How To Laminate Things Staples

Night premiere at The muffins

Christain Views On Mastrabating

towards


totes les fotos del rodatge al facebook aqui i aqui també .

Calculate Football Force

du décor World premiere of

Hi folks!
The "premiere" of World Leader Muffins will take place in social space, C / Muffins 13-15, Metro Urquinaona, on 10 October with cocktails and DJs (including the famous DJ Co-Prince) to others will cumple de Pablo (17 years). This part of the broadcast will
cumple de Pablo and not otherwise, because if you invite three friends to be the best person, the place is not so great ... The spread will be at 22h30 more or less. Confirm you are visiting. And do not forget, with Rivages, be the best is awaiting you!
JY.

a Mostra mapa Més gran

Hello,
For those who did not understand, we organize the first Lider Mundial October 10 to address marked above. I invite you to join us, and for those who live too far, do not worry, there will be other releases, such as Oct. 19 in Castelldefels, and in November at the Cinematheque bcn (date yet to be confirmed). I'll keep you posted. I want to thank everyone who helped me during filming, during installation this summer in the cabin and fall in the Ariege and Toulouse, c'est-à-dire during toutes les phases de ce film.
A bientôt donc.
JY

What Does Mescals Look Like

Lider Lider TV Global Horizon


76.6 MB ° 48 min 29 sec

First Horizon TV interview. Begins at minute 31:00.

What Are The Floaties In My Pee

ribs


Monday, 12 May · Montjuich · Last day of filming together · photo to Nani

Honeymonn Tea Side Effects

The wheel of fortune


Design Piju · original size

Forced To Walk Barefoot

Posters Rivages





disseny per Piju

Pokemon Deluge To Level Up Fast

40 REASONS WHY THE IPCC-2007 PAMPHLET IS A SCAM POLICY PSEUDOSCIENCE

This week we report a provocative article in a science journalist, author of the bestseller Calor Glacial, who tells us that the UN is a mafia that we are cheating on climate change. I hope you like both previous com . Nailma Gomes.

Clik here other articles on fraud IPCC

40 REASONS WHY THE IPCC-2007 PAMPHLET

IS A SCAM POLICY PSEUDOSCIENCE

"Climate change will lead to a new Era"

CAMPOS LUIS CARLOS NIETO, science journalist, author of the provocative bestseller Calor Glacial, 2005, Arcopress, reissued this year www.arcopress.com

International Agency References IPS and

Newsbrief http://www.ipsnoticias.net/nota.asp?idnews=39974 http://press.jrc.it/NewsBrief/groupedition/es/JRC.html

r REFERENCES IN WIKIPEDIA click here

Interview The VINCENT WITH CRITICAL TELECINCO VALLEYS (2007) "The official theory is a scam. NOS 40-70 LIE IN THE CO2 increases and temperature dropped. THIS IS A BUSINESS THE UN AND KYOTO. Climate change is caused by an ice age. "

40 REASONS WHY THE IPCC-2007 PAMPHLET

ES UNA ESTAFA DE PSEUDOCIENCIA POLÍTICA

Puede descargarse aquí el último informe de la ONU sobre el calentamiento global.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

¿alguien es capaz de ver las pruebas del calentamiento antrópico en estas 22 páginas?.

Para el periodista Luis Carlos Campos la ONU y miles de científicos viven de la hipótesis inverosímil del salvarnos del peligro anthropogenic C02 as 6000 million tonnes human ever could cause climate change, as are 1,500 real, since half are absorbed and call the other half are agricultural / livestock and year issued 186,000 million tons and there 750,000 total in the atmosphere. Contaminate breathing only more: 2,500 million.

SUMMARY ** "No consensus: there are 18000 scientists who deny what is in the IPCC ( www.oism.org ). That are 2500 scientists that the authors is false, only appear 51.

** -presented a report to politicians with no bibliography or notes or any evidence of human influence to manipulate the media, the scientific text will say in November, when they have fooled everyone with a hypothesis unprovable.

** "say the same speculation as ever 100 years made with computer simulations, which are not scientific evidence according to the experimental method.

** -want me to pay for a new global office to save the change climático.Piden $ 200,000 million a year to prevent warming ..

** "The proof of human influence does not appear anywhere. The text is packed from the word "probably", which appears 19 times in the main table of predictions. (Page 2!). This is not science.

** They say that all text and graphics can be modified and tested in the future (p. 1). They are not sure or what they say.

** -IPCC scientists are all special models in computer simulations and deny the solar cycle and solar scientists proglaciación as Jawarowski or Landscheidt.

** -lying report incorrect data continuously as it is the maximum polar warming 125,000 years since 70,000 years ago in Dansgaard-Oegscher Event 19 there was an increase of 16 º in Greenland (and nothing happened) (Lang, 1999). This shows that the authors of the report are not relevant experts with paleoclimatic culture, but exhibitors from a political and media theory, never proven. Exxon Mobil did not need to pay anyone to refute his own ignorance paleoclimatic them away.

falsely accused

EXXONMOBIL

press jumped to the canard that Exxon-Mobil paid scientists to refute this pseudoinforme (El Mundo, 03/03/2007 ), I do it for free and you do not pay anyone because there are 18,000 scientists who reject the unsubstantiated hypothesis again IPCC ( www.oism.org )

Who leaked the hoax?. Greenpeace and three bureaucrats Roger Pielke, Rick Piltz and David Viner: In the fake news says the most important one: the three are members of the IPCC. If Exxon did not accuse him what was going to send letters to trace, that would be a jerk. Teach the test and one of those letters to prove it.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link/new_link/menus/dave_frame.htm

Http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/C25/

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org / index.php/csw/2006/04 /

UN

mistake: THE anthropogenic warming is a belief

"These conclusions are not discussed," says carbonic fundamentalist Antonio Ruiz de Elvira (El Mundo, 03/03/2007), climate adviser of World and member of the radical environmentalist cult Friends of the Earth.

but if they do and much, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS:

1 .- The data have little validity as they themselves acknowledge: (p.1) "text, tables and Graphics are here but are subject to final verification, copying, editing and editorial adjustments to the graphics. " They are all speculations which they themselves are safe.

2 .- First presented a report at a press conference just 21 pages. as: "Summary for Policymakers", or summary for "politicians" or "political strategists" to loosen "the web" before showing the alleged scientific report in November, where they say the same thing siempre.Las evidence presented in scientific journals, not in press conferences, as did with the hypothesis of AIDS. In this way they avoid the real scientific debate, fooling the media, not contrast or prove anything.

