Climate Changes: a real threat or a political bugaboo?

 

After the global warming campaign, carried on by A. Gore, the Inner Circle of TDF developed a lively discussion. Prof. Zappalà, Ordinary Astronomer of the observatory of Torino, conducted a rather deepened search on the matter. Such search has underlined different inaccuracies and some real mystifications, in the movie "An unconvenient truth", produced and promoted by Al Gore, and in the work of the IPCC(1)

While it is not clear whether the climate change is a real threat or not, we owe however to take note that our mother planet doesn't have anymore enough raw materials and energetic resources for the further development of the human civilization. And mystificatory campaigns will not help a healthy acknowledge of the global problems by the great planetary public opinion. 

The scientific method of investigation, to defend which Galileo Galilei paid with the torture and the incarceration, is nowadays defamed in name of political, economic and religious affairs: for the astro-humanists such method is, instead, the only method that allows to design effective countermeasures, to face the threats that put in danger the continuation of our civilization. 

Approfondimenti

Climate change and the limits of science - by V. Zappalà

Global Warming or Global Stunning? - di A. Autino

Solar energy from space: a good reason to start the colonization of the near Earth space - by A. Cavallo

Other comments on the climate change (some English and some Italian languages comments)

The Dyson Freeman's "heresy" - posted by Luisa Spairani  (Italian Language)

But the environmental problem does exist - by Alberto Cavallo (Italian Language)

To design poverty out of the Solar System - by Kim Peart

Space Technologies can solve the problem - by Daniel Christlein

Solar activity and cosmic rays cannot be taxed... - by Michael Martin-Smith

Climate change and the limits of science

by V. Zappalà

Now read the last 4 words of the IPCC role… “human- induced climate change”. You see, their whole mission statement is predicated on global warming being induced by man. A truly unbiased mission statement would leave out the words “human-induced”. If man is not creating global warming then there is no reason for the IPCC to even exist. These 2500 politicians and scientists would have no job. So let me ask you… if your earning incomes from the IPCC are you going to find anything but that man is to blame?

The reality of the Global Warming debate seems to be quite simply a great conflict between political powers and industrial interests, together with the obvious and well known interactions between them. Indeed, the majority of the results of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change) as well as those of its opponents generally lack reliable theories, verifiable data, and correct interpretation. In this situation it is very difficult to understand their scientific value. However, we must say that the majority of the “skeptics” well understand this limitation and they do not hide the problem. The same is not true for the IPCC. This Panel shows generally results that are presented as inconvertible even if the theories and the data used are highly uncertain and sometimes unproved. This is the major difference between the two groups.

 

 

Some links to videos and other papers, useful to understand

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Brignell Global warming as religion

CCNet EXTRA: The Greenland-Antarctica melting problem does not exist  http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/

Interview to R. Lindzen, touching several "hot" points 

Transcript of a BBC radio program

Another interesting reference

The full article by Lockwood and Froehlich, available at the Royal Society site 

Le “eresie” di Dyson Freeman

An Inconvenient thruth – Al Gore (the video doesn't exist anymore on youtube, thus we cannot link it)

Al Gore presents his movie in Paris

 

Global warming or global stunning?

by A. Autino

The mediatic pressure on the (real or supposed) problem of the global warming reaches very high levels, and the matter exit the scientific dimension, to get even religious features. None serious Sun' expert was called to enter the IPCC. The position of the astronomic search community is in fact nearly unanimous: the whole Solar System is interested by a heating phase, due to the activity of our star. But the Global Warming Crusade is even more resoundingly founded on the mystification of scientific data. Analyzing the diagram of the course of the temperature and of CO2 in the last 650.000 years, we can see that the two diagrams are correlated, yes, but the course of the CO2 follows the temperature’ one (with a 800 year delay), and not the opposite! Why then a so strong current of thought was developed, that points the finger against the human activities, calling them the main responsible of the climate changes? Why the climate change is given by now for discounted, as an incontrovertible truth, when it is everything but discounted and verified? The main bug is philosophical, and thrives in our western concepts, that always push us to impossible choices among white or black alternatives, when reality is almost never white or black, but made of million of different colors. The demand to identify a "devil", responsible of all the evil is evidently stronger than any ethics impulse. The degree of acceptance of the concept of taxation by the "taxpayers" is changing, to a large extent in the post-industrial world. The establishment therefore strives to find new rationals, able to bring the chickens to go back pouring joyfully their offering. What can be better then a sound planetary bugbear? 

 

Solar energy from space: a good reason to start the colonization of the near Earth space

by A. Cavallo

The human origin of the current warming of the climate is dubious. What we know for sure is that least somewhere in the world the warming is real, although it is not even certain if it is truly global. But the problem of energy exists: the availability of oil is really shrinking, beyond the partially speculative price increases we are seeing in these days; the use of fossil fuels has anyway quite a few drawbacks. It is necessary, for sure, to revise the way we manage the production of power worldwide. Of course, human civilization needs sources of energy. If the supporters of downscaling are successful, or if some other very silly choice will be made, in the future we may go back again to obsolete forms of energy, like coal, wood, peat, as unic energy sources.

As a mattter of fact we cannot hide to ourselves that the energy needs of humankind will keep growing. Even if it is true that the billion of people who live in the developed world can very well reduce their energy consumption without worsening their standards of life, we cannot tell all the others that they have no right to enjoy modern civilization. Especially two and a half billions of Chinese and Indians have eagerly set out on the road to development, with the prospect of multiplying more than three times the current use of energy products in the world. As I said on other occasions, we have to choose whether to make war for the known resources or try and find others. The debate about global warming has little to do with the energy problem itself. 

The news of the last months is that the American Department of Defence is taking into consideration the production of power through space based solar systems for the use of its forces deployed abroad. 

 

 

NOTE:

(1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes, a panel of 2500 politicians and scientists, made by the UNO, encharged to define the proofs of the human causes of the supposed climate change.

 [004.AA.TDF.2007 - 07.12.2007]