sábado, 4 de junho de 2011

The Kiss - Anton Checkov


At eight o'clock on the evening of the twentieth of May all the six batteries of the N---- Reserve Artillery Brigade halted for the night in the village of Myestetchki on their way to camp. When the general commotion was at its height, while some officers were busily occupied around the guns, while others, gathered together in the square near the church enclosure, were listening to the quartermasters, a man in civilian dress, riding a strange horse, came into sight round the church. The little dun-coloured horse with a good neck and a short tail came, moving not straight forward, but as it were sideways, with a sort of dance step, as though it were being lashed about the legs. When he reached the officers the man on the horse took off his hat and said:

"His Excellency Lieutenant-General von Rabbek invites the gentlemen to drink tea with him this minute. . . ."

The horse turned, danced, and retired sideways; the messenger raised his hat once more, and in an instant disappeared with his strange horse behind the church.

"What the devil does it mean?" grumbled some of the officers, dispersing to their quarters. "One is sleepy, and here this Von Rabbek with his tea! We know what tea means."

full story here

sexta-feira, 3 de junho de 2011

Inside Job (part 1)

sexta-feira, 1 de abril de 2011

IN EXILE





by Anton Chekhov


OLD SEMYON, nicknamed Canny, and a young Tatar, whom no one knew by name, were sitting on the river-bank by the camp-fire; the other three ferrymen were in the hut. Semyon, an old man of sixty, lean and toothless, but broad shouldered and still healthy-looking, was drunk; he would have gone in to sleep long before, but he had a bottle in his pocket and he was afraid that the fellows in the hut would ask him for vodka. The Tatar was ill and weary, and wrapping himself up in his rags was describing how nice it was in the Simbirsk province, and what a beautiful and clever wife he had left behind at home. He was not more than twenty five, and now by the light of the camp-fire, with his pale and sick, mournful face, he looked like a boy.
"To be sure, it is not paradise here," said Canny. "You can see for yourself, the water, the bare banks, clay, and nothing else. . . . Easter has long passed and yet there is ice on the river, and this morning there was snow. . ."
"It's bad! it's bad!" said the Tatar, and looked round him in terror.
The dark, cold river was flowing ten paces away; it grumbled, lapped against the hollow clay banks and raced on swiftly towards the far-away sea. Close to the bank there was the dark blur of a big barge, which the ferrymen called a "karbos." Far away on the further bank, lights, dying down and flickering up again, zigzagged like little snakes; they were burning last year's grass. And beyond the little snakes there was darkness again. There little icicles could be heard knocking against the barge It was damp and cold. . . .
The Tatar glanced at the sky. There were as many stars as at home, and the same blackness all round, but something was lacking. At home in the Simbirsk province the stars were quite different, and so was the sky.
"It's bad! it's bad!" he repeated.
"You will get used to it," said Semyon, and he laughed. "Now you are young and foolish, the milk is hardly dry on your lips, and it seems to you in your foolishness that you are more wretched than anyone; but the time will come when you will say to yourself: 'I wish no one a better life than mine.' You look at me. Within a week the floods will be over and we shall set up the ferry; you will all go wandering off about Siberia while I shall stay and shall begin going from bank to bank. I've been going like that for twenty-two years, day and night. The pike and the salmon are under the water while I am on the water. And thank God for it, I want nothing; God give everyone such a life."

full story here

domingo, 27 de fevereiro de 2011

Uprisings: From the Middle East to the Midwest



By Amy Goodman

 

Tradução: Katarina Peixoto



As many as 80,000 people marched to the Wisconsin state Capitol in Madison on Saturday as part of an ongoing protest against newly elected Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s attempt to not just badger the state’s public employee unions, but to break them. The Madison uprising follows on the heels of those in the Middle East. A sign held by one university student, an Iraq War vet, read, “I went to Iraq and came home to Egypt?” Another read, “Walker: Mubarak of the Midwest.” 

Cerca de 80 mil pessoas marcharam no sábado passado ao Capitólio do estado de Wisconsin, em Madison, como parte de uma crescente onda de protesto contra a tentativa do flamante governador republicano Scott Walker, não só de acossar os sindicatos dos servidores públicos, mas de desarticulá-los. O levante popular de Madison ocorre imediatamente em seguida aos que vêm ocorrendo no Oriente Médio. Um estudante universitário veterano da guerra do Iraque, levava um cartaz que dizia “Fui ao Iraque e voltei a minha casa no Egito?”. Outro dizia: “Walker, o Mubarak do Meio Oeste”.

Likewise, a photo has circulated in Madison of a young man at a rally in Cairo, with a sign reading, “Egypt supports Wisconsin workers: One world, one pain.” Meanwhile, Libyans continue to defy a violent government crackdown against masses seeking to oust longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi, and more than 10,000 marched Tuesday in Ohio to oppose Republican Gov. John Kasich’s attempted anti-union legislative putsch.

Do mesmo modo, em Madison, circulou uma foto de um jovem em uma manifestação no Cairo com um cartaz que dizia: “Egito apoia os trabalhadores de Wisconsin: o mesmo mundo, a mesma dor”. Enquanto isso, em uma tentativa de derrubar o eterno ditador Muammar Kadafi, os líbios seguem desafiando a violenta ofensiva do governo, ao mesmo tempo que mais de 10 mil pessoas marcharam terça-feira em Columbus, Ohio, para se opor à tentativa do governador republicano John Kasich de dar um golpe de estado legislativo contra os sindicatos.


Just a few weeks ago, solidarity between Egyptian youth and Wisconsin police officers, or between Libyan workers and Ohio public employees, might have elicited a raised eyebrow.

Há apenas algumas semanas, a solidariedade entre jovens egípcios e policiais do Wisconsin, ou entre trabalhadores líbios e funcionários públicos de Ohio, seria algo inacreditável.