3 .- want to mount another IPCC, because the money they receive them not enough, this new institution would be called UNEO, another global environmental office bureaucrats to save 0.6 ° in a century. Only the NERC, which he left the Stern boasted by Blair received 20 million pounds and its leaders are asking us $ 9 trillion to prevent climate change ( http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/ ) . The IPCC in turn asks us $ 200,000 million a year to prevent the catastrophe that speculate will happen in 100 years. (Bethell, 2006).

4 - . They say there is consensus of 2,500 scientists, but skeptics 18,000, including renowned authors such as Sir Fred Hoyle (the coiner of the term "Big Bang") and Kary Mullis Nobel reject the hypothesis ( www.oism.org , Leipzig Declaration 1995; Dancing Naked in the Mind Field , 1998). Nowhere is the list of those 2500 scientists. Appear only 33 authors and 18 contributors, almost all unknown or bureaucrats (except Alley, Stocker, Stoot, Meelh or Stouffer .., who are often working together modelers always saying the same thing men are carrying the world ") or heads IPCC (Qin and Solomon and his mentor Mario Molina, inventors of the ozone hole that lost 40% in 2002 (why, this year there contaminábamos?), Another invention of the IPCC and the BAC (British Antarctic Survey, the nth Institute for funding for environmental studies useless) .

5 - . All are special models in computer simulations. The creator of the IPCC was Bert R. Bolin, a fan of mathematical simulations is surfeit of receiving awards for his friends in the establishment or the same as the Blue Planet Prize (2006), the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in Meteorology. Computer models do not pass the scientific method Popper, Galileo, Newton and Roger Bacon.Nadie can check today that they say will happen in 100 years is real. The word says very clearly: they are only simulations, but now everyone, especially our INCOMPETENT JOURNALISTS, apodictic Dogrmas taken as they are only political and mathematical simulations.

6 -. All are members of the IPCC scientists establishment of the UN, the stagnant fees are not renewed since its inception. So nobody is willing to change the current prevailing corruption and inefficiency. Rajendra K. Pachauri the chairman is not a bureaucrat with no publications climatologist recognized as glaciologist Dan Qin, one of the directors. Pachauri is an industrial engineer and economist, have given their friends the prestigious award Padma Bhushan and has been chairman or director of dozens of organisms normally created to live completely useless government grants "Look at their names as the International Centre ...- of India (1985) or the Municipal Government of the Habitat Centre in India (1987). Susan Solomon, the other charge, is the most fanatical promoter of the nonsense of the ozone hole, when the CFC gases can not even climb into the stratosphere because they are heavier than air. With a president like this and similar charge means that the IPCC has become together with UNAIDS DR. Peter Piot, the biggest machine of political and economic corruption in the world: in a factory dogmas relentless media with 2,500 scientists who live without a stick into the water from two decades hade to receive grants of all dollars and governments to protect us from Revelation half a degree in a century and 18 cm. of rising sea level.The business IPCC would have no future if it is true what they say thousands of scientists that climate change is due to solar cycles or ice and / or the human C02 can not be the cause of the situation current.

7 - The report lies with that Polar warming is the highest in 125,000 years, since 70,000 years ago in Event Oegscher Dansgaard-19 was up 16 º in Greenland (and nothing happened) (Lang, 1999). Soon and Baliunas (2003) found 69 studies that reflected greater than the current warming. 14,000 years ago there was a 1000-year warming known as the Bolling-Allerod, followed by the glaciation of the Younger Dryas ( Climate History, 2003). This shows that the report's authors are not experts with paleoclimatic culture (despite having a supposed expert, Richard Alley), but displays a political and media theory, never proven. Exxon Mobil does not need pay anyone to refute his own ignorance paleoclimatic them away.

8 .- The report recognizes that small-scale changes are difficult to predict (p. 9) but tries to make us believe that 100 if you can predict, which is a contradiction. In fact, you can not make reliable weather predictions to 3 days and want to make 50 or 100 years.

9 .- never has been a disaster for sea level rise of 18-59 cm, as predicted by the models. The actual rise in the twentieth century was 6 cms. (Wadhams & Munk, 2003), 18 cms. to the IPCC.

10 .- The report acknowledges that the last interglacial, the emiense, rising sea level was higher than the present (p. 8). Therefore there is no danger of the twentieth century no one has died so far from the sea level. In fact, in yet another web against warming hysteria www.john-daly.com shows pictures of lowering sea level by as much as Tasmania, South Australia, near the South Pole.

11 .- never has been a disaster by 0.6 degrees in a century, even for hard or 1.8 with 5 ° as they speculate. Or should not cite specific examples. They are natural oscillations. The only adverse effect with 5-second would be to cut a cooling of the Gulf Stream due to freshwater input l and says Wally Broecker (Campos, Calor Glacial, 2005). The high heat and bring prosperity C02 as the discoverer said Svante Arrehnius greenhouse.

12 .- never has been a disaster and climate change caused by man, but the Big Five and global natural causes or by ice, which is a reasonable explanation to current climate change. The IPCC acknowledges error in its definition of climate change from the previous report ("change of climate attributed directly or indirectly to human activity." (page 2, footnote 1), which shows their ignorance climate and blame dogmatism and fanaticism always changes climate to human beings. It has taken 6 years to recognize his error principiante.Pero still interested in blaming it all on humans.

13. - Do not include volcanic aerosols in Figure SPM 2 (p. . 16) for the anthropogenic effect seems more or to distort the actual data line.

14 - slyly hide in the graphic SPM-3 (p. 17) data for snow cover in Antarctica, which represents 90% of the cryosphere or ice in the world and increasing alarmingly, to the extent that the 2005, reached record of -85 degrees below zero near the absolute record of -89.2 °. In the Ross Ice Shelf has increased after 6000 years of holocene melting (Joughin & Tulaczyk, 2002). The IPCC pseudoexpertos only put on the graph the loss of Arctic ice, which is partial, since in general Greenland cools (Johanessen et al, 2005), and that the Arctic ice represents only 6% of the cryosphere (global ice).

15 - say the snow is less abundant, while historical snowfall occurring in inappropriate places such as Tasmania or Somalia in the summer (2006 and 2005), Melilla, Cordoba, Japan, Casablanca, New Dehli Texas, Malibu or exaggerated in others such as Colorado, Canada, Russia, Poland, Germany (2005-2006) etc ..., where in 2005 a pavilion collapsed under snow. In India, thousands were killed in 2006, the Indian Daily came to run an editorial saying that we are approaching an ice age.

16 .- There has never been a catastrophe of 370 ppm or 540 ppm C02, quantity existing in cities and heavily industrialized and had in the Carboniferous with temperatures equal to the current without any cataclysm occurred, except cooling (Scotese, 2001-Berner, 2001) . ( http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-14/escala-geologica-2.jpg )

17 .- recognize that Antarctica, the barometer of the land, not cools (Doran et al, 2002 )....( page. 9 and 12), which contradicts the whole theory, why the C02 warming heats the Arctic but not the South Pole? . They also recognize that there was a warming in the 20-30 in the Arctic, a fact which implies that capital can be as natural and innocuous as that ..

18 .- The report lies because Greenland ice increases by 54 cm, according to studies by satellites (Johanessen et al, 2005), although some parts are thawed, something that happened in the last two glaciations, cutting Gulf Stream, so the only danger is cooling not warming.

19 .- The report lies with this warming is unusual, the largest of the last 1300 years, when the Medieval Optimum 1,100 years ago Greenland was an orchard and cultivated the vine in England (HH Lamb, Climate History and the modern world , 1982 HH Lamb, The Changing climate , 1966). The hot-cold oscillations half a degree and much more is happening in the history of climate, is so natural it seems insane to try to blame the man for it.

20 .- The report lies with the world's ice is melting everywhere. Fowland (2006), a member of the IPCC, found that glaciers in the Himalayas wins, and blamed the "botched" warming. As the IPCC paid the Survey refers to the conclusion. The largest glaciers are increasing, as Lambert of Antarctica, or the Perito Moreno in Patagonia ( climate history, 2003, pg. 1991 et seq.). Braithwaite (2002) has said it can not establish any trend either upward or downward. The Aletsch Alpine melt in the nineteenth and thaws Kilimanjaro natural causes for deforestation (Khas et al, 2004).

21 .- incredibly The report acknowledges that the daytime temperatures decrease from 1950-1993 and until 2004 (p.6). The maximum daytime only increased 0.2 ° (Esterling et al, 1997), which shows that global warming fears are a media spin. They also state that sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon soot and cool the atmosphere (p. 3). A study of Meinrat Andreae (2005), the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry, said that reducing pollution in the atmosphere may result in a greater warming. Bailis et al (Science , 2005) concluded that the use of fossil fuels in Africa instead of wood reducing C02 ....¡!. Boucot et al (2004) studied the greenhouse effect of C02 in the history of the land and came to doubt that it was a gas emissions. This shows that almost everything the IPCC says is dogma without scientific foundation.

22 .- Simulations are speculations that can not be verified. Are invalid because they do not include the important solar cycles, vertical flows (342 W/m2 (watts per square meter) that enter the atmosphere and 390 W/m2 withdrawn) and ocean dynamics and clouds, cosmic rays and night temperatures . The IPCC only based on simulations, not empirical evidence. Michael Crichton says in State of Fear (2005) that in the models, such as snuff packages would have to put this stamp: "SIMULATION BY ERROR May be erroneous and unverified. " Crichton says that global warming hysteria by C02 is a media myth and dogma, as was the theory of eugenics (sterilization racist) or twentieth-century theories of Lysenko farm in Stalinist Russia, which were accepted unanimously by all world and were an absolute fraud.

23 .- All skeptics (Singer, Seitz, Mackitrick, Macyntire, Lindzen, Michaels, Robinson, Chylek, Erren, Morgan, Green, Wojick, Ballin, Michaels, Lindzen, Balling, Idso, Sharp, Gray , Taylor, Plimer, Clark, Michel, Essex, Mutya, Kininmonth, Khadenkar, O'Brien, Sauers, Hetch, Ball, Cooper, Patterson, Mullis, Brekke, Nowell, Pocklingtong, P. Stoot, Veizer, Essenghign, Gerhard, Moene, Ellsaesser, Dietze, etc. .. (See full list in Campos, Calor Glacial , pg. 123 et seq) and the main solar specialists (Bokova Abdusamatov, Kondratyev, Mashnich, Solanky, Bashkirtesev, Soon, Baliunas, ...), are besides Landscheidt betados and censored at the IPCC. Even officers waste their time on making pages for them on the Internet accusing them of "mass murder" (Soon, Baliunas, Seitz ... http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html )

"a climatologist Dennis Bray Germany, analyzed the results of an international study showed that only 10% of scientists believed that climate changes were caused by human activity. Again, refused Science publish it. "They say it does not fit with what they intend to publish," said Bray.Los parents. Noami Oreskes and Roy Spencer reported the same, including Science censorship in articles against warming ( Tom Bethell, The Politically Incorrect Guide to science, Citadel, Madrid, 2006, pp. 1554-155)

24 .- Nowhere in this report demonstrates that man has caused climate change. It is said that man is "very likely" the cause (p.8). But science can not be based on probabilities, beliefs, or computer models pseudoecologista sentimentality but proven facts. Nobody can say that E is = "probably" amx c2. This is not science.

25. - The report is peppered all over the pages of word "probably ." In the main table of predictions from pg. 7 the word "likely" out 19 times. This has no scientific validity. These are all speculations and speculations of a political organization that asks for money and a new office of the Governments BUREAUCRATIC ...?) by unsubstantiated hypothesis (why Bolin modeler created the IPCC in 1990?).

26 .- There is no reference to any scientific or work, except the UN's own report (called TAR , 2001) or refutarlos.Todo skeptical about what we read we must accept by faith , as do all journalists and television networks vulnerable in the world, are as valid the report without reading it or prove that "the test of a million does not appear anywhere."

27. - There are no references in the graphs of methodology, parameters, or authors, we believe them by faith, apart from being simulated. Everything is Science Fiction and Canned scan in a political and media report.

28 .- In any simulation, text or study demonstrates or shows the number of human C02.

29 .- In any simulation, text or study shows that the estimate of 6000 million tons of human C02 is the cause of climate change, other than that this can not be because very little 6 billion annually and 750,000 of 186,000 total in the atmosphere. (Essex & Mackitrick, 2003).

30 .- Breathing emit 2500 million tonnes a year and half of those 6000 is absorbed or agriculture / livestock thereby leaving only 1500 million.

31. - The report denied, hidden or unknown Gleissberg solar minimum of 2030 to cool the world, as happened with the Maunder Minimum in the seventeenth century. It also denies the Suess solar cycle, or cycle Mayewski of marine currents, according to which now we should chill.

