View Full Version : Global warming is not happening

Pages : [1] 2 3 4

07-08-2006, 05:02 AM
Global warming is not happening

Dr. Kevin Trenberth ("Global Warming: It?s Happening," naturalSCIENCE, December 4, 1997) has severely criticized a feature article in the (Toronto) Globe and Mail newspaper (November 22, 1997). He is wrong on many counts.

Trenberth informs us that "climate is changing." No problem there. Mean temperatures rose steeply in the decades before 1940 and dropped from 1940 to about 1975. Most climatologists agree that these changes were of natural origin--although Trenberth tries to present them as of human origin. But then he claims that "global mean temperature is rising." Not so. The weather satellite data, the only truly global data set we have, actually show a global cooling trend during the past 19 years.

Trenberth then cites his critique of these satellite results. That?s all good and proper, and part of the ongoing scientific debate about global w
arming. But he should have informed the reader of the able response by John Christy and Roy Spencer, who are responsible for the analysis of these data. And he should have also mentioned that balloon-borne weather sondes provide an independent set of data that confirm the satellite results of ongoing global cooling.

In fact, it is the surface data that are suspect, and especially the data that purport to measure the temperature of the sea surface. The oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth, but only a small fraction is actually observed. At least four different techniques are somehow combined to give a "global" value, with grave doubts about the intercalibration. As the mix of data sources changes over time, it is likely to introduce a temperature trend that is largely an artifact.

Trenberth is out of his specialty when he describes some of the imagined consequences of a global warming, such as floods and droughts. Along with Vice President Al Gore, he cites the 1997 North Dakota flood as an examp
le. Trenberth should find himself a better expert, like Harry Lins of the US Geological Survey, who has actually analyzed flood data and reports no increasing trend (Am. Geophys. Union Meeting, December 1997).

Trenberth bemoans the "politicization of science"--and so do we. He refers the reader to the George Brown article in the March 1997 issue of Environment, which is based on a blatantly partisan staff report. The reader is not told about the replies to Brown in the May issue that sets the record straight.

Finally, Trenberth drags out the hoary consensus of "over 2000 IPCC scientists." I have analyzed this fabricated claim in some detail (see Wall Street Journal, July 25, 1997). There are, at best, only about 100 climate scientists in this IPCC listing of economists, political scientists, government functionaries, and public relations specialists. Not that numbers matter, but among the 100 bona-fide experts there are many who disagree with the "consensus"--as determined by several independent
polls. (See also the May 16, 1997 issue of Science.) And there are even some who have publicly expressed their disagreement by signing the "Leipzig Declaration"--which now numbers over 100 signers.

S. Fred Singer
President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project


07-08-2006, 05:10 AM
Even as climate experts and politicians meet in Buenos Aires to mark the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, many sceptical scientists will still be arguing that the international consensus on "global warming" has got it wrong.

Those of us who study the pre-human history of the Earth find the current debate over global warming difficult to fathom. Climate changes - this is what it does.

To expect permanent stability in climate patterns displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the complexity and instability of weather.

If the global climate were not getting warmer, it would be getting cooler; stasis is not an option.

Ice caps either advance or retreat, and thank goodness. Following the last Ice Age, the climate is warming, and sea-level is rising - but well within their historical ranges.

As environments alter, so fauna and flora either adapt
or die out; nature is very unsentimental.

But for the now-infamous and discredited "hockey stick" temperature curve for the last millennium, used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to add body to the case for Kyoto, most observers would not have suspended belief over claims that today's weather is the "mostest" "on record".

Time dependent

This expression is simply a lie. We know from the geological (and archaeological) record that weather variations and extremes are the norm.

Such extremes occur gradually and rapidly, and obviously were not human-induced (anthropogenic). How then can they represent a threat greater than that of terrorism, as the UK's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, maintains, except to minds unwilling to accept the inevitability of planetary change?