The uprising in Tunisia was sparked by the suicide of a young man named Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old university graduate who could not find professional work. Selling fruits and vegetables in the market, he was repeatedly harassed by Tunisian authorities who eventually confiscated his scale. Unbearably frustrated, he set himself on fire, a spark that ignited the protests that became the wave of revolution in the Middle East and North Africa. For decades in the region, people have lived under dictatorships—many that receive U.S. military aid—suffering human-rights abuses along with low income, high unemployment and almost no freedom of speech. All this, while the elites amassed fortunes.

O levante popular na Tunísia foi provocado pelo suicídio de um jovem chamado Mohamed Bouazizi, universitário de 26 anos de idade, que não encontrava trabalho em sua profissão. Enquanto vendida frutas e verduras no mercado, em repetidas oportunidades foi vítima de maus tratos por parte das autoridades tunisianas que acabaram confiscando sua balança. Completamente frustrado, ele ateou-se fogo, o que acabou incendiando os protestos que se converteram em uma onda revolucionária no Oriente Médio e Norte da África. Durante décadas, o povo da região viveu sob ditaduras – muitas das quais recebem ajuda militar dos EUA -, sofreu violações dos direitos humanos, além de ter baixa renda, enfrentar altas taxas de desemprego e não ter praticamente nenhuma liberdade de expressão. Tudo isso enquanto as elites acumulavam fortunas.

Similar grievances underlie the conflicts in Wisconsin and Ohio. The “Great Recession” of 2008, according to economist Dean Baker, is now in its 37th month, with no sign of relenting. In a recent paper, Baker says that, due to the financial crisis, “many political figures have argued the need to drastically reduce the generosity of public sector pensions, and possibly to default on pension obligations already incurred. Most of the pension shortfall ... is attributable to the plunge in the stock market in the years 2007-2009.”

Nos conflitos que vemos hoje em Wisconsin e Ohio há um pano de fundo semelhante. A “Grande Recessão” de 2008, segundo o economista Dean Baker, ingressou em seu trigésimo mês sem sinais de melhora. Em um documento recente, Baker diz que devido à crise financeira “muitos políticos argumentam que é necessário reduzir de forma drástica as generosas aposentadorias do setor público e, se possível, não cumprir com as obrigações de pensões já assumidas. Grande parte do déficit no sistema de aposentadorias se deve à queda da bolsa de valores nos anos 2007-2009”.

In other words, Wall Street hucksters, selling the complex mortgage-backed securities that provoked the collapse, are the ones who caused any pension shortfall. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston said recently: “The average Wisconsin state employee gets $24,500 a year. That’s not a very big pension ... 15 percent of the money going into it each year is being paid out to Wall Street to manage the money. That’s a really huge high percentage to pay out to Wall Street to manage the money.”

Em outras palavras, os mascates de Wall Street que vendiam as complexas ações respaldadas por hipotecas que provocaram o colapso financeiro foram os responsáveis pelo déficit nas pensões. O jornalista vencedor do prêmio Pulitzer, David Cay Johnston disse recentemente: “O funcionário público médio de Wisconsin ganha 24.500 dólares por ano. Não se trata de uma grande aposentadoria; 15% do dinheiro destinado a esta aposentadoria anualmente é o que se paga a Wall Street para administrá-lo. É realmente uma porcentagem muito alta para pagar Wall Street por administrar o dinheiro”.


So, while investment bankers skim a huge percentage off pension funds, it’s the workers who are being demonized and asked to make the sacrifices. Those who caused the problem, who then got lavish bailouts and now are treated to huge salaries and bonuses, are not being held accountable. Following the money, it turns out Walker’s campaign was funded by the notorious Koch brothers, major backers of the tea party organizations. They also gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which gave substantial support to Walker’s campaign. Is it surprising that Walker supports corporations with tax breaks, and has launched a massive attack on unionized, public-sector employees?

Então, enquanto a banca financeira fica com uma enorme porcentagem dos fundos de aposentadoria, os trabalhadores são demonizadas e pede-se a eles que façam sacrifícios. Os que provocaram o problema, em troca, logo obtiveram resgates generosos, agora recebem altíssimos salários e bonificações e não estão sendo responsabilizados. Se rastreamos a origem do dinheiro, vemos que a campanha de Walker foi financiada pelos tristemente célebres irmãos Koch, grandes patrocinadores das organizações que formam o movimento conservador tea party. Além disso, doaram um milhão de dólares para a Associação de Governadores Republicanos, que concedeu um apoio significativo à campanha de Walker. Então, por acaso resulta surpreendente que Walker apoie às empresas ao outorgar-lhes isenções se impostos e que tenha lançado uma grande campanha contra os servidores do setor público sindicalizado?

One of the unions being targeted by Walker, and by Kasich in Ohio, is AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The union was founded in 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression, in Madison. Its 1.6 million members are nurses, corrections officers, child-care providers, EMTs and sanitation workers. It is instructive to remember, in this Black History Month, that it was the struggle of the sanitation workers of AFSCME local No. 1733 that brought Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Memphis, Tenn., back in April 1968. As Jesse Jackson told me as he marched with students and their unionized teachers in Madison on Tuesday: “Dr. King’s last act on earth, marching in Memphis, Tenn., was about workers’ rights to collective bargaining and rights to dues checkoff. You cannot remove the roof for the wealthy and remove the floor for the poor.”

Um dos sindicatos que Walter e Kasich têm na mira, em Ohio, é a Federação Estadunidense de Empregados Estatais de Condados e Municípios (AFSCME, na sigla em inglês). O sindicato foi fundado em 1932, em meio à Grande Depressão, em Madison. Tem 1,6 milhões de filiados, entre os quais há enfermeiros, servidores penitenciários, seguranças, técnicos de emergências médicas e trabalhadores da saúde. Vale a pena lembrar, neste mês da História Negra, que a luta dos trabalhadores da saúde do prédio n° 1733 de AFSCME fez com que o Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Fosse a Memphis, Tennessee, em abril de 1968. Como me disse o reverendo Jesse Jackson quando marchava com os estudantes e seus professores sindicalizados, em Madison, na semana passada: “O último ato do Dr. King na terra, sua viagem a Memphis, Tennessee, foi pelo direito dos trabalhadores negociarem convênios coletivos de trabalho e o direito ao desconto da quota sindical de seu salário. Não é possível beneficiar os ricos enquanto se deixa os pobres sem nada”.

The workers of Egypt were instrumental in bringing down the regime there, in a remarkable coalition with Egypt’s youth. In the streets of Madison, under the Capitol dome, another demonstration of solidarity is taking place. Wisconsin’s workers have agreed to pay and pension concessions, but will not give up their right to collective bargaining. At this point, Walker would be wise to negotiate. It is not a good season to be a tyrant.


Os trabalhadores do Egito, formando uma coalizão extraordinária com os jovens, tiveram um papel decisivo na derrubada do regime deste país. Nas ruas de Madison, sob a cúpula do Capitólio, está se produzindo outra mostra de solidariedade. Os trabalhadores de Wisconsin fizeram concessões em seus salários e aposentadorias, mas não renunciaram ao direito a negociar convênios coletivos de trabalho. Neste momento seria inteligente que Walker negociasse. Não é uma boa época para os tiranos.


Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

© 2011 Amy Goodman

Distributed by King Features Syndicate

sexta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2010

Get Bold, Barak

Get Bold, Barack
Ouse, Barack
By ROGER COHEN
texto traduzido: Viomundo

WASHINGTON — I was among the early and strong supporters of Barack Obama. America was stuck and it seemed to me he could take the country forward into the 21st century, which began so tragically in downtown New York and here in the nation’s capital. Like many, at midterm, I’m struggling with my disappointment.

Washington — Estive entre os primeiros e maiores apoiadores de Barack Obama. Os Estados Unidos estavam entrevados e me pareceu que ele poderia levar o país adiante no século 21, que começou tão tragicamente em Nova York e aqui na capital da Nação. Como muitos, na metade do mandato, estou enfrentando minha decepção

I’ve asked myself: Would Hillary Clinton, experienced and attuned to blue-collar America, have been stronger and more capable of lifting the national mood? I’ve thought to myself: Is it unfair to feel this disillusionment given the scale of Obama’s inherited problems? And I’ve wondered, given the visceral disrespect for the president from the Tea Party — a foul scorn full of innuendo that skirts the boundaries of racism — whether Obama could have done anything to reach across the aisle?

Já me perguntei: será que Hillary Clinton, experiente e ligada aos Estados Unidos blue-collar [nota do Viomundo: trabalhadores de colarinho azul, em geral de classe média baixa] teria sido mais forte e mais capaz de levantar o moral nacional? Já me perguntei: será injusto sentir desilusão com a escala dos problemas herdados pelo Obama? E me perguntei, dado o desrespeito visceral pelo presidente que vem do Tea Party — um desprezo mal cheiroso, cheio de sugestões que beiram o racismo — se Obama poderia ter feito qualquer coisa para se aproximar dos adversários?

To all these questions, at different times, I’ve had different answers. No, says one voice, get over it, he’s doing the best he could to lift America from the double whammy of war and economic meltdown. He’s smart and curious — and, anyway, just consider the mystical-nationalist-insular alternative.

Para todas estas perguntas, em momentos diferentes, tive diferentes respostas. Não, diz uma voz, esqueça, ele está fazendo o que pode para tirar os Estados Unidos de duas pancadas — da guerra e do derretimento econômico. Ele é inteligente e curioso — e, de qualquer forma, é preciso considerar a alternativa mística-insular-nacionalista.

Oh yeah, says another, he’s too cool a customer, a beguiling construct more than flesh and blood, an empty vessel for a misplaced idealism, a politician averse to pressing the flesh (and what else is politics?), a man who — not for nothing — tilts his chin upward when he speaks.

Ah, sim, diz outra resposta, ele é muito “cool”, uma construção mais do que uma pessoa de carne e osso, uma nave vazia para carregar idealismo, um político que não gosta de se relacionar com os eleitores (e o que mais é a política?), um homem que — não por nada — levanta o queixo quando fala.

Back and forth go the voices, but there’s no getting away from the disappointment. This president feels flat — and somehow not quite genuine. He should place above his bed the words of Jonathan Alter: “Logic can convince but only emotion can motivate.”

As vozes vão e vem, mas não tem como me afastar da desilusão. Este presidente parece vazio — e às vezes nem mesmo genuíno. Ele deveria colocar sobre a cama as palavras de Jonathan Alter: “A lógica pode convencer mas apenas a emoção pode motivar”.

On arriving in New York from London, I went to a party on the Upper East Side. It was a well-heeled crowd, almost all Obama supporters a couple of years back. “The guy’s a phony,” one guest said. “We need a Bloomberg, somebody who can manage,” said another, referring to the billionaire mayor of New York. “All this Clinton nostalgia, it’s because Obama is a loner, not interested in people,” said a third.

Ao chegar a Nova York vindo de Londres, fui a uma festa no Upper East Side [nota do Viomundo: reduto dos liberais de Nova York, onde morei na 83 com a Segunda, nos anos 80]. Era uma multidão de gente bem de vida, quase toda formada por apoiadores de Obama há alguns anos. “Ele é uma enganação”, um convidado disse. “Precisamos de um Bloomberg, alguém que saiba gerenciar”, disse outro, se referindo ao prefeito bilionário de Nova York. “Toda esta nostalgia em torno do Clinton é causada porque Obama é um solitário, não tem interesse nas pessoas”, disse um terceiro.

I was a struck by how people aren’t sure where Obama’s headed. There’s no narrative to the presidency. It was about believable change. Now the president seems less a passionate change agent than a careful calculator unsure of his core beliefs. In London, you know what Prime Minister David Cameron is about: rowing back the state and slashing the deficit. Agree or disagree, there’s a narrative. It helps.

Fiquei surpreso pela fato de que as pessoas não sabem qual é o caminho desejado por Obama. Não existe narrativa nesta presidência. Era sobre mudança em que se podia acreditar. Agora o presidente parece menos apaixonado pela ideia de ser um agente de mudança e mais um calculista incerto de suas crenças principais. Em Londres, sabemos o que o primeiro-ministro David Cameron quer: reduzir o estado e cortar o déficit. Concorde ou não, é a narrativa. Ajuda.

Another foreign leader came to mind, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, now about to leave office after an extraordinary presidency. Here are two outsider politicians with lullaby-like names and the kinds of faces not previously seen on their nations’ banknotes, breaking molds of race or class. But there the resemblance ends.

Outro líder estrangeiro do qual me lembrei, o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva do Brasil, que agora está próximo de deixar o poder depois de uma presidência extraordinária. Aqui estão dois políticos de fora do círculo de poder, com nomes fáceis de pronunciar e com rostos diversos dos que apareciam nas notas do dinheiro de suas nações, quebrando modelos de raça ou classe. Mas a comparação termina aí.

Lula proved all of a piece — one of eight children from the impoverished far north of Brazil, a former steelworker who repaired social fracture in one of the world’s most unequal societies. Obama has so far failed that critical authenticity test.

Lula experimentou de tudo — um de oito filhos do norte empobrecido do Brasil, um ex-operário metalúrgico que reparou a fratura social de uma das sociedades mais desiguais do mundo. Obama até agora fracassou no teste crítico de autenticidade.

There was an anti-establishment frisson to Obama, the black man who battled to overcome prejudice and America’s “original sin” to win the nation’s highest office. Yet he has revealed himself as an elite product of America’s elite schools, a politician who built his image with great intelligence but shows little taste for the nitty-gritty. Bipartisanship, when it’s not just oratory, begins with small gestures.

Havia um frisson anti-establishment no Obama, o homem negro que batalhou para superar preconceito e o “pecado original” dos Estados Unidos para conquistar o cargo mais importante do país. Ainda assim ele se revelou um produto da elite e das escolas de elite dos Estados Unidos, um político que construiu sua imagem com grande inteligência mas mostra pouco apetite pelos detalhes. Bipartidarismo, quando não é apenas oratória, começa com pequenos gestos.

I was talking to a Democratic Party donor, a Kansas City businessman. He said he’s given over $30,000 to Obama — and not a word of thanks. He was irritated. Lots of people think this president is too smug to write thank-you notes or make quick courtesy calls.

Estive conversando com um pequeno doador do Partido Democrata, um empresário de Kansas City. Ele deu 30 mil dólares para Obama e não recebeu uma nota de agradecimento. Está irritado. Muita gente acha que o presidente é muito convencido para escrever notas de agradecimento ou fazer chamadas de cortesia.

After the inevitable midterm defeat, Obama needs to make some decisions. He’s stuck on the 20-yard line in domestic and foreign policy. The facile attacks on “fat-cat bankers” have to end. They don’t convince the left and they infuriate the right. Prosecute, by all means, but don’t rail. And remember that Americans get good housekeeping in the end. One $787 billion fiscal injection is enough.

Depois da derrota inevitável nas eleições do meio de mandato, Obama precisa tomar algumas decisões. Ele está preso na defesa nas questões domésticas e de política externa. Os ataques fáceis nos “banqueiros gordos” precisam acabar. Eles não convencem a esquerda e deixam a direita furiosa. Processe-os, por todos os meios, mas deixe de falar. E lembre que os americanos tiveram uma boa limpeza doméstica. Uma injeção fiscal de 787 bilhões de dólares é suficiente.

Americans are trying to de-leverage. They’ll follow a president who says extending tax cuts for the rich is madness. They might buy a consumption tax. But the president has to lead.

Os americanos estão tentando se livrar das dívidas. Eles seguirão um presidente que diz que estender os cortes de impostos para os ricos é loucura [nota do Viomundo: herança deixada por George W. Bush]. Os americanos podem até aceitar impostos sobre o consumo. Mas o presidente precisa liderar.

Obama is confronting an international conviction that he’s hesitant. The agonizing review that led to the Afghan surge left an impression of uncertainty. In the end we got what some have called the Groucho Marx Hello, I Must be Going! plan, a brief reinforcement to be reversed in time for the 2012 campaign. In the Middle East, too, domestic politics have trumped change, with resulting equivocation and familiar paralysis.

Obama está enfrentando uma convicção internacional de que é hesitante. A revisão da estratégia que levou ao aumento das tropas no Afeganistão deixou uma impressão de incerteza. No final recebemos o que alguns chamaram de plano do Groucho Marx — Alô, estou de saída — um reforço que será revertido a tempo da campanha de 2012. No Oriente Médio, também, a política doméstica evitou mudanças, resultando em erros e a familiar paralisia.

Boldness characterized Obama’s campaign; only that will get him re-elected in 2012. He needs to invigorate his team with doers rather than thinkers. He needs to become serious about balancing the budget. He needs a foreign policy that reflects a changed world not a churlish Congress.

A ousadia marcou a campanha de Obama; só ela poderá reelegê-lo em 2012. Ele precisa revigorar sua equipe com “fazedores” em vez de “pensadores”. Ele precisa encarar com seriedade o equilíbrio do orçamento. Ele precisa de uma política externa que reflita um mundo em mudança, não um Congresso dividido.

And he must admit to himself that perhaps the disappointed are not misguided but rational, even scientific — words he likes

E ele precisa admitir que talvez os decepcionados com ele não são mal aconselhados, mas racionais e até mesmo científicos — palavras das quais ele tanto gosta.

quarta-feira, 3 de novembro de 2010

sexta-feira, 22 de outubro de 2010

Climate Change: Breaking the "Political Consensus"


The Science of Climate Change: What does it Really Tell Us?
by Andrew Gavin Marshall

The purpose of this report is to examine the science behind climate change so as to better understand the issue at hand, and thus, to be able to make an informed decision on how to handle the issue. The primary aim here is to examine climate change from a perspective not often heard in media or government channels; that of climate change being a natural phenomenon, not the result of man-made carbon emissions.

The “Science” of Consensus

When addressing the issue of climate change, it is important to understand that climatic change is an important field of study in science. However, it is not an exact science, like all sciences. Our understanding of the climatic sciences is always changing, just as our understanding of all sciences changes. If our understanding of science does not change, we would still think that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around our little planet. When these great achievements in science were first discovered, the scientists who discovered them were attacked, denounced, or even imprisoned.

There is an enormous political, social and economic interest in a scientific consensus, because it determines our understanding of our environment and all that is in it, including humanity, itself. A challenge to a perceived consensus is a challenge to all the powers in human society, as it can take a person’s understanding of the world we live in, and flip it upside down. This encourages people to think “outside the box,” fosters creativity and to be critical thinkers. This can ultimately threaten any power structure, as people may come to understand the forces that seek to control our lives. A consensus is an amazing tool in the hands of elites to control and manipulate people. And challenging a consensus is an amazing tool for people to remain free and independent thinkers.

This does not mean that any perceived consensus is inaccurate or completely manipulated. But it is important to understand how such a consensus can be used. It is also vital to understand that without questioning and challenging a scientific consensus, science would never advance. The key to scientific discovery is being able to change your perspective as the science changes. This is why debate on climate change must not be simply reduced to a one-sided debate; those who “know there is a problem,” and those who are “deniers.” All sides must be heard, so that we can come to a better understanding of the issue.

We hear consistently the one side of the debate, that climate change is caused by increased Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, and that humans are the greatest contributor of this toxic greenhouse gas, and thus, the greatest contributor to climate change, and that there will be catastrophic consequences as a result. I hope to give voice to the other side of the debate.

A Brief Climate History

First of all, it is important to note that climate change is not new. There has always been climate change, and there will always be climate change. After all, there was a period known as the Ice Age, which was a long-term period of reduction in global temperatures. This expanded the continental ice sheets and glaciers. The Greenlandand Antarctic ice sheets were created in this period. The ice age left its imprint upon our environment, forming valleys, fjords, rock formations, and the like as glaciers advanced across the continents. As they receded when the ice age passed, it left the landscape altered and free for plant growth and life to flourish. The Great Lakes betweenCanada and the United States were carved out by ice. Following the Ice Age, the Halocene period began roughly 12,000 B.C. All human civilization has occurred within the Halocene period.

During the Halocene period, there was both global warming and cooling periods, which have lasted until today. During the period of 10,000 to 8500 BC, there was a slight cooling period known as the Younger-Dryas. However, that passed, and between 5000 and 3000 B.C., temperatures increased to a level higher than today. This period is referred to as the Climatic Optimum. It was during this warming period in history that Earth’s first great human civilizations began to flourish, such as ancient African civilizations around the Nile.[1]

Between 3000 and 2000 B.C., a cooling period occurred, resulting in a drop in sea levels, from which islands such as the Bahamas emerged. There was a subsequent warming period between 2000 and 1500 B.C., again followed by a cool period, which led to glacial growth. The Roman Empire (150 B.C. – 300 A.D.) occurred during a cooling period, which went until roughly 900 A.D. During the period of 900 A.D. until 1200 A.D., a warming period occurred known as the Medieval Warming Period, or Little Climatic Optimum, which was warmer than today, allowing settlements to flourish in Greenland and Iceland.

Then a cooling period followed and between 1550 and 1850, temperatures were colder than at any other time since the end of the previous Ice Age, leading to what has been called the Little Ice Age. Since 1850, there has been a general warming period.[2]

CO2 and Temperature

This latest warming period has also coincided with the Industrial Revolution, which saw the greatest output of human induced CO2, leading many, like Al Gore, to compare the rise in CO2 levels with the rise in temperatures, drawing a conclusion that the rise in CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere was the determining factor in the rise in temperatures. However, if one studies statistics and how to read and interpret stats and graphs, one of the primary lessons is that correlation does not imply causation. Simply put, two factors lining up on a graph, does not necessarily imply that there is a cause and effect relationship. One could take a graph of increases in temperatures and increases in the consumption of peanuts, and they may line up. However, common sense will tell us that eating peanuts does not increase global temperatures. Simply because there appears to be a correlation between the two, that does not imply that there is a cause and effect relationship.

When it comes to CO2, however, there is a much more important factor to analyze than simply statistical interpretation. Al Gore popularized the CO2/temperature connection in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, in which he showed the correlation between the two on a graph. However, he interpreted the graph as evidence of a cause and effect relationship. His information came from an ice core sample related to CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. However, paleoclimatologist and earth sciences professor at USC, Lowell Stott, released findings of a study in September of 2007, which concluded that, “Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2” at the ending of the last ice age, which “suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming,” not the cause of warming.[3] [Emphasis added]

As well as this, an ice core sample of air bubbles in 2003, “revealed a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations” and concluded that, “the CO increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.” Simply put, the analysis of the ice core samples, published in Science Magazine, reported that CO2 increases lagged behind temperature increases by roughly 800 years.[4]

In statistics, this is what is called a “lurking variable,” meaning a hidden variable that can have an outcome on the results of a statistic without having been taken into consideration in the statistic’s interpretation. For example, Al Gore’s graph showed a correlation between CO2 increases and temperature increases. The interpretation he gave was that the correlation implied causation; that because they lined up, there was an established relationship, and that relationship was defined as CO2 increases driving temperature. However, the lurking variable was that he did not take into consideration whether CO2 followed temperature increases, as the ice core samples have shown, but he rather chose to conclude that because they line up on a graph, CO2 is therefore the driver. This is bad science and statistical analysis at best, or intentional political deception at worst.