32. - The report, denied, hidden and unknown graphic CLIMAT future prediction based on the evolution of oxygen isotopes in ice, made for years by leading experts from the University of Columbia-LDOE (Hay et al, 1976) whereby we will chill.

33 .- The report, denied, hidden or unknown Milankovicht cycles according to which (the 100,000 years and the interglacial 10,000) now or in this century could play a glaciation. (115.0000 ago was the last interglacial and 11,600 years ago). The long-overdue glaciation and the C02 would be good, because it delays the ice as other renowned expert said Walter Ruddiman (2005).

34 .- The report denied, hidden, unknown and censorship all the scientific studies that predict cooling or glaciation, such as Landscheidt, Jawarowski, Abdusamatov, Solanky, Hoyle, Wickramasinghe, Bokova, Zhen-Shan, L ., Xian, Essenhigh etc ... (Campos, Calor Glacial , 2005)

35 .- The report omits the statement Wally Broecker, leading expert on ocean currents and discoverer of the "current conveyor belts" world, who declared that the Gulf Stream will stop at 100 years (world exclusive Fields , Heat Glacia l, 2005, p. 131. "If things continue as they are now, perhaps the conveyor belt can be stopped"), implying a local cooling, which confirms to Richard Alley in the same work, one IPCC barons, who once spoke of the break of the Gulf Stream, but has now been bewitched by the spell cost of heating. It should be added that if we are to the minimum Gleissberg "things will continue as usual", as experts predict as Bryden and Wadhams and quote the film who The tomorrow to discuss the future of the Gulf Stream.

36. - The report does not explain the cold waves rages worldwide and cause thousands of deaths since 2003.- 40th in 2006 in Moscow

37 .- The report begins with an error that the C02 temperature increases when in the 40-70 temperature cooled 0.3 ° and the C02 was still rising. In the Cambrian we had 7000 ppm (parts per million) and 379 ppm now. No polluted then and not think of any disaster. (Scotesse 2001, Berner 2001). At the time of the dinosaurs come to 3000 or 6000 ppm had no industry and it ended in an ice age.

38 .- The IPCC defends economic interests: the Kyoto market $ 200,000 million only until 2012 lobbying by environmentalists and multinational oil companies like BP, Acciona, Shell, Sharp, Siemens, Gas Natural, Enron, which compete in the energy market against their enemy the cheap coal and electricity. Besides having a greedy thirst and endless subsidies to demand millions for dubious studies and weather offices of living since 1990.

Because 39 .- Professor Fred Singer, former director Weather Satellite Service, the U.S., rejects all dogmas of the IPCC on Hot Talk, Cold Science, 1998, as well as countless websites on the Internet as www.friendsofscience.org , www.co2scienceorg.com , www.mitosyfraudes.8k.com , www.john-daly.com . What he does Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist, (2007), former member of Greenpeace who denounced the unscientific fanaticism of this radical organization that is being lining the warming since 1988 and has more benefits than Real Madrid (50 million per year in 2004). Greenpeace has nearly 3 million members who pay a fee of about 18 euros per month: have the calculation, adding it collects in a separate foundation that raises and ignorant unsuspecting donors around the world. You can earn up to 480 million euros a year

40 .- For Frederick Seitz, former president of the Academy of Sciences of the USA and president and head www.oism.org more visible statement Petition Project of 1997, against the world's thesis discussed IPCC and Kyoto, was a member of the IPCC and dropped out of there because he said: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption in the peer review (review scientific data) that the events that led to this IPCC report "(Calor Glacial, 2005, pg. 116). That sums up the reality of this corrupt (cf. the book by Eric Frattini, UN , a story of corruption , 2005) and pseudo-UN body, which we all pay our taxes that also boasts a scientist when all dissent censorship, falsifies graphics (the famous hockey stick embarrassing Mann, hiding in the medieval warmth to our parazca higher) and bases all its predictions made by computer numerical musings .., of which the former editor of Science , Philip B. Abelson said, "is found unanimously that the computer models are deficient" (Glacial Heat , pg. 119).

to members of the IPCC as Bragaza, Karoly and Arblaster (2004) recognize that the top 5 models that the UN does not take into account nighttime temperatures and influence of clouds, apart of solar cycles, cosmic rays and ocean dynamics. Meyer has said in Nature ". The construction of the consensus (IPCC) will be permanently compromised" (Calor Glacial . P. 119)

© Luis Carlos Campos / ips.

Jewel De'nyle торрент

"an ice age is coming" Climate Forecast

Contents . Interviews .

