i thought this was a ballon but the flashing lights reminds me of the probes i posted before what do you think?
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The Great Global Warming Swindle debunked
Hi there for all of those who watched the great global warming swindle, and responded to my previous post on global warming and still follow the belief that it is caused by solar change please read this artcile (from Sydney newspaper) :
The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which the ABC plans to screen and which caused a sensation when it was broadcast in Britain earlier this year, is that to make its case it relies not on visionaries, but on people whose findings have been proven wrong. The implications could not be graver. Thousands of people could be misled into believing there is no problem to address.
The film's main contention is that the rise in global temperatures is caused not by greenhouse gases but by changes in the sun's activity. It is built around the premise that in 1991 the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen discovered that recent temperature variations on Earth coincided with the length of the cycle of sunspots: the shorter they were, the higher the temperature. Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the finding was the result of incorrect handling of data. The truth is the opposite: temperatures have continued to rise as the length of the sunspot cycle has increased.
So Friis-Christensen developed another means of demonstrating that the sun was responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable link between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, again, the method was exposed as faulty. It relied on satellite data which did not measure global cloud cover.
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared there was a correlation not with total cloud cover but with low cloud cover. This, too, turned out to be incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying it was a press release that went way beyond the findings reported in the paper to claim the study showed that past and present climate events are the result of cosmic rays.
This doesn't seem to have troubled the makers of the program, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.
The film also says man-made global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he found between temperatures at the Earth's surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the program fails to mention that in 2005 his data was proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine.
Christy said last year he was mistaken. He was one of the lead authors of a paper that states the opposite of what he says in the film. Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, it was said surface data showed substantial warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde (weather-balloon) data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.
Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the global denial industry, some, like the filmmakers, shriek censorship.
There is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. In the film he appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. But Wunsch says he was misrepresented by the program, and misled by the people who made it.
You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question. The failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a program is, the greater the controversy.
George Monbiot Source
The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which the ABC plans to screen and which caused a sensation when it was broadcast in Britain earlier this year, is that to make its case it relies not on visionaries, but on people whose findings have been proven wrong. The implications could not be graver. Thousands of people could be misled into believing there is no problem to address.
The film's main contention is that the rise in global temperatures is caused not by greenhouse gases but by changes in the sun's activity. It is built around the premise that in 1991 the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen discovered that recent temperature variations on Earth coincided with the length of the cycle of sunspots: the shorter they were, the higher the temperature. Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the finding was the result of incorrect handling of data. The truth is the opposite: temperatures have continued to rise as the length of the sunspot cycle has increased.
So Friis-Christensen developed another means of demonstrating that the sun was responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable link between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, again, the method was exposed as faulty. It relied on satellite data which did not measure global cloud cover.
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared there was a correlation not with total cloud cover but with low cloud cover. This, too, turned out to be incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying it was a press release that went way beyond the findings reported in the paper to claim the study showed that past and present climate events are the result of cosmic rays.
This doesn't seem to have troubled the makers of the program, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.
The film also says man-made global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he found between temperatures at the Earth's surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the program fails to mention that in 2005 his data was proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine.
Christy said last year he was mistaken. He was one of the lead authors of a paper that states the opposite of what he says in the film. Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, it was said surface data showed substantial warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde (weather-balloon) data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.
Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the global denial industry, some, like the filmmakers, shriek censorship.
There is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. In the film he appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. But Wunsch says he was misrepresented by the program, and misled by the people who made it.
You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question. The failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a program is, the greater the controversy.
George Monbiot Source
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
the florida ufo again great close ups
Have posted before but this one has great zoom ins on the ufo:
UFO in Finland May 18th 2007 & Nivala ufo history
new video not sure what do you think?,
*warning* the guy swears alot:
Seems like ufos have a history of appearing in finland:
*warning* the guy swears alot:
Seems like ufos have a history of appearing in finland:
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Vaccine dangers in the news - Merck's Gardasil cervical cancer vaccine side effects coverup
Recently in Australia a large number of reports are coming in about Gardasil the cervical cancer vaccine causing terrible adverse side effects. Here's a summary from the latest news report:
"five students from Melbourne's Sacred Heart Girls' College were among more than 20 who reported to the school's sick bay on May 7 after being injected with Gardasil.
"A number of students were transported to Monash Medical Centre and two were kept overnight for observation and discharged the next day," a spokesman for the Victorian Department of Human Services (DHS) said.
Student Natasha D'Souza said she collapsed and was left paralysed for six hours after being injected. "I couldn't move at all," she told reporters.
"There were girls dropping like flies, basically."
Ms D'Souza said her reaction was different to vaccinations she had been given in the past. Fellow student Brooke Levy, who was taken to hospital, said after the vaccine she thought she might pass out or vomit. Read more here
The Australian government Health minister Tony Abbott cites reports that this is just due to an 'anxiety reaction' to injections but the number of girls reacting means that it is not just some 'mass emotional response'. But the hidden fact is that the Australian government spent millions helping fund the vaccine and development in partnership merck so its likely its in their interest to ensure that adverse effects (reported below) are not impacting on the vaccine campaign.
This intersting video shows you why vaccines may be dangerous:
I also stumbled across this below medical report which shows that Merck has know that Gardasil was dangerous all along, hence the above reports. It seems they just can't be bothered telling the public that they haven't studied it enough:
"Out of the 385 individual Gardasil adverse event reports made to VAERS, two-thirds required additional medical care and about one-third of all reports were for children 16-years-old and under, with nearly 25 percent of those children having received simultaneously one or more of the 18 vaccines that Merck did not study in combination with Gardasil. NVIC is calling on the FDA and CDC to warn parents and doctors that Gardasil should not be combined with other vaccines and that young girls should be monitored for at least 24 hours for syncopal (collapse/fainting) episodes that can be accompanied by seizure activity, as well as symptoms of tingling, numbness and loss of sensation in the fingers and limbs, all of which should be reported to VAERS immediately.