A Lesson in Weather and Carbon

I want to briefly cover what factors affect our weather on Earth and what greenhouse gases are so that we can better understand the science of climate change. Weather takes place in the atmosphere, which is the layer of air directly surrounding the Earth. Air is simply a mix of gases, the most plentiful of which is nitrogen, making up 78% of the air we breathe. Oxygen is 21% of the air we breathe, and the other 1% is a variety of different gases.

Weather tends to occur in the lowest level of the atmosphere, the troposphere. Air temperature, air pressure and humidity are the three factors that determine weather in the troposphere. The most important factors in determining temperature in the atmosphere are radiation arriving from the Sun and flowing from the Earth.

The Sun sends energy into space in a variety of ways. There is visible light, infrared heat rays and ultraviolet rays. Roughly 30% of solar radiation coming into the Earth’s atmosphere is reflected back out to space by clouds, while the remaining 70% is absorbed into the atmosphere, increasing the temperature. This is what is known as the greenhouse effect. Air temperature changes from day to night and season to season, as the amount of radiation from the Sun changes, largely determined by our planet’s tilt towards the Sun. The equator is the exception to the changing temperature with seasons, because it generally receives equal radiation from the Sun year-round.

Air pressure, the second determining factor in weather, is “the weight per unit of area of a column of air that reaches to the top of the atmosphere,” with pressure decreasing the higher you get, because there is less air above you. Humidity, the third main factor in determining weather, is a measure of the amount of water vapor in the air. The amount of water vapor that air can hold increases with temperature increases and decreases as temperatures decrease. When relative humidity is at 100%, water vapor condenses and forms droplets, changing from a gas to a liquid.[5]

We often hear of “greenhouse gases” as being bad things. Yet, water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas of all. Carbon dioxide follows, with methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and many smaller gases. Water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, making up a much greater percentage than the gases that follow it.

CO2, or Carbon Dioxide, is produced by all plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms, and it is then absorbed by plants. As people breathe in oxygen, we then breathe out carbon dioxide, plants take it in through photosynthesis, and thusly emit oxygen for us to breathe in.

Carbon dioxide cannot be so simply classified as a toxin. In fact, it is a life accelerant. Recent research has shown that “shifts in rainfall patterns, cloud cover, and warming temperatures triggered a 6 percent increase in the amount of carbon stored in trees, grass, shrubs, and flowers,” in particular in the Amazon rain forests, which saw the greatest growth rates in the world.[6] The study, conducted from 1982 to 1999, showed that “global climate change has eased climatic constraints on plant life around the globe, allowing vegetation to increase 6 percent.”[7] Vegetation was taking in increasing amounts of CO2 in North America between 1982 and 1998, and “increased atmospheric CO2 and climate change are the primary causes of the recent U.S. vegetation increases.”[8]

A NASA study revealed in 2001, that, “when the atmosphere gets hazy, like it did after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in June 1991, plants photosynthesize more efficiently, thereby absorbing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,” as volcanoes emit massive amounts of CO2 during an eruption.[9] Another study conducted in 2006 revealed that, “Diversity increases as the planet warms and decreases as it cools,” yet, deforestation can reverse this effect, simulating the effects of a global cooling trend.[10]

In 2007, a new study revealed that as icebergs break off from Antarctica, “some as large as a dozen miles across – are having a major impact on the ecology of the ocean around them, serving as ‘hotspots’ for ocean life, with thriving communities of seabirds above and a web of phytoplankton, krill, and fish below,” and that the icebergs “can serve as a route for carbon dioxide drawdown” as it sinks into the sea.[11]

In 2002, it was reported that, “The southern Saharan desert is in retreat, making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa,” and that, “dunes are retreating right across the Sahel region on the southern edge of the Sahara desert. Vegetation is ousting sand across a swathe of land stretching from Mauritania on the shores of the Atlantic to Eritrea 6000 kilometres away on the Red Sea coast,” which was largely attributed to increases in rainfall.[12] A scientific study conducted in the Netherlands predicted that global warming “could significantly increase rainfall in Saharan Africa within a few decades, potentially ending the severe droughts that have devastated the region,” which could in effect cause a “greening of the Sahara.”[13]

What Causes Climate Change?

If CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases, it does not make sense that CO2 can be the cause of temperature increases. It would be the equivalent of saying that growing older is caused by the graying of hair; there appears to be a cause and effect relationship, it is just of vital importance to understand which is the cause and which is the effect. So, from here we must examine what some major causes of climatic change can be.

The most important factor in climatic changes is what is called solar variations. This refers to radiation emitted from the Sun and its variations, in particular, the sunspot cycle. Sunspot cycles are the irregular rises and drops in the number of sunspots, which are regions on the Sun’s surface, which have lower temperatures than its surrounding area and strong magnetic fields. The cycles tend to last 11 years.

An important thing to note is that Earth is not the only planet that experiences climate change, as in 2002, it was reported that Pluto was “undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere,” likely due to it’s orbit, which, “significantly changes the planet's distance from the Sun during its long ‘year,’ which lasts 248 Earth years.”[14] In 2006, it was reported that a new storm on Jupiter could indicate that the planet is “in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit.”[15] As far back as 1998, it was reported that Neptune’s largest moon, Triton, “has been undergoing a period of global warming,” since 1989.[16] This could have much to do with the fact that, as reported in 1997, the “Sun is getting hotter,” leading some scientists to say that Earth’s global warming “is part of a natural cycle for the planet.”[17]

In 2004, the Telegraph reported that, “Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.” The study, conducted by Swiss and German scientists, “suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.” Interestingly, the Sun “is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years,” coinciding with the warming trend experienced since the Industrial Revolution.[18] This is what can be referred to as a “lurking variable” in Al Gore’s analysis of his graphs of carbon and temperature increases since the Industrial Revolution. It is a lurking variable because though the temperatures and carbon emissions match up on a graph, it doesn’t take into account other factors that may influence the statistics, such as increasing radiation from the Sun, which also correlates with increasing temperatures.