On thin ice: "Fauna and flora either adapt or die out"
The factors influencing climate and sea-level change are multiple and complex, whether slow or rapid. I still cannot
comprehend how anyone can hope to model even present day phenomena, never mind into the future; we still cannot predict next week's weather with any accuracy.

The real question then is not whether climate and sea level changes are occurring and are good or bad things; they have been occurring naturally for billions of years. Nor is the question whether these changes are actually taking place; a moot point at best, as there are conflicting data, but the question is utterly dependent on the time frame.

Rather, environmentalists ask whether climate change is anthropogenic, and if so, can it be stopped. I have come across no rigorous proof that wasteful human pollution has caused any significant climate change.

The accusation is that the hockey stick-shaped temperature track is built from selective data sets

More details

One would be better off asking the question whether volcanic eruptions alter the weather; there at least we can answer "yes".

The only pro
of of anthropogenic climate change ever offered, which to my mind is fallacious, is that temperature has increased with Western industrialisation; before industrialisation, the hockey stick would negate the Medieval Climate Optimum and Little Ice Age.

There is a closer correlation between this latest warming and universal suffrage. In science, temporal coincidence between events is no proof of a causal link.

Media 'scare'

So, as we enter the third millennium, we should preoccupy ourselves not with the silly question of whether at outrageous expense we could predictably influence the weather, least of all by focusing on just a single component. Instead, we should consider how to adapt ourselves to the inevitability of natural climate and sea-level change.

The issue thus framed would completely alter the capital expenditure question facing policy makers, away from tinkering with the emissions from the cleaner, industrialised nations (thereby delaying modelled anthropogenic glob
al warming by little more than a decade), and towards more pragmatic solutions.

With further warming, crop production can move to higher latitudes
These might include the abandonment of sub-sea level lands condemned to flooding (including the Netherlands), shifting to Mediterranean crops in northern Europe, the re-cultivation of cold terrains (eg Greenland), and the aggressive reforestation as a microclimate control strategy to rehabilitate dry lands.

As for oil, it will almost certainly be too expensive to use as a mass energy source within 25 years.

Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.

It provides the media with a new scare story, which has been picked up by the focus groups and turned into the new religion, offering us hell if we don't all change our ways. However, believing in anthropogenic global warming is not enough, but that is all it c
an offer.

The author, Dr Martin Keeley, is Visiting Professor in Petroleum Geology, at University College London, UK.


07-08-2006, 05:20 AM
This site is great!


07-09-2006, 10:56 AM
Canadian Premiere: Al Gore's Hot Air

Al Gore is in for the cold shoulder should he ever pay a visit to the oil and gas rich Canadian province of Alberta.

"I don't listen to Al Gore in particular because he's a Democrat, and not only that, he's about as far left as you can go," says Ralph Klein, the province's Conservative premier.

He was reacting to Gore's comments in Rolling Stone that processing oil sands is a huge waste of energy that also harms the landscape of Western Canada.

"For every barrel of oil they extract there, they have to use enough natural gas to heat a home for four days?It's truly nuts. But you know, junkies find veins in their toes. It seems reasonable to them because they've lost sight of the rest of their lives."

Gore's remarks had Klein, who recently returned from a trip to Washington to promote Alberta's oil and gas industr
y, seeing red.

"I don't know what he proposes the world to run on," the premier retorted. Maybe hot air."


02-12-2007, 07:32 AM
Czech president derogates UN global-warming panel (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/28950.html)

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis, Czech media reported Friday.

Klaus told the Hospodarske noviny daily that the panel did not include "neutral scientists, a balanced group of scientists."

"These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment," he told interviewers.

According to the Czech president, "each serious person and scientist" says that global warming is a myth.

His comments came a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented its much-anticipated report which contained a stark warning about global warming and blamed man-made emissions for the problem.

The IPCC report, compiled by some 600 scientists from 40 countries, said it is "very likely" that man-made greenhouse gases have caused the rise in temperatures, reflecting a 90-per-cent certainty in the scientific community and an upgrade from a "likely," or two-thirds certainty given in the last IPCC report six years ago.