	Luis Carlos Campos Nieto
	"glaciation was about"
	Nacho Fernández
Luís Carlos Campos Nieto (Santander). Degree in Hispanic Studies from the University of Salamanca.Máster in Journalism by El Pais / Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Reporter Cambio 16 and the Courier English and has collaborated with leading English media, El Pais, Interviu, The Century and Beyond. He has worked as a financial consultant and works with the FAEC, the organization most critical environmental issues there. He is the author of Hot Ice that is already in bookstores Arcopress Editions. Nacho Fernández .- When and why did you start to write this book? Nieto Luis Carlos Campos .- A couple of years, after more than 5 of documentation due to reports on climate change. He had the intuition that official theory was false and that what was an ice age was coming, not a warming. Q. - What we will find in Calor Glacial, the last Revelation ? R .- A test-macrorreportaje with exclusive statement of the world's leading experts in completely dismantling the official thesis of the non-existent anthropogenic warming and ozone hole and put in countless evidence that we are approaching an ice age may be just around the corner. It is also an informative book to understanding climate Current weather and chaos. Also try puzzles exciting as the sudden disappearance of continents like Atlantis and Mu in the last glaciation. Something else can happen now. P. - His research is supported by scientific literature or are simply speculation. R .- have scientific support whatsoever. Quoting statements and studies of thousands of scientists who deny global warming: there are 17,800 of an organization called oism ( www.oism.org ). Jaworowski, a glaciologist world authority, was responsible for global UN radiation protection, me yes, but in 2002 I discussed it. Victor Bokova, a personal friend of the Institute of Arctic and Antarctic Research (the largest in the world), the only scientist who predicted the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, I also confirms and declares me WORLD EXCLUSIVE critical process that begins in 2010, I also presented the book. The other scientist who presents me is Anton Uriarte, a climatologist most critical in Spain. The book is very difficult to refute, for me, almost impossible, because an ice age now would play according to the cycles. P. - There is a history de esta nueva realidad que usted predice R .- El científico John Gribbin, ex editor de Nature , que también cree que la glaciación podría llegar mañana, ya escribió una novela sobre el asunto del mundo en glaciación, El Sexto Invierno (1979) . P.- ¿Es todo ficción lo que leemos?, ¿Podrá ser real lo que nos cuenta? R .- Todo lo que cuento es real. Es más creo que la ficción de El Día de Mañana , cuya carátula is the cover of the book will become a reality in the not too distant future Q. - If there is ice as you notice symptoms predicts that humans and how they relate to their new environment. R .- A glaciation is positive news, although it relates to some natural disasters. It would be a gradual leap in history and a global mutation. The ice ages were those that made evolve or proto-hominids, cold expanding the brain and the neurologist says William H. Calvin, who also hopes an ice age. Q - You claim many interests in precisely the opposite theory, which holds global warming, what does not seem consistent in that position and who are interested in keeping the earth warm? R .- This theory is a scam, to rebut a couple of sentences. Mars is also warming, to whom we cast blame on Bush or Martians?. The warming we have is natural and is not comprehensive because most of Greenland and the Antarctic cold. In the 40 to 70 and temperatures dipped into the world, but the C02 was getting worse. This shows that the increase in C02-to-benefit is minimal and has little to do with what is happening. A media celebrity, Michael Crichton, said just now as I do in his latest bestseller State of Fear, where he puts up graphics, bibliography and footnotes. Read the book and see that I have more reason than a saint. It is time that the entire world know what tells El País and El Mundo and all means every day is a grotesque lie, sloppy and selfish. Kyoto and Greenpeace is a business. We pollute the least and we will pay 19,000 million euros to Germany and France for Kyoto. It's insane. The last two ice ages were caused by the melting, which cut off the Gulf Stream that warms the Northern Hemisphere. Q. - some tips to be prepared if it glaciation and we must do to survive this prediction. R .- must be informed and depending on the area where you live must be prevented disaster, earthquake, or maybe you should emigrate if things get ugly. The countries most affected are near the poles, while in Europe the temperatures come down a lot. Lift is the seismic zone more dangerous, then the South. Will notice the economy, especially agriculture, communications and tourism industry. P. - Man, as a species believed to survive or perish from the earth. R .- course survive. I am a positive catastrophic. Even if you freeze all the earth, as has happened in the past, we could survive as Jaworowski said. In the southern hemisphere such as Brazil, and in many places, can live almost as far. Although I must say that the glaciers have always caused mass extinctions, in fact already occurring in animal species such as bees, amphibians, butterflies and bats that are suddenly disappearing without anyone saying why. I revealed the cause: it is by about an ice age. P. - If nature is a continuous running motor, believes he can get to degenerate to produce a state of collapse? R .- Nature, in my opinion never degenerates (despite appearances), or species, the only thing here is the man degenerates. Nature is always evolving, very slowly towards the maximum expansion. One of the thesis book is that the apparent errors of nature as disasters, earthquakes, tsunamis, the Indian is typical of glacial-phases are not random, and have a purpose related specifically to the development and climate change. Serve to rebalance the global system, as postulated Catastrophe Theory of René Thom. Here the only thing wrong is the man or the minister Narbonne. Q. - Do you think that such books help readers find? R .- Total. Everyone sees the news and wondering what is happening. Throw the fossil fuels blamed when only 6000 million tons emitted into the atmosphere, and half will be absorbed again. Is there a danger that only 3000 million a year, when we issued 2,500 million breathing. On top of those three billion, half are due to agriculture and livestock. This proves that what we have is a gigantic scientific scam nobody can refute. My book is public service and uncover the largest media and scientific fraud in the history of mankind. The ice is by far the biggest news of this century. We head Gleissberg least 2030, why it was so cold this winter. The cold polar you have to start to notice much earlier. Madrid in October 2005

Can You Do Mma With Genital Herpes

Up to 2030 herds and Pseudoscience

Climate Outlook to 2030

FAEC NOTE: In official publication of the Royal Society of Sciences in Britain, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, was released less than a week ago a study entitled "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar forcing Climate and Temperature Mean Surface Air" by author Mike Lockwood and Claus Frölich, the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium, Davos, Switzerland, respectively, with a conclusion that seeks to "put the final nail in the coffin of the discussion about the solar influence on climate ".

Although much optimism and unbridled triumphalism has spread in the community of supporters of catastrophic global warming, this study is running the same fate as the unfortunate hockey stick of Michael Mann et al, 1998, also published as " last nail in the coffin. "From a cursory analysis of the study, it appears that the authors confuse some aspects of solar activity, such as "irradiance" and "Heat" as if they were the only elements produced by the sun His conclusions are curious because with a brief observation of solar activity over the past 20 years, and a reprehensible way handling statistics (garbage in, garbage out), the pre-Tende discard the very strong correlation observed from 1620 to date, including climate variations and solar activity


say the authors:

" There is considerable evidence for solar influence on pre-industrial climate of the Earth and the Sun may well have been a factor in changing post-industrial climate in the first half of last century. Here we show that during the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun, which may have had influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed increase in global average temperatures. "

Consequently, the only reason left to explain the temperature rise is, when no! carbon dioxide, but emitted by human activities. The sad thing about this study is that it forgets that besides failing to take into account a number of factors essential for a proper analy-sis, as the duration of solar cycles, have not fallen into account the authors that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not explain (rather completely contradicts) the drop in temperatures occurred throughout the 20 th century, and especially the sharp drop in temperature has been experiencing the Southern Hemisphere since about 2000.

This drop in temperature of the planet's south has become very evident throughout the last year and became more pronounced during the summer, fall and culminated in the very severe cold wave polar tilts from early May and caused the historic snowfall of Buenos Aires-repeated fact that after 89 years when the June 22, 1918 snowfall huge covered the capi-tal of Argentina.

To understand that there are other fundamental factors not covered by the authors of the "final nail" - published a study by Dr. David Archibald, Australian climatologist, about their weather forecasts through 2030, based on studies of over solar cycle.

Eduardo Ferreyra President of FAEC

Climate Forecast Up in 2030 [1]

David Archibald Summa
Develpment Ltd., Perth, Australia

ABSTRACT

Our forecast for average global temperatures in 2030 have been updated by the progression of Solar Cycle 23 and the contribution it will make the anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. The long growing Solar Cycle 23 supports the view that Solar Cycle 24 will be weak, and consequently an increase in the certainty that there will be an overall decrease in the average temperature in the range of 1 to 2 degrees C for the forecast period. The projected 40 ppm increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2030 is estimated to contribute a 0.04 ° C in global mean temperature. The human contribution climate change within the time specified will be insignificant relative to natural cyclic variation.




INTRODUCTION Numerous published correlations on past solar activity and climate record. These studies include correlations of the record of ice ages and isotope 10Be oped detailed work on the temperature record of the 20th century by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) [2]. These studies show that the climate of the Earth moves in tight relation with solar activity. A number of solar physicists are now also predicting future solar activity, with some of these predictions extending beyond 2100.

Archibald (2006) used the calibration provided by the work done on the historical record to make a prediction of global climate response to solar cycles 24 and 25. The conclusion of this study was that low amplitudes projected for these two solar cycles, made by a number of solar physicists of high repute, will result in a global decline in atmospheric temperature in the range of 2 º C. Empratura This response is similar to that occurred during solar minimum Dalton, from 1796 to 1820, a period well documented how low amplitudes des cycles 5 and 6 caused a low global temperature.


Solar Cycle Progression
23
The average solar cycle is 10.7 years. Solar Cycle 23 began in May 1996, rising to a peak of 120.9 marks in April 2000. For solar cycle 23 had an average duration of 10.7 years, Solar Cycle 24 should have started in January 2007. The first spots usually appear on the Sun more than 20 degrees latitude on the surface of the Sun According to the last two solar cycles, the first sunspots appear 12 to 20 months before the start of the new cycle. Apart from a few magnetic dipoles without Sun spots have not been registered to date, no reverse polarity sunspot with a latitude of more than 20 degrees above the solar Ecuador. This means that the solar cycle is still at least a year away, or else the "rule of observations" is wrong.

large solar cycles usually arrive early and short solar cycles do later. If the "observation rule" relationship between the first patch of sunlight of the new cycle and its timing are firm, then the Solar Cycle 23 will be at least 12 years long. It also follows from this that the longer the delay until the month of solar minimum, the weaker the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24. Friis-Chrsitensen

and Lassen (1991) found that during the period between 1850 and 1990 solar cycle length correlates better with temperature than with the amplitude of the cycle. This was confirmed by the data of temperatures in Armagh, Ireland, according to Butler and Johnston (1996) [3], that showed a strong correlation of 0.5 º C in average annual temperatuira per year of solar cycle length.

Figure 1: Transition from Cycle 22 to Cycle 23 Data provided by J, Janssens, the Belgian Solar Section

Solar minimum is the lowest point in the overlap between the old cycle sunspots and sunspot high latitude reverse polarity new cycle. This is illustrated in Figure 1 showing the transition of Solar Cycle 22 to Solar Cycle 23.


Size of Solar Cycle 24

Figure 2 illustrates the range of predictions of the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24 among solar physicists. There are currently 24 published predictions, of which 7 have been selected for this figure. The highest prediction is provided by Dikpati (2006) [4] and the lowest by Clilverd (2006) [5] . Schatten (2004) [6] has the longest record in predicting the amplitude of solar cycles, using the force of the Sun's polar magnetic fields in a solar dynamo model.

The importance of the meaning of this breadth of predictive values \u200b\u200bis equivalent to a range of 2.0 º C in average global temperatures. This range is significant in terms of the observed rise of 0.6 º C global mean temperature during the 20 th century. Dikpati's forecast of 175 spots is similar to the peak of Solar Cycle 19 of 190 spots in 1957. The late 50's praise was a period of high temperatures before 20 years of cooling in the mid 70's, it was caused by weak solar cycle 20. The 42-Clilverd forecast, if realized, would be the lowest in the last 300 years.

Figure 2: Predictions of the amplitude of solar cycle 24

Effects of Increased Atmospheric CO2 on the temperature

The annual growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 30 years is 1.7 parts per million (ppm). The current level of 376 ppm is projected to increase Hsat 420 ppm by 2030. Using her existing MODTRANS program at the University of Chicago, in Figure 4 shows the relationship between carbon dioxide content and the increase in global average temperature.

Figure 4: Atmospheric Temperature increase per 20 ppm of carbon dioxide increases.

The projected 40 ppm increase reduces emission from the stratosphere to space from 279.6 to 279.2 watt/m2 watt/m2. Using the temperature response demonstrated by Sherwood Idso (1998) [7] of 0.1 º C by watt/m2, this difference of 0.4 watts / m 2 equivalent to an increase in temperature of the atmosphere of 0, 04 º C. The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is logarithmic and thus climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration of CO2. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide have a greater effect on temperature than the next 400 ppm. Increasing the CO2 content of a further 200 ppm to the 620 ppm, projected for the year 2150 will result in a further increase of 0.16 ° C global average temperature.

The projected increase to 620 ppm is likely to be achieved if China's economic expansion continues for the next 10 years at the same rate it did during the past 10 years. Figure 5 shows the carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere of the United States, Australia, and China, with historical data to 2005 and projected to 2020. Chinese emissions, which were estimated to outstrip the U.S. in 2009 was in fact in the month of April 2007. CO2 emissions per capita of the three countries will be equal to 2020.

Figure 5: CO2 Emissions to Air America, China and Australia for the period 1906 to 2020 Source: Analysis Center Carbon Dioxide Information, Department of Energy, United States.

1. References Archibald, D. 2006, Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response Energy and Environment, 17, 29-38.
2. Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen 1991, Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700.
3. Butler, C. J. and D.J.Johnston., 1996, A provisional long mean air temperature series for Armagh Observatory. J. Atmos. Terrestrial Phys., 58, 1657-1672.
4. Dikpati, M., G. de Toma and P.A.Gilman 2006, Predicting the strength of solar cycle 24 using a flux-transport dynamo-based tool Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L05102
5. Clilverd, M., E.Clarke, T.Ulrich, H.Rishbeth and M.J.Jarvis 2006, Predicting Solar Cycle 24 and beyond, Space Weather, 4, S09005
6. Schatten, K.H. and W.K.Tobiska 2003, Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 35 (3), 6.03
7. Idso, S. 1998, CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of climate change Potential Climate Research, 10, 69-82.

By: David Archibald Summa
Develpment Ltd., Perth, Australia

Posted by: Eduardo Ferreyra President
FAEC

Amazon Tree Boa For Sale 2010

Herds and Pseudoscience

long time has been hearing the argument of a "scientific consensus" climate change and global warming. This is nothing more than "groupthink" or more simply: the herd instinct. Interestingly, the herd is always candidly ram which leads to the slaughter ...

