe-Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, described it this way: “The spectacle this British Medical Inquisition is creating for the world to see will have repercussions far beyond the martyrs it will make. People are not stupid and they will not soon forget that medical doctors inside and outside of the British government so feared one man's scientific discovery about vaccination that they felt they had no choice but to destroy him and anyone who stands with him.”

Keep up the good work, Andy. Keep going. Your bravery and tenacity is an inspiration for all of us to continue to warn others of the real culprit behind the global autism epidemic. Thanks to your steadfast determination, parents are wiser and children are healthier. And the fight must go on. To thousands around the world, you are a hero.

And as for the Vaccine Court ruling, this is not the end. In fact, the battle is just heating up. After all, if the government can’t tell us the cause of autism, they certainly cannot tell us what doesn’t cause it either.

Footnotes:

1, “MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism,” by Brian Deer. February 8, 2009.
2, “Autism rate in children has doubled, say doctors,” Sam Lister. The Times Online. July 14, 2006.
3, “New Fears Over MMR Link to Autism,” Stephan Adams. The Telegraph UK. July 8, 2007.
4, The World Fact Book. United Kingdom.
5, Action for Autism, India
6, “China has more than 100,000 autistic children,” China View. December 7, 2006.
7, “Autism and Global Human Rights,” Georga Hackworth.
8, Wakefield, AJ, Murch SH,Anthony A et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351:637-641.1998.

© 2009 Dr. Sherri Tenpenny - All Rights Reserved

 

---

Sherri J. Tenpenny, D.O., is regarded as one of the country’s most knowledgeable and outspoken physicians on the negative impact vaccines can have on health. This article includes excerpts from her new book, Saying No to Vaccines: A Resource Guide for All Ages. In addition to concerns about childhood vaccinations, the book addresses vaccination issues facing adults, international travelers, healthcare workers, nursing home residents, adoptions, college students, and those in the military. A 75-minute DVD is included that discusses the history of mandatory vaccination, concerns about the HPV cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil and other information not included in the book. For more information on her many other books, DVDs, audio CDs, articles, and other materials, visitDrTenpenny.com and SayingNoToVaccines.com Learn more about her medical clinic at osteomed2.com.

Dr. Tenpenny is a regular columnist for NewsWithViews.com. Her new book and DVD "Saying No to Vaccines" and FOWL! are available through this site. Other tapes and materials are available www.DrTenpenny.com

Website: www.DrTenpenny.com

Website: www.SayingNoToVaccines.com

E-Mail: nmaseminars@aol.com

Glacier Meltdown: Another Scientific Scandal Involving the IPCC Climate Research Group

Global Research, January 23, 2010

Only days after the failed Copenhagen Global Warming Summit, yet a new scandal over the scientific accuracy of the UN IPCC 2007 climate report has emerged. Following the major data-manipulation scandals from the UN-tied research center at Britain’s East Anglia University late 2009, the picture emerges of one of the most massive scientific frauds of recent history.
Senior members of the UN climate project, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been forced to admit a major error in the 2007 IPCC UN report that triggered the recent global campaign for urgent measures to reduce “manmade emissions” of CO2. The IPCC’s 2007 report stated, “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world.” Given that this is the world’s highest mountain range and meltdown implies a massive flooding of India, China and the entire Asian region, it was a major scare “selling point” for the IPCC agenda.

As well, the statement on the glacier melt in the 2007 IPCC report contains other serious errors such as the statement that “Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035." There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas. And a table in the report says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840 meters. Then comes a math mistake: It says that's a rate of 135.2 meters a year, when it really is only 23.5 meters a year. Now scientists around the world are scouring the entire IPCC report for indications of similar lack of scientific rigor.
It emerges that the basis of the stark IPCC glacier meltdown statement of 2007 was not even a scientific study of melting data. Rather it was a reference to a newspaper article cited by a pro-global warming ecological advocacy group, WWF.
The original source of the IPCC statement, it turns out,

appeared in a 1999 report in the British magazine, New Scientist that was cited in passing by WWF. The New Scientist author, Fred Pierce, wrote then, “The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a paper published by the Indian Government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist." The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.” [1]
The same Pachauri, co-awardee of the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, has recently been under attack for huge conflicts of interest related to his business interests that profit from the CO2 global warming agenda he promotes.[2]

Pearce notes that the original claim made by Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, in a 1999 email interview with Pearce, namely that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035, never was repeated by Hasnain in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that Hasnain now says the remark was "speculative".
Despite the  lack of scientific validation, the 10-year-old claim ended up in the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.
Since publication of the latest New Scientist article, the IPCC officially has been forced to issue the following statement: “the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."

The IPCC adds, "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. "We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said.” [3]
In an indication of the defensiveness prevailing within the UN’s IPCC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, insists that the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely to blame. He told BBC News: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report."

Some serious scientists disagree. Georg Kaser, an expert in glaciology with University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, gave a damning different assessment of the implications of the latest scandal affecting the credibility of the IPCC. Kaser says he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the IPCC report was published. "This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude. All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made. If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said 'we will do better next time'. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured."[4]
The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has made no personal comment on the glacier claim. It appears he is as well shaken by the wave of recent scandals. He told a conference in Dubai on energy recently, "They can't attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won't sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown (sic). In fact, I will float much higher," he told the Guardian. His remarks suggest more the ‘spirit of Woodstock’ in 1969 than of what is supposed to be the world’s leading climate authority.

F. William Engdahl is the author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY

Climate change campaigners: 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made

Express.co.uk Tuesday December 15,2009

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.                                                                                                                      8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago
12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds
13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.
14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions
15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”
16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.
17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.
18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control
19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.
20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades
23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries
24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder
25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research
26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles
27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population
29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago
30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles.

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming
32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures
33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere
34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere
35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything
36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes
37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”
38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC
39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms
41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful
42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical
43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests
44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years
45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations
47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.
48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change
49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.
51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.
52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”
53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.
54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics.  Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot
55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.  
56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.
57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”
58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.
59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth. 
61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.
63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.
64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.
65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.
66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature. 
67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.
68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.
69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.  Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”
71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.
72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all. 
73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.
74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.
75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes. 
76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.
77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.
78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.
79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.
81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.
82)  Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.
83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.  
84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.
85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.
86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.
87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.
88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.
91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.
92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.
94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.
95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.
96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.
97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.
98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

Peter Taylor presents Climate Change: The Alternative View

Peter Taylor is a renowned conservationist and research analyst. Among his many achievements, he has previously taken successful action in challenging the UN to alter it's stance and policy regarding dumping of hazardous materials into the ocean (in other words, he cares about the environment and his research is credible).

In this presentation, made at the Alternative View Conference Totnes UK 2008, he explains the conclusions of his detailed studies which indicate man is not responsible for global warming/climate change, and many of the 'solutions' based on this lie are the real threat we are facing (he's not funded by oil companies).

Peter Taylor's website is ethos-uk.com.

 

Video here: