Car Lease Blog - LeaseTrader.com

Global Warming as we know it is a lie!

Blog Author — Mon, 12 May 2008 22:33:10 GMT

Global Warming as we know it is a lie!

"This is one of the best articles I have read on this topic,

I'm not here to make you believe what I believe in but to give you the choice with all the information. Don't be the cattle of the world"

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies

Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This story posted by LeaseTrader.com, the automotive service company that lets people transfer out of their Car Leases early. If you're looking to swap a lease or transfer out of your car lease, please visit www.leasetrader

Porsche Baby Cayenne, YES Baby Cayenne,

Blog Author — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:51:40 GMT

Porsche Baby Cayenne, YES Baby Cayenne,

Porsche almost slid a fast one by spy photographers recently when it began testing a new baby Cayenne SUV prototype at the famed Nurburgring race track in Germany. The thing looks for all the world like an actual Cayenne SUV, but photographers first noticed its diminutive proportions, then its sharply raked D-pillar, and then the different cut lines around its door. Soon it became apparent that this was no Cayenne, but rather a prototype for a new, smaller Porsche SUV that's likely based on the upcoming Audi Q5. Like most people, we've always thought the idea of a Porsche SUV is kind of silly, but make it smaller and lighter and we get commensurately more interested. Click after the jump for more analysis from the spy photographers themselves.

Now that the dust has settled, we have had a bit more time to analyze the new Porsche SUV prototype that hit the scene today. Our initial speculation that this prototype was based on the Audi Q5 looks solid now that we have further compared the profiles of the two vehicles. The proportions, door sizes, and basic packaging clearly appear linked. We can also see several design touches that Porsche designers have employed to gain some visual distance with the Q5.
While the side window profile of the Q5 has a slight downward slope as you head toward the backlight, the new Porsche appears to have a flatter--and therefore slightly taller--roof line. Conversely, the Porsche's D-pillar and backlight are sloped, while the Q5 opts for a more vertical rear window. The rear-door cut-lines have nearly identical placement and angle on both cars, but the Porsche's has a greater arc as it turns toward the C-pillar cut-line, due to the Porsche's more bulbous, 911-inspired haunches.

The A-pillars and windshields look like they may be shared between the two cars, but the Porsche moves away from the Audi by shifting its side mirrors off of the A-pillars, and onto the door panels. The small triangular brace that holds the Audi's side mirror has gone to glass on the new Porsche.

The overall surface developent of the Q5 displays some angularity, while the Porsche opts for softer details and a more porpoise-like shape to its nose. The Porsche's ride-height also appears much more aggressive, but as this prototype was being flogged in the middle of a tight corner, some of its low stance is certainly attributed to the suspension loads.
The similarities between the new Baby Cayenne and the Audi Q5 are now becoming clearer. But the changes made to differentiate the Porsche are also becoming more apparent as well.

[Source: KGP Photography]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is crude oil, and what is it used for?

Blog Author — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:16:29 GMT

What is crude oil, and what is it used for?

Crude oil is pumped from the ground in the Middle East (e.g., Saudi Arabian Arab Light), West Africa (e.g., Nigerian Bonny Light), the Americas, and Asia (Russia), pumped into ships called tankers, and sailed across the ocean to oil refineries on the Delaware River.

Refining is the complex series of processes that manufactures finished petroleum products out of crude oil. While refining begins as simple distillation (by heating and separating), refiners must use more sophisticated additional processes and equipment in order to produce the mix of products that the market demands. Generally, this latter effort minimizes the production of heavier, lower value products (for example, residual fuel oil, used to power large ocean-going ships) in favor of middle distillates (jet fuel, kerosene, home heating oil and diesel fuel) and lighter, higher value products (liquid petroleum gases (LPG), naphtha, and gasoline).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crude oil $200/bbl predicted

Blog Author — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:11:11 GMT

Crude oil $200/bbl predicted

Sam Fletcher
Senior Writer

HOUSTON, May 6 -- Crude futures prices hit an intraday high May 5 in the New York market as traders worried about the falling US dollar and supply disruptions in a tight market.

Prices continued climbing in early trading May 6 after Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the world's largest securities firm, predicted crude costs could escalate to $150-200/bbl within 2 years. The front-month price for benchmark US crudes soared past $120/bbl in intraday trading May 5 from $62/bbl a year ago, indicating a continuing super spike in crude futures market, said Goldman Sachs analyst Arjun Murti.