The herd instinct is a tendency of human nature, which in itself is a severe disadvantage in science. Instead of fighting it as best we can, we have invented a method to help advance science - a review of studies pairs, or "peer review" - which in real life makes it virtually impossible to separate from the flock, continue to support, can continue publication, or remain all the advantages required to work in any scientific field.

If any subject had to start a diversity of views, the system of peer review will ensure a very short life for that situation, and soon the field will be closed and will access only on those who are in the middle. Dissidents in the periphery are considered wolves attacking sheep. They are heretics.

Once the flock has been established, regardless of the historical evolution that has led to it, it gets so tight control is extremely difficult to do something about it. And even if it is found this is the situation, do not know how to interfere. Where is then the right to free speech if the scientific literature have to send each item to a lot of people and the bulk of these people are in the flock? Usually, with only a third of the reviews that are negative study does not get published. And the views of the heretics are thrown away because they "are not published in scientific journals with peer review. It is the fallacy of "circular reasoning", more popularly known as Catch-22, or The Catch-22, in memory of the great Alan Arkin movie where you could not ask withdrawal from the front line reason of insanity, because anyone wishing to withdraw from the front is very sane! Petition denied.

So there is no freedom of expression in the sense that you can not publish a diversity of views. Nor is freedom of speech in the conference because the same applies here. Can those who have a divergent view of the herd organize your own conferences? Very rarely. Essentially once the herd has been formed, will interfere with all activities necessary to advance science.

Does he want the rector of a university to promote a chair someone who is out of the flock? It can not, because you have to send letters to key people in that field, you should ask at least 20 people before getting permission to name someone in a chair, and how do you get the permission when the herd is moving in a direction different from this person? No chance. Chant says the situation is worsening every day and more.

Once the flock has been established in relation to any matter, can only be destroyed by confrontation with the evidence more overwhelming. There was in the history of science no other polite way to do it, once that the flock was formed, there was no other way to disarm him. Alfred Wegener was out of the flock for his theory of continental drift and plate tectonics for over 30 years. Only after his disappearance in the Greenland ice sheet recognized the validity of his theory. Evidence crashed into the herd of geologists and pulverized.


Science or Pseudoscience?

A heated debate on the question whether "global warming" is pseudoscience or not, depending on the definition of "pseudoscience" and the definition of "science." For On the other hand: Is global warming a science? Definitely not. Global warming is a climate event and not a science. Is studied by a large set of different scientific disciplines, among which are meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, astronomy, and various specialties such as oceanography. Meteorology studies the phenomena of weather and climate at small scales in time, hours or days, whereas what we call climate studies the large time scales longer regions of years, decades, centuries, millennia. But there is no climate science. is an epistemological question.

may be an analogy between climate and a puzzle: Everyone claims to have a piece of the puzzle, but the problem is that we lack the lid of the box. We do not know if the full image will be a Veleritos at sea or a Sioux chief. To make matters worse, do not even have the four corners of the picture: the atmosphere, oceans, the sun and the lithosphere (including the biosphere). While there are serious scientists scratch their heads wondering how a piece fits with the others, is eager owners of the puzzle that, if a piece does not fit with another, get it by applying a good hammer, or the indiscriminate use saw, rasp and sandpaper.

latter are the "shapers" really bright programmers and very expensive video game computers. If any of your assumptions seems to fit with reality, then it is best to change the reality adjusting the values \u200b\u200bof variables and constants that represent it to fit his premise. In the jargon of modelers call "best fit" or "best fit." And the result is presented as "evidence" that the evidence used to test theories, and theories and tested "to Al Gore, are used to promulgate regulations that policies inevitably become in higher taxes and more government power. All for the sake of saving a catastrophe ever imagined and unsubstantiated.

sciences make use of hypotheses and theories, things to be validated, that is, moving all the acid tests of observation, evidence, and logic. In our subject, there are observations (warming), there is an idea or hypothesis (the greenhouse effect), there are certain tests of these hypotheses (paleoclimate studies, reconstructions of temperature and CO2 levels, the hockey stick, etc.), and where things seem to go wrong.

tests fail in their assumptions intento de probarlas, sin embargo parece que un tácito y silencioso “acuerdo entre caballeros” –algo sine qua non entre miembros del rebaño- requiere que la hipótesis sea salvada a toda costa. No importa el precio. Hay demasiados intereses económicos, geopolíticos, personales, fama y puestos de trabajo que hay que cuidar. Las acciones que parecen ser “pseudo-ciencia” son los métodos científicos usados para sustentar a la explicación y atribución de culpabilidad de la observación: calentamiento. Los métodos científicos tradicionales han sido, por supuesto, absolutamente violados o ignorados.

Entonces, para saber si lo que está manejando the scene of global warming and climate change, he is doing in a scientific and accurate, we must know what is pseudoscience . Query Wikipedia site gives a list of the characteristics of pseudoscience, showing astrology as a case study. And it gives us also the view of Mario Bunge Argentine epistemologist about what is "pseudoscience"

"A pseudoscience is a lot of clubs that is sold as science. Examples: alchemy, astrology, characterology, scientific communism, scientific creationism, graphology, ufology, parapsychology and psychoanalysis. "

And a little further down they say,

In general, the scientific method requires that theories can be subjected to rigorous empirical tests, while pseudoscience, or is not possible to implement systems for rebuttal (because it is ambiguous formulations) or protect his theory (for example, or ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses, made a posteriori), rather than submit to tests that could disprove it.

Scientific Methodology

Now we have to explain what the scientific method to what extent will tell us whether climate change falls into the "pseudo-scientific methods" or not.

"set of steps determined in advance by a discipline to achieve valid knowledge through reliable instruments," "standard sequence to ask and answer to a question", "pattern that allows researchers get from point A to point Z with the confidence to obtain valid knowledge. "So the method is a set of steps trying to protect ourselves from the subjectivity of knowledge. The scientific method is supported by two pillars fundamental. The first is reproducibility, ie the ability to repeat a given experiment at any place and by anyone. This pillar is based essentially on communication and advertising results. The second pillar is falsifiability . This means that every scientific statement must be capable of being falsified ( falsificationism ). This means you can design experiments that provide for different results from those predicted deny the hypothesis testing.

not go to list the large number of scientific methods that exist because it would be to end tomorrow. Interested in knowing more, I have well explained in the Scientific Method of Wikipedia.


"Empirical Evidence?