"Because Merck only studied Gardasil in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16 in pre-licensure trials, it is critical that doctors and parents be made aware of the nature of the initial adverse event reports coming into VAERS and that they report serious health problems after vaccination when they occur," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "There are twice as many children collapsing and four times as many children experiencing tingling, numbness and loss of sensation after getting a Gardasil vaccination compared to those getting a Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccination.
"If only 1 to 4 percent of all adverse events associated with Gardasil vaccination are being reported to VAERS, there could have been up to 38,000 health problems after Gardasil vaccination in 2006 which were never reported," said Fisher. "How many girls are really having short-term health problems associated with getting this vaccine that could turn into long-term neurological or immune system disorders? And how many will go on to develop fertility problems, cancer or damage to their genes, all of which Merck admits in its product insert that it has not studied at all? We just don't know enough to be mandating Gardasil for anyone, much less vulnerable 11 to 12 year old girls entering puberty"
"five students from Melbourne's Sacred Heart Girls' College were among more than 20 who reported to the school's sick bay on May 7 after being injected with Gardasil.
"A number of students were transported to Monash Medical Centre and two were kept overnight for observation and discharged the next day," a spokesman for the Victorian Department of Human Services (DHS) said.
Student Natasha D'Souza said she collapsed and was left paralysed for six hours after being injected. "I couldn't move at all," she told reporters.
"There were girls dropping like flies, basically."
Ms D'Souza said her reaction was different to vaccinations she had been given in the past. Fellow student Brooke Levy, who was taken to hospital, said after the vaccine she thought she might pass out or vomit. Read more here
The Australian government Health minister Tony Abbott cites reports that this is just due to an 'anxiety reaction' to injections but the number of girls reacting means that it is not just some 'mass emotional response'. But the hidden fact is that the Australian government spent millions helping fund the vaccine and development in partnership merck so its likely its in their interest to ensure that adverse effects (reported below) are not impacting on the vaccine campaign.
This intersting video shows you why vaccines may be dangerous:
I also stumbled across this below medical report which shows that Merck has know that Gardasil was dangerous all along, hence the above reports. It seems they just can't be bothered telling the public that they haven't studied it enough:
"Out of the 385 individual Gardasil adverse event reports made to VAERS, two-thirds required additional medical care and about one-third of all reports were for children 16-years-old and under, with nearly 25 percent of those children having received simultaneously one or more of the 18 vaccines that Merck did not study in combination with Gardasil. NVIC is calling on the FDA and CDC to warn parents and doctors that Gardasil should not be combined with other vaccines and that young girls should be monitored for at least 24 hours for syncopal (collapse/fainting) episodes that can be accompanied by seizure activity, as well as symptoms of tingling, numbness and loss of sensation in the fingers and limbs, all of which should be reported to VAERS immediately.
"Because Merck only studied Gardasil in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16 in pre-licensure trials, it is critical that doctors and parents be made aware of the nature of the initial adverse event reports coming into VAERS and that they report serious health problems after vaccination when they occur," said NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher. "There are twice as many children collapsing and four times as many children experiencing tingling, numbness and loss of sensation after getting a Gardasil vaccination compared to those getting a Tdap (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis) vaccination.
"If only 1 to 4 percent of all adverse events associated with Gardasil vaccination are being reported to VAERS, there could have been up to 38,000 health problems after Gardasil vaccination in 2006 which were never reported," said Fisher. "How many girls are really having short-term health problems associated with getting this vaccine that could turn into long-term neurological or immune system disorders? And how many will go on to develop fertility problems, cancer or damage to their genes, all of which Merck admits in its product insert that it has not studied at all? We just don't know enough to be mandating Gardasil for anyone, much less vulnerable 11 to 12 year old girls entering puberty"
More ufos seen in santiago december 16 2004 chile
here is some more on these interesting ufos from Santiago.
Some people argue these are lights from motorbikes racing on the hill, however in the last video filmed by the same guy the lihts are seen in the sky and not on the mountain - what do you think?
ufos going up a hill:
Long Version:
in the sky:
Some people argue these are lights from motorbikes racing on the hill, however in the last video filmed by the same guy the lihts are seen in the sky and not on the mountain - what do you think?
ufos going up a hill:
Long Version:
in the sky:
Monday, May 21, 2007
helicopter chases ufo
The images captured over the south coast of England were filmed by a police helicopter. The UFO was spotted travelling across the coast and was followed for about 10 miles. None of the crew members on board the helicopter had seen anything like it before or since.
Alien Interview documentary " victor " revealed Mr Robert Dean?
This is quite disappointing the guy from the 1997 movie the alien interview victor is shown to be retired USAF sargent Mr Robert Dean? what do you think?
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Popular posts this month:
- Why is the 2005 Vatican Ufo video a threat ?
- A Closer Look: The 'Cauldrons' in the Valley of Death, Siberia
- Actual Video - UFO Battle Over Los Angeles: 1942
- Bizzare cloud causes Ufo alarm over Montreal
- What's the real purpose of NASA bombing the moon this friday ? - LCROSS Lunar Impact
- Did UFOs Warn Of Oklahoma Tornado?
- Bill Birnes - why Ufo Hunters was pulled from the TV ?
- FBI - The Vault New Roswell File by FBI Informant Guy Hottel
Posts