The British government described the UN panel report, presented in Paris on February 2, a blow to the "climate change deniers."

US President George W Bush turned away from climate change scepticism in this year's State of the Union speech proposing that the US cut petrol use to fight both global warming and foreign oil dependency, and his administration endorsed the UN panel report.

According to Klaus, "other top-level politicians" do not express their global warming doubts because "a whip of political correctness strangles [their] voice".

3 Ks
02-17-2007, 01:31 AM
I suppose there is a cell waiting for those of us who deny global warming....right next to the holohoax deniers.

The Bobster
02-20-2007, 12:38 PM
They're already calling skeptics "global warming deniers" and either shouting them down or making them lose their jobs. Yes, it is similar.

This is all part of a plan for one-world government.

3 Ks
03-04-2007, 02:56 PM
Algore failed a simple test!

Take the global warming test (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html)

03-04-2007, 04:43 PM

You have heard and will continue to hear about "Global Warming". This is nothing more than a scare tactic used by a political party to try and gain voters. Sure the Earth is going through "natural" changes, it always does.

Twenty years ago we were being told by the same "political party" to be prepared. "Prepared for what?" you say! Prepared for the next "ICE AGE" ! We were warned that we have, at most, 10 years before we slip into the deep-freeze.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for conservation of our resources here on Earth. I'm an avid outdoorsman and fisherman. We have a motto to "leave it the way you found it."

Billions have been spent on improving our water and air quality here in the United States and that is great, we are all better off for it. But the changes in our lifestyle and culture that are being proposed in the name of so-called "Global Warming" are taking it a bit to far.

Take this simple test to find out the truth. If you agree with me, send this to people that might give a hoot one way or the other:

GLOBAL WARMING TEST (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html)

03-06-2007, 05:52 AM
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Channel 4 Thursday 8 March at 9pm

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun's radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.

The film argues that the earth's climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

The film hears from scientists who dispute the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

continued at link (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html)

3 Ks
03-06-2007, 11:11 AM
The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a 'greenhouse effect' of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Long ago, there was a "consensus" that the Earth was flat!

Then, there was a "consensus" that the Sun revolved around the Earth!

The Bobster
03-06-2007, 03:36 PM

Allegre's second thoughts

The Deniers -- The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science

Published: Friday, March 02, 2007

Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

"By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth's crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l' Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

03-09-2007, 03:11 PM
Global warming: the bogus religion of our age (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440869&in_page_id=1965&in_page_id=1965)

The world is heading for environmental catastrophe or so we are constantly being told by the politicians and self-appointed experts.

They warn us that unless we take drastic action, the earth will soon be devastated by climate change and global warming.

Entire species will be lost, crops will be obliterated, floods and famine will sweep across the planet, and western economies will slide into depression.

Tonight, Channel 4 will broadcast The Great Global Warming Swindle, which suggests that the whole subject has become such a political hot potato that other explanations for climate change are not being properly examined.

Certainly, there have been many sweeping predictions of global ruin, few more emphatic than the report from Sir Nicholas Stern into the economics of climate change, which states with an air of unchallengeable conviction: 'The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Climate change presents very serious global risks and it demands an urgent global response.'

His study, commissioned by the Government in July 2005 and published amid much Whitehall hype in October 2006, seemed to carry all the more weight because Stern is one of the most senior civil servants in Britain, the head of the Government's economic service.

His conclusions appeared to be based on powerful scientific authority, since his team of 20 or so officials had drawn on a wide range of published papers and data.

Tony Blair has described it as the most important document produced during his ten years as Prime Minister, and urged that the Stern blueprint, with its calls for more regulation and taxation, be adopted in full.

'The disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future, but in our lifetimes,' said Blair, who went on to claim that the 'the world faces nothing more serious, more urgent and more demanding of its leadership than climate change.'