The main-and almost the only pillar that sustains the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming are the results (called "projections" or "scenarios") of climate models called "General Circulation Models, which are presented by the IPCC and the media as" evidence "of anthropogenic climate change. There is no such thing. The results of the computer models are just evidence of clever programming that tends to "prove" a pre-established premise.

models say that global warming is directly responsible for the CO2 and its increase since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750. What tests have to prove that statement? Graphs showing a correlation between levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rise of temperature. But this correlation causality test is it? Is it evidence that the increased CO2 produces a significant increase in temperature? No, it is . Our understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:

1. 1985 to 2000: Information from Antarctic ice cores led us to suspect that the CO2 caused the warming.
2. 2000 to 2007: The new studies, from the work of Jaworowski and Monnin in 2000, Ernst Beck in 2006, showed that neither pre-industrial CO2 levels eran de 270 ppm, ni que el aumento del CO2 causa el aumento de la temperatura. Sorprendentemente, lo contrario es la verdad. En la historia climática de la tierra, ha sido siempre el aumento de la temperatura quien ha inducido un posterior aumento del CO2 atmosférico.
3. Desde agosto 2007: Sabemos con seguridad que el CO2 no es la causa del calentamiento global. El CO2 no es más un sospechoso en el crimen del cambio climático, sino que las sospechas se hacen cada vez más fuertes sobre otro sospechoso: las variaciones de la actividad del Sol.
   

Los únicos datos sobre temperatura en que podemos confiar son los obtenidos por los satélites, y ellos begin only in 1978. Why are not reliable data from ground stations? Because it has been proven in a very recent research (still ongoing), which most weather stations in the U.S. national network failures occur almost outrageous in the placement of measuring instruments, 85% nearby heat sources that produce falsely high readings.

Then, to prove our point just enough to see the total lack of correlation between the gradual and steady growth of CO2 and temperature variations between December 1978 and November 2007:

1: temperature (green line) and CO2 levels (upper gray line) Source: NOAA / GISS

see that since 1998 the overall temperature while begun to decline that CO 2 increasing steadily continued and gradually. Then, on what scientific basis supporting the IPCC reports, its alarmist allegations and urgency to the Kyoto Treaty is expanded to limits that will mean the collapse of many national economies -Especially the developing countries. Then we must make the salary of the IPCC scientists and other propulsion of this fantastic theory, a series of questions related to the science and the scientific methodology used. Among many others come to mind:

1. Can they explain more clearly what is causing the climate science in a scientific manner?
   
2. Are they doing the measurements meeting the Nyquist sampling theorem?
   
3. Are measuring correctly CO2 fluxes, and not simply mean multiplying instead of taking integrals of functions that fluctuate quickly?
   
4. Are they considering coupled complex systems such as oceans and the atmosphere is very unlikely to have a fixed point of balance?
   
5. Are they trying to reproduce experimentally the process of occlusion of air bubbles trapped in the snow gradually compressed to prove that the composition of air remains the same after decompression?
   
6. Are you doing something real science should (or could) do?

No answers to these questions. So far it has been found that none of this is being done, and that greater emphasis on "authority" of guilt based on false correlations, which in real investigation to discover the mechanism that actually govern the weather.

Discussions in the field of climate change should be within the context of essential or nonessential criteria. For example, the observed resistance to test new theories, and the emphasis on the above observations confirm the test for, as stated above, attributing blame innocent people and divert attention to other possible perpetrators of past warming or cooling current, as seems to be variations in solar activity.

The issue of falsifiability of hypotheses and theories is crucial in climate change and global warming. But what is the falsifiability of theories? Wikepedia comes to our aid again:

The falsificationism refutationism or principle of falsifiability is a current epistemological founded by Karl Popper. For Popper contrast means trying to refute a theory by a counterexample. If you can not disprove, the theory is borne out, may be accepted provisionally, but never verified. The problem of induction arises from the fact that we can never say something universal from the particular data that gives us the experience. For many millions of black crows we see we can never say that "all crows are black." In contrast, if we find a single crow is not black, they can say "Not all crows are black." For this reason Popper introduced as a scientific demarcation criterion falsificationism.

All this long introduction is to determine whether the theory or hypothesis of climate change caused by man has a scientific or, if it can be "falsified" theory has to go back to the drawing board and be reformed until it can not be falsified or disproved or disproved, or proved false. This demonstration has been made but, of course, the IPCC and its 2500 scientists who do not pass 400, remain ignorant, or pretend you have not heard anything about it. Now, then:

From Wikipedia definitions (English version) copied below, we see one or more cases where the criterion applies to the theory Warming Global anthropic, ie caused by human activities.

What follows is what is proposed as indicators that there is a poor scientific reasoning, but not converted to the science involved in pseudo-science:

1. Using vague statements, exaggerated, or lack of evidence.
   
2. Making statements about scientific matters that are vague rather than precise, and the absence of specific measurements.
   
3. lack of effective control in the design of experiments.
   
4. Overconfidence on confirmation rather than refutation.
   
5. Making scientific claims that can not be "falsified" in the event of being incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also falsifiability).
   
6. Asserting that the claims have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Arguing from ignorance)
   
7. Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes. The testimonials and anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (eg.: Hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (eg.: hypothesis testing)
   
8. Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data seem to support their own claims while suppressing or refusing to consider information that conflicts with their assumptions.
   
9. Reversal of burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on those who make a statement, not a critic. The arguments "pseudo" can ignore this principle and demand that skeptics are proved, beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (eg.: A claim regarding with a new therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a negative universe, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than on who makes the claim.
   
10. Lack of openness to testing theories by other experts.
    
11. Evasion of peer review before publishing results (called "science by press release),
    
12. The scientific community expects authors to share information needed to assess a study. Failure to provide adequate information other researchers to reproduce the results claimed is a lack of openness. (This is the case of the famous hockey stick of Michael Mann, quine to date has not provided their data for review).
    
13. Make appeals to professional secrecy or copyright in response to requests for review of the information or methodology.
    
14. Lack of self correction: scientific research programs make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time. In contrast, theories are accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unchanged despite all contradictory evidence.
    Strong
15. social groups and organizations, authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In an attempt to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.
    
16. Claims of a conspiracy by the scientific community to suppress results.
    
17. Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims of the theory (see the fallacy Ad Hominem)

and reviewing the history of global warming and global climate change caused by man, we see that all the points contained in the definition of "pseudoscience" given by Wikipedia, are applied to finished "tonteoría" of anthropogenic climate change.

Thomas Huxley once said something that toos scientists should keep in mind when proposing beautiful and exotic theories: "The great tragedy of science is the murder of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

By: Eduardo Ferreyra President of FAEC