He headed a Goldman Sachs team that in 1985 predicted a super spike of crude prices to $50-105/bbl at some point within a few years because of continued unexpected strength in world oil demand and economic growth, especially in the US and China. The group also said at that time that retail gasoline prices could hit $4/gal during the multiyear "spike" period until high prices force a reduction in oil consumption. Oil was then trading at a record level of $58/bbl (OGJ Online, Apr. 5, 2005). Late last year, Goldman Sachs raised its 2008 oil price prediction to $95/bbl from $85/bbl for benchmark US crude and predicted crude might hit $105/bbl before 2009 (OGJ Online, Dec. 17, 2007).

"The market-making strength of Goldman Sachs in the oil futures market is something to be never fully discounted," said Olivier Jakob at Petromatrix, Zug, Switzerland.

The recent rally in oil futures prices has been so extreme (up $10/bbl since May 1) that "momentum indicators are hard to define as it took 2 days to do what previously took 10 days," said Jakob. Energy prices rebounded May 2 and May 5 from a brief but sharp decline in the middle of last week. The front-month benchmark crude has broken $120/bbl in intraday trading but still needs to confirm that new mark by closing above $120/bbl, said Jakob. There is no clear resistance level above $120/bbl before $125/bbl," he said.

"Energy stocks advanced yesterday, as both crude oil and natural gas [futures prices] increased. Crude eclipsed the $120/bbl mark on concerns of supply disruption and signs of increased US demand. A report yesterday showed that US service industries increased in April, signaling higher energy use," said analysts in the Houston office of Raymond James & Associates Inc.

Meanwhile, Royal Dutch Shell PLC confirmed May 6 that a May 2 attack on a flow station in southern Nigeria forced the company to reduce exports by 170,000 b/d (OGJ Online, May 5, 2008).

Energy prices
The June contract for benchmark US sweet, light crudes hit an intraday high of $120.36/bbl before closing at $119.97/bbl, up $3.65 for the day on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The July contract gained $3.68 to $119.47/bbl. On the US spot market, West Texas Intermediate was up $3.65 to $119.97/bbl. Heating oil for June delivery advanced 8.78¢ to $3.31/gal on NYMEX. The June contract for reformulated blend stock for oxygenate blending (RBOB) increased by 8.65¢ to $3.05/gal.

The June natural gas contract shot up 40.1¢ to $11.18/MMbtu on NYMEX. On the US spot market, gas at Henry Hub, La., escalated by 39.5¢ to $10.88/MMbtu.
In London, the June IPE contract for North Sea Brent crude gained $3.43 to $117.99/bbl. The May gas oil contract jumped up $23 to $1,099.50/tonne.

The average price for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' basket of 13 reference crudes increased by $4.61 to $111.50/bbl.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BMW M1

Blog Author — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:47:17 GMT

BMW M1

We've been debating whether or not this is a real photo or an expert rendering, but if it is a photoshopped image of a BMW M1 prototype, then it is very convincing. According to FreshTarmac.com, this photo was taken in a hangar in Spain. It shows a sleek two-door, probably mid-engined coupe with attributes of the new M3 incorporated into its design, especially the front fenders and hood. With BMW introducing the M1 Hommage Concept at the Concorso d'Eleganza at Villa d'Este last week, we hope this means that is already considering a production version. Come on BMW, build it! Thanks for the tip, John!

BMW, BMW M1, BMW M1 Concept, BMW M1 Prototype, BmwM1, BmwM1Concept, BmwM1Prototype, breaking, breaking news, BreakingNews, M1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greenpeace builds Cayenne and M-Class bulldozers for Argentina

Blog Author — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:02:41 GMT

Greenpeace builds Cayenne and M-Class bulldozers for Argentina's native forests

Running diesel vehicles on biofuels is a good thing, right? Not always, according to Greenpeace Argentina. It seems that the export of soybeans from Argentina is causing more pollution than was initially estimated. Also, too much of Argentina's native forests are being mowed down for the soybeans. These issues are in stark contrast with two of Greenpeace's stated charters: (1) catalyzing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change and (2) supporting sustainable agriculture by encouraging socially and ecologically responsible farming practices.

No Greenpeace protest would be complete without some sort of outlandish stunt, and this one follows suit. Because most of the Argentinian biodiesel goes to Germany, a Mercedes-Benz M-Class and a Porsche Cayenne were made to look like bulldozers by men and women wielding German flags. The two SUV's were surrounded by fake tree stumps. Once again, Greenpeace has done an admirable job of catching plenty of attention. Whether the group's wacky efforts have any effect, though, is another matter entirely.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb Auto Sales, Worst month ever in the history. April Just as bad!!

Blog Author — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:55:01 GMT

Feb Auto Sales, Worst month ever in the history. April Just as bad!!