All this has helped put the Stern report at the very forefront of the debate. The central theme of it is that there is a near universal consensus of opinion within the scientific community about the dangers of climate change. But this is not true.

There is no such unanimity among scientists.

Throughout the 550 pages of his document, Stern continually strikes a confident note, as if there were no dispute about the issues.

Completely divorced from scientific reality

Yet this self-assured stance is completely divorced from scientific reality. It is an inconvenient truth for Stern and his political allies that there is, in fact, precious little hard evidence to back up his sweeping claims.

In a revealing recent comment, Stern admitted that when he was appointed by the Government, he 'had an idea what the greenhouse effect was but wasn't really sure'.

This lack of understanding of science shines through every chapter of his report.

He is guilty of misreading the data, of distorting the evidence to suit his political masters' dogma, of throwing numbers about with reckless abandon, of promoting alarmism in place of rational discussion, and of reinventing climate history.

There are fundamental misconceptions throughout the document. He seems to think that climate prediction is a mature science stretching back to the early 19th century, hence the confident tone science stretching back to the early century, hence the confident tone of his pronouncements.

But in reality climate prediction is a relatively modern science, which has emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the emergence of computers.

So there are no easy certainties about the past or the future.

Stern states boldly that the scale of global warming has been unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years, but he cannot possibly be sure on this point because data from previous centuries is unreliable.

At most, we have a 50-year span of accurate measurements. The only genuine global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since 1958, and from microwave sounding units, since 1978.

What they indicate is a very gently warming trend, nothing approaching the apocalyptic vision of Sir Nicholas.

Moreover, this minor trend could have easily have been caused by irregularities such as volcanic eruptions or El Nino events (major fluctuations in ocean temperatures in the Pacific which affect climate).

Stern's report 'ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology'

In support of his gloomy thesis, Stern, like all global warming enthusiasts, ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology. He glosses over the fact that, according to a host of historical accounts, Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, or that the 17th century was much colder, prompting what was known as 'The Little Ice Age', when the Thames was often frozen over for months at a time.

Stern also refers to 'significant melting of and an acceleration of ice floes' near the coast of Greenland because of global warming.

Yet several reputable scientific studies have shown that the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is actually expanding, while Stern also fails to note that the temperature of Greenland is now lower than it was in 1940 and little changed from the first measurements in the 1780s.

Environmentalists are fond of jerking heartstrings with pictures of polar bears struggling on supposedly melting icebergs, but it is estimated that there are now 22,000 polar bears compared with 5,000 in 1940.

Nor can we be sure that any long-term changes in our climate are due to mankind. There are any number of other possibilities and the programme tonight examines the possibility that the sun's radiation is primarily responsible for climate change.

Indeed, the climate can fluctuate without any external cause at all something again ignored by Stern, who wants only to indulge in the fashionable notion that western capitalism is entirely to blame for every drought and disaster.

Further, Stern takes no account of the capacity of mankind to adapt to, and improve his, environment.

There can be little dispute that, more than a century after the peak of the 19th-century industrial revolution, Britain is a cleaner, healthier, less polluted country than it was in the late Victorian age, when smog, disease and slums were rife.

Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology.

That is what is so disturbing about the current debate on global warming. Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all scientific inquiry, is treated with contempt.

Far from being the powerful masterpiece that Blair claimed, Stern's report is manifestly incompetent.

It is another dodgy dossier, where assertions are presented as facts and data is twisted to suit a political purpose.

I agree with the economist critic who noted: 'If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood, I would give him D for diligence, but more likely I would give him an F for fail.' We are shifting away from science and into the realm of religious fanaticism, where the followers of the creed, brimming with self-righteous fury, believe that they are in possession of a higher truth.

Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than intellectual rigour from its adherents.

It is intolerant of dissent; those who question the message of doom are regarded as heretics, or 'climate change deniers', to use green parlance.

And, just as in many religions, the route to personal salvation lies in the performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a lightbulb or arranging for a tree to be planted after every plane journey.