National Geographic News quoted a scientist in 2007 that, “Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause.” Mars’ ice caps had been diminishing for three years in a row, and the scientist, “Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.” He further stated that, “changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.”[19] A NASA study in the same year also reported that Mars warmed since the 1970s, “similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period,” which, they conclude, “suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.”[20] A study in 2007 on climatic changes on Earth and Neptune suggested that, “some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment.”[21]

In 2006, a study was conducted regarding Venus being the “solar system’s most inhospitable planet.” A planetary scientist at Oxford University stated, “It's very disturbing that we do not understand the climate on a planet that is so much like the Earth,” and that, “It is telling us that we really don't understand the Earth. We have ended up with a lot of mysteries.” Venus was “unbelievably hot, dense, and had virtually no oxygen.” Venus has a very pronounced greenhouse effect, as its “thick atmosphere traps solar radiation and heats the world to boiling point.” Scientists say that Venus being closer to the Sun than Earth is a factor, yet, there may be other factors. One brought up was that Venus’ atmosphere is almost entirely made up of CO2, which is effective at trapping heat. CO2 is roughly 95% of Venus’ atmosphere, compared to Earth’s atmosphere, which is 0.038% CO2, so it is extremely understandable that CO2 would have a greater effect upon Venus than Earth. The question as to why Venus has so much CO2 may be because it lost its water, whereas on Earth, “carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans, where it forms carbonate minerals and over the millennia is deposited as rock. That process was arrested early on Venus when it lost its oceans.”[22] Perhaps we should put more focus into preserving and protecting our oceans.

Get Your Parka, Here Comes Global… “Cooling”?

There is a little problem with the whole “global warming” consensus, in that recent scientific research has shown that, “A study of sea temperature changes predicts a lull as traditional climate cycles cancel out the heating effect of greenhouse gases from pollution,” and that, “Global warming will be ‘put on hold’ over the next decade because of natural climate variations.”[23] In other words, the natural climate cycles that Earth goes through, and always has gone through, has changed once again, just as a political consensus was reached. This is very significant because if CO2 was the prime cause for recent warming, and CO2 consumption has not gone down, yet, the Earth’s climate has engaged on a cooling trend, this appears to pose a problem for the CO2 hypothesis.

This cooling trend is supported by many recent events. In 2008, “Snow cover over North America and much ofSiberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966,” and China went through its most brutal winter in a century. Also, when we are told that the Artic Sea ice is melting to its “lowest levels on record,” it is important to note that the records date back to 1972, and “that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.” As it turns out, the ice itself has not only recovered from melting, but has grown thicker in many places. With the previous melting of the Arctic, we have been told it was caused by human activity and will result in catastrophe. However, climate modelers, predicting the future climate with computer models based upon information they provide, such as CO2 consumption, are highly inaccurate, as, “Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.”[24]

Many places have experienced unusual cold and snowfalls in the last year. Argentina got its first snowfall in Buenos Aires since 1918,[25] Johannesburg, South Africa, experienced snow for the first time in 26 years,[26] Baghdad experienced snow for the “first time in living memory,”[27] and Saudi Arabia went through sub-zero temperatures and snow storms, making it the coldest winter in over 20 years.[28]

Even the BBC reported that temperatures will decrease, “as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific,”[29] which is a natural phenomenon, and has a large effect on increasing cyclonic activity in the Atlantic. It’s interesting how La Niña and El Niño have disappeared from discussion on climate and hurricanes. Today, whenever there is a hurricane or natural disaster, it is instantly blamed on global warming and having been accelerated by human activity. Even Al Gore’s movie poster pictured a smoke stack with a hurricane coming out the top. An MIT climate scientist, who previously wrote about the link between hurricane energy and warming, produced a study in 2008 where he changed his pervious claims, saying that its not a clearly defined connection, saying there is a “lot of uncertainty,” and he was quoted as stating, “It’s a really bad thing for a scientist to have an immovable, intractable position.”[30]

In March of 2008, NPR reported that after a survey of the ocean by 3,000 scientific robots, information was retrieved that showed that, “the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather.” The article quotes a NASA scientist as saying that, “the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.”[31]

In July of 2008, a major peer-reviewed journal of the American Physical Society, Physics and Society, concluded that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report “overstated” the effects of CO2 on temperature in their climate models by between 500 and 2000%. The paper concluded that there is no “climate crisis.” The paper further reported that CO2 will add “little more than 1°F (O.6°C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;” that the IPCC report took their predictive information from four published papers, not 2,500, as was claimed; that “global warming” stopped ten years ago; the IPCC overstated the “effect of ice-melt by 1000%”; that 50 years ago, it was proved that “predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible”; and that an important factor in explaining the previous warming was that, “In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the last 11,400 years.”[32]

What About the Consensus?

We are often told, (especially by Al Gore), that on the issue of the effects of human activity on climate change, there is a “scientific consensus” on humans being the primary cause. If the above information does not provide some proof as to a lack of consensus on the subject, perhaps the fact that for the UN-organized 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which concluded that, “global warming and other environmental insults were threatening the planet with catastrophe,” was countered with a petition of scientists decrying, “the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action.” The number of signatories to the petition eventually reached 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners. In 2000, to counter the Kyoto Protocol, a petition was made up of “1,500 clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics and policy experts concerned about the harm that Kyoto could inflict on the world’s poor.”[33]

A current petition makes the statement that, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” This petition has been signed by over 31,000 scientists.[34]

The former editor of New Scientist magazine, Nigel Calder, wrote that, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He explained how roughly 20 years ago, “climate research became politicized in favour of one particular hypothesis,” and that the media, “often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.” He also explained the results of a scientific study conducted in 2001 in Denmark, which found that, “cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.”[35] So not only is the Sun a determining factor, but so are cosmic rays.