Remember when I said February 2008 was the worst month ever in the history of our reporting monthly sales figures? Well, April 2008 was just as bad. Though we had five brands this month that posted an increase in their daily sales rate (DSR) compared to four back in February, automakers had two extra days last month to sell compared to April 2007. Not even that helped as most brands went down flaming with double-digit dips in their DSR*.

The domestics were hit the hardest in April, with Ford Motor Company (-19%), General Motors (-22.7%) and Chrysler LLC (-29%) all down. You'll hear from analysts that two things are responsible for the Big 3's poor performance: too many trucks and SUVs that nobody wants combined with a decrease in fleet sales. Nissan North American and Toyota Motor Co. were down as well, but both by less than 5%. Honda informed us it's having technical difficulties reporting its numbers, so they're forthcoming.

The significant thing that happened last month is the big jump in small car sales. On a make/model basis, the Ford Focus was up 32%, the Chevy Cobalt and Aveo were up 15.5% and 14%, the Toyota Yaris and Prius rose 45.9% and 53.8%. While virtually all truck and SUV sales were down, as well as those of many larger CUVs, small and mid-size cars were definitely popular with the people.

Biggest Winner
MINI 28.6% at 4,713 (4/07: 3,382)

Biggest Loser
HUMMER –49.8% at 2,380 (4/07: 4,375)

BRANDS
Audi –12% at 7,730 (4/07: 8,106)
BMW –2.5% at 26,735 (4/07: 25,310)
Buick –11.7% at 12,665 (4/07: 13,234)
Cadillac –21.3% at 14,359 (4/07: 16,839)
Chevrolet –21.9% at 157,187 (4/07: 185,759)
Chrysler –45% at 30,670 (4/07: 51,441)
Dodge –23% at 83,348 (4/07: 100,463)
Ford –17.4% at 165,997 (4/07: 185,553)
GMC –29.6% at 31,854 (4/07: 41,748)
HUMMER –49.8% at 2,380 (4/07: 4,375)
Hyundai –7.4% at 39,280 (4/07: 39,137)
Infiniti –11.5% at 9,537 (4/07: 9,945)
Jaguar 15.7% at 1,785 (4/07: 1,424)
Jeep –24.4% at 33,733 (4/07: 41,200)
Land Rover –43.9% at 2,557 (4/07: 4,211)
Lexus –17.1% at 23,350 (4/07: 25,995)
Lincoln –19.3% at 10,340 (4/07: 11,832)
Mazda 4.1% at 23,760 (4/07: 23,760)
Mercedes-Benz –10.4% at 20,271 (4/07: 20,895)
Mercury –31.8% at 12,910 (4/07: 17,481)
MINI 28.6% at 4,713 (4/07: 3,382)
Mitsubishi –32% at 8,878 (4/07: 12,047)
Nissan 0.1% at 66,318 (4/07: 61,179)
Pontiac –15.9% at 24,009 (4/07: 26,346)
Porsche –11.9% at 3,099 (4/07: 3,248)
Saab –37.9% at 1,580 (4/07: 2,350)
Saturn –22% at 16,888 (4/07: 19,977)
Subaru 12% at 16,771 (4/07: 13,786)
Suzuki –2.8% at 9,669 (4/07: 9,179)
Toyota –2.7% at 194,350 (4/07: 184,462)
Volkswagen –6.1% at 19,415 (4/07: 19,086)
Volvo –18.9% at 7,138 (4/07: 8,122)
N/A: Kia, Honda and Acura (Delayed)

COMPANIES
BMW Group 1.2% at 31,448 (4/07: 28,692)
Chrysler LLC –29% at 147,751 (4/07: 193,104)
Ford Motor Co –19% at 200,727 (4/07: 228,623)
General Motors –22.7% at 260,922 (4/07: 311,687)
Honda America (Delayed)
Nissan North America –1.6% at 75,855 (4/07: 71,124)
Toyota Motor Co. –4.5% at 217,700 (4/07: 210,457)
*All percentages are reported as the change in Daily Sales Rate because there were 26 selling days in April 2008 versus 24 in April 2007. Comparing the raw number of vehicles sold both months would not be accurate because of this discrepancy in selling days, so we report the change in the average number of vehicles sold per day.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Car Lease Blog - LeaseTrader.com

Global Warming as we know it is a lie!

"This is one of the best articles I have read on this topic,

I'm not here to make you believe what I believe in but to give you the choice with all the information. Don't be the cattle of the world"

Other Articles

US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies

Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Porsche Baby Cayenne, YES Baby Cayenne,

What is crude oil, and what is it used for?

What is crude oil, and what is it used for?

Crude oil $200/bbl predicted

BMW M1

Greenpeace builds Cayenne and M-Class bulldozers for Argentina

Feb Auto Sales, Worst month ever in the history. April Just as bad!!