What is so tragic is the way that this dubious ideology has achieved such dominance in our public life.

Politicians love the green agenda, of course, because it means more control, more regulation, more taxes, more summits, and more opportunities for displays of self-important zeal.

The tragedy is that the likes of Sir Nicholas Stern are using bogus science to push forward this agenda.

Richard Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

03-09-2007, 03:49 PM
Climatologists will tell you that the 11th to 13th centuries were so warm that Greenland really WAS a "Green land". They grew wine in Kent in England. Viking remains in Greenland tell historians that toward the end, the diet changed from land based animals to fish, their skeletons became shorter from poorer diets then they either died out completely or left.
You can't tell me man was responsible for those changes back then.

The 'little ice age' from the 13th century to 1830 or so was so cold they roasted Oxen on the completely frozen over Thames river, and some people reckon we might still be leaving that event.
OTOH, that little ice age started with a period of really bad storms and chaos, floods in France and the like. We're apparently getting more and worse Hurricanes now than in previous decades, Rita, Latrina and the like.
The North Atlantic current is definitely showing signs of slowing, by 10% at last report, the immense cold water columns submarines used to pass through all the time in the North Atlantic from cold water dropping into the depths as warmer water moved in from the equator are also fading.

Think about it.

As for the Ozone hole, my physics teacher pointed out to us 20 years ago that it needs a certain form of ultraviolet to form Ozone, which needless to say disappears every Winter at the poles. Hence, every Winter you get this hole appearing.
He also said that it was discovered a century before when researchers with primitive ultraviolet measuring equipment saw an increase at the poles.
Again, we can hardly be respnsible for it then, I think fluorine/chlorine compounds were unknown or little more than a lab curiosity then.

3 Ks
03-10-2007, 05:05 PM
What a "global" joke! I think these liberals just like hearing themselves say the word "global". It makes them sound smart.

I'm going to sue algore for causing me un do stress & anxiety, thus making these clowns prove their alchemy!:D

03-13-2007, 02:48 PM
Scientists: Gore Goes Too Far in 'An Inconvenient Truth' (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258462,00.html)

Several experts on climate change, including both proponents and skeptics of the man-made global warming theory, question former Vice President Al Gore's assertions in his Academy Award-winning documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth."

"I don't want to pick on Al Gore," said Don J. Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, told an annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, according to a report in The New York Times. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."

In the slideshow presentation that is the central part of "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore lays out what most researchers consider to be the worst-case scenario for global warming, with total melting of polar ice caps, a sea-level rise of 20 feet and catastrophic flooding and droughts.

"He's a very polarizing figure in the science community," Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, told the Times. "Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore."

Current scientific consensus holds that human industrial activity has sharply increased the amounts of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, and that average temperatures worldwide will rise for at least the next century but at a much more gradual rate than that depicted in "An Inconvenient Truth."

"Climate change is a real and serious problem," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist and statistician whose book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" challenges many of the catastrophic assertions made by proponents of the global-warming theory. "The cacophony of screaming does not help."

The Bobster
03-13-2007, 03:04 PM

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
Al Gores film on global warming depicted a bleak future.

Published: March 13, 2007

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth," which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

Don J. Easterbrook, a geology professor, has cited inaccuracies" in An Inconvenient Truth."

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gores central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

I dont want to pick on Al Gore," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made the most important and salient points" about climate change, if not some nuances and distinctions" scientists might want. The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger," he said, adding, I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand."

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in An Inconvenient Truth," which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for getting the message out," Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were overselling our certainty about knowing the future."

Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globes recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.

Hes a very polarizing figure in the science community," said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore."

An Inconvenient Truth," directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.

Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. Unless we act boldly," he wrote, our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes."

He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.

He has credibility in this community," said Tim Killeen, the groups president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. Theres no question hes read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way."

Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees," adding that Mr. Gore often did so better than scientists."

Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice presidents work may hold imperfections" and technical flaws." He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. On the other hand," Dr. Hansen said, he has the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be stronger, in a warmer climate."

In his e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. Of course," he said, there will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions."

He said not every single adviser" agreed with him on every point, but we do agree on the fundamentals" that warming is real and caused by humans.

Mr. Gore added that he perceived no general backlash among scientists against his work. I have received a great deal of positive feedback," he said. I have also received comments about items that should be changed, and I have updated the book and slideshow to reflect these comments." He gave no specifics on which points he had revised.

He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, I think that Im finally getting a little better at it."

While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of shrill alarmism."

Some of Mr. Gores centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globes warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gores message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

It estimated that the worlds seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. Climate change is a real and serious problem" that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. The cacophony of screaming," he added, does not help."

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gores portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gores film did indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios." But the June report, he added, shows that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years."

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gores claim that the energy industry ran a disinformation campaign" that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

Hardly a week goes by," Dr. Peiser said, without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory," including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet," Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change."

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gores claim that our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to 20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gores assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. Ive never been paid a nickel by an oil company," Dr. Easterbrook told the group. And Im not a Republican."

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warmings effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims," Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts."

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.

On balance, he did quite well a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject," Dr. Oppenheimer said. For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, youre going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right."

The Bobster
03-13-2007, 03:06 PM

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

03-14-2007, 03:38 AM
MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

On Monday, the pair was at Canada's Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.

Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a 1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the first women to ski across Antarctica in 2001.

But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear, punching a hole in Bancroft's sled and damaging one of Arnesen's snowshoes.

They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said the patch job created pressure on Arnesen's left foot, which led to blisters that then turned into frostbite.

Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.

She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."


03-14-2007, 03:58 AM
NOT AGAIN! DC 'Snow Advisory' Issued on Day of Congressional Global Warming Hearing... ^
From the March 07, 2007 13:38:59 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

Brothel Owners Blame Global Warming for Staff Shortages... ^
From the March 06, 2007 12:37:52 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

Minnesota Public Radio forum on global warming cancelled -- due to blizzard... ^
From the March 02, 2007 14:02:05 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

Study Predicts Global Warming Will Cause Children's Fevers To Soar... ^
From the February 22, 2007 15:16:55 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

Report: Global Warming Worries Keeps Children Awake At Night... ^
From the February 23, 2007 03:49:25 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

BOSTON GLOBE's Ellen Goodman: Global warming deniers are like Holocaust deniers... ^
From the February 09, 2007 14:41:30 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

Governor Planning To Fire Oregon Climatologist for Taking Skeptical View of Global Warming... ^
From the February 07, 2007 04:49:26 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

Climatologist Calls Global Warming Fears 'Greatest Deception in the History of Science'... ^
From the February 05, 2007 16:56:35 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

Global Warming Linked to 'Enhanced Risk of Suicide'... ^
From the January 25, 2007 14:51:35 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'... ^
From the January 19, 2007 14:03:47 GMT edition of the Drudge Report.

03-16-2007, 05:05 AM
MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

A few toes is such a small sacrifice for such a noble cause that could affect the world population.:crazy: :rotfl:

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."


"Unpredictability" get real, how about naturally occurring changes in the earth's climate.:headbash:

03-16-2007, 06:41 AM

Global Warming: why it is the Left's last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy
-- and how we can fight back

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism
by Christopher Horner

For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.

Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes - and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It's the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could "solve" it. According to the logic of the greens' own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government.
Horner (an attorney and Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute) reveals the full anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-human agenda of today's environmentalists, dubbing them "green on the outside, red to the core." He details how they use strong-arm legal tactics - and worse - against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming. Along the way, he explodes ten top global warming myths, carefully examines the evidence to determine how much warming there really is and what is actually causing it. He exposes the lies that the environmental lobby routinely tells to make its case; the ways in which it is trying to impose initiatives such as the Kyoto Accords on an unwilling American public; and much more - including the green lobby's favorite politicians (an often surprising rogue's gallery including John Kerry, John McCain, Joe Lieberman and others).