Conclusion

I won’t state exactly what is causing climate change on our planet, as the reality is that there are many answers to that question; the Sun, cosmic rays, ocean currents and other natural phenomena, etc. However, it is safe to say that the wealth of science points to a natural change in our climate, and the entire history of the world and of all humanity supports this hypothesis. Throughout history, as in the earliest African civilizations, it was the ability of different peoples to change and adapt to climate change, which determined their survival as a civilization.

Today, we are trying to fight it. This is a dangerous road to walk, and history will not look kindly upon our scientific ignorance and politically fear-driven society. How will we be viewed in the future? How have we viewed the people of the past who thought the Earth was flat, or the Sun revolved around Earth?

Trying to fight and stop a natural phenomenon is possibly one of the most ignorant and dangerous things humanity has ever engaged in. How would history view a civilization that tried to reverse the spinning of the Earth, or the blowing of wind? It is a recipe for the fall of a civilization.

Much of the people in the world have been riled up with predictions of a catastrophic end to mankind and the world unless we don’t do something about so-called “man-made” climate change. Ironically enough, our refusal to adapt to a changing world, and instead a determination to fight it with our efforts to “go green” and “carbon neutral” may, in fact, cause the catastrophic end of our civilization. And sadly, in this instance, it would undeniably be a man-made disaster.

Notes

[1] Pidwirny, M. (2006). "Earth's Climatic History". Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition.http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] Terah U. DeJong, Clues to End of the Last Ice Age. USC News: September 27, 2007: http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/14288.html

[4] Nicolas Caillon, et al., Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III. Science Magazine: Vol 299, March 14, 2003: Page 1728:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

[5] Moran, Joseph M., Weather. World Book Online Reference Center. 2005. World Book, Inc. http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar596160

[6] Peter N. Spotts, World's vegetation is cleaning more carbon from skies. Christian Science Monitor: June 6, 2003:http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0606/p02s02-usgn.html

[7] John Roach, Climate Change Upped Earth's Vegetation, Study Finds. National Geographic: June 5, 2003:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0605_030605_climatechange.html

[8] Jeffrey Hicke, New satellite study shows vegetation increases in North America. Bio-Medicine: http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-2/New-satellite-study-shows-vegetation-increases-in-North-America-9791-1/

[9] Goddard Space Flight Center, Large Volcanic Eruptions Help Plants Absorb More Carbon Dioxide From the Atmosphere. NASA: December 10, 2001:http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011210co2absorb.html

[10] Rhett A. Butler, Does tropical biodiversity increase during global warming? Mongabay: March 30, 2006: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0330-stri.html

[11] K.L. Smith, Jr., et al. (2007). "Free-Drifting Icebergs: Hotspots of Chemical and Biological Enrichment in the Weddell Sea," Science 22 June 2007

[12] Fred Pearce, Africa's deserts are in "spectacular" retreat. New Scientist: September 18, 2002: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2811

[13] David Adam, Global warming could end Sahara droughts, says study. The Guardian: September 16, 2005: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/16/highereducation.climatechange

[14] Robert Roy Britt, Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists. Space.com: October 9, 2002: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

[15] Sara Goudarzi, New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change. Space.com: May 4, 2006: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

[16] News, Global Warming Detected on Triton. Science A Go-Go: June 28, 1998:http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml

[17] NYT, Sun Is Getting Hotter, Satellite Data Indicate. The New York Times: September 30, 1997: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE5D9133AF933A0575AC0A961958260

[18] Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah, The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame. The Telegraph: July 18, 2004:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/07/19/ecnsun18.xml

[19] Kate Ravilious, Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says. National Geographic News: February 28, 2007:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[20] Sunday Times, Climate Change Hits Mars. Times Online: April 27, 2007: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

[21] H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood, Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature. Geophysical Research Letters: Vol. 34, April 19, 2007: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

[22] Robin McKie, Venus: the hot spot. The Guardian: April 9, 2006: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/apr/09/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration

[23] MaONT>

[25] AP, Buenos Aires gets first snow since 1918. USA Today: July 9, 2007: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-07-09-argentina-snow_N.htm

[26] Mike Nizza, In Johannesburg, First Snowfall Since ’81. The New York Times: June 27, 2007: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/in-johannesburg-first-snowfall-since-81/

[27] BBC, Baghdad Wakes Up to Rare Snowfall. BBC News: January 11, 2008: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7183881.stm

[28] RIA, Saudi Arabia covered with snow in coldest winter for 20 years. RIA Novosti: January 11, 2008: http://en.rian.ru/world/20080111/96210251.html

[29] Roger Harrabin, Global temperatures 'to decrease'. BBC News: April 4, 2008: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

[30] Andrew C. Revkin, Hurricane Expert Reassesses Link to Warming. New York Times Blog: April 12, 2008:http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/hurricane-expert-reassesses-climate-link/

[31] Richard Harris, The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat. NPR: March 19, 2008: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

[32] Robert Ferguson, Proved: There is No Climate Crisis. Science and Public Policy Institute: July 15, 2008:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

[33] Lawrence Soloman, 32,000 Deniers. National Post: May 16, 2008: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx

[34] OISM, Global Warming Petition. Petition Project: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[35] Nigel Calder, An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change. Times Online: February 11, 2007: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk//article1363818.ece?Submitted=true



Andrew Gavin Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Andrew Gavin Marshall