It's time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist: human beings are not the enemy. In breezy, light-hearted and always entertaining fashion, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism gives you the facts you need to do so.

No, the sky is not falling, despite the Green Left's best efforts:

Proof: media hype and deceptive Al Gore slide shows notwithstanding, greenhouse gas concentrations demonstrably do not determine temperatures

The mainstream media's routinely sloppy, inaccurate reporting about evidence of global warming and other environmental matters

More proof: The hole in the ozone layer - the 1980s manmade environmental crisis - was caused by the Antarctic atmosphere being too cold

How environmentalists throughout modern history have instilled fear over one looming "crisis" or another with the aim of increasing government control over things big and small

Why the environmental alarmists do whatever they can to avoid actual debate

The environmentalist movement: not a grassroots phenomenon driven by scruffy idealists but an elite-driven movement that lards the coffers of pressure campaigns with wealth - commonly inherited, often corporate, and far too-frequently looted from the taxpayer

Recent studies that have shown that the environment is actually flourishing - and how the greens have turned even these into evidence of our imminent doom

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem": the environmentalists' openly anti-human agenda

How real pollution problems can be addressed through the technological improvements that the Left is doing all it can to obstruct

Al Gore's global warming jihad: how it will lead to massively higher costs and direct or indirect energy rationing - and probably many measures that are even worse

How much of the budget for environmental pressure groups comes directly from taxpayers -- through grants for public "education" and congressional schemes designed to subsidize the greens' lawyers

Green lunacy run amok: how even respectable political figures (and Slick Willie) say that the environmental damage caused by American industry is a greater threat than terrorism

Why, as with other political crusades that fail in the arena of representative democracy, the greens now see the courts and supranational bodies as their best hopes

How environmental policies come with a cost, often to the society as a whole, decreasing wealth, and so harming health - dangers the average environmentalist ignores

How greens worship primitive lifestyles from afar, while those mired in them would kill to escape them

How, almost without fail, global warming skeptics are charged with being stooges of industry - a charge that neither addresses the skeptic's criticism or question, nor reflects the fact that most of "industry" now actually supports the alarmists' agenda

Ethanol: sobering evidence that it might not be good for the environment - and how the damage to soil from single-crop farming is probably more real than global warming

How the risks of climate change policy far outweigh the risks that might realistically be expected as climate continues to change

3 Ks
03-16-2007, 02:57 PM
Praise the internet, idiot is thy name and on a toe-less horse rode a brainos called global warming gore ...

03-16-2007, 11:54 PM
Climate change danger 'overplayed' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=442863&in_page_id=1770)

Two leading British scientists have hit out at the "Hollywoodisation" of fears over climate change.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, have criticised peers who they accuse of "overplaying" the global warming message.

The pair placed the highly respected American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) at the centre of their criticism.

The pair reportedly say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science. At a conference in Oxford they will say this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.

They think the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only works to create confusion in the public mind.

The 2004 smash hit film The Day After Tomorrow blurred the lines between science and entertainment with its depiction of catastrophic consequences after global warming caused large areas of the Arctic ice shelf to break off and melt.

Professors Hardaker and Collier argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.

They criticised a strongly worded statement released by the AAAS at its last annual meeting in San Francisco in February which said: "As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies.

"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."

According to Professors Hardaker and Collier, this may well turn out to be true, but convincing evidence to back the claims has not yet emerged.

03-21-2007, 02:31 AM
An online video some kind soul posted to youtube in its entirety.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)
"This short program, produced and shown in England, destroys the arguments put forward by Al Gore and the human caused Global Warming activists."


We're definitely not alone in having our suspicions that its a load of crap.

Heres another tidbit to consider, from this newsgroup thread:


Ilya Prigogine received his Nobel prize for his studies of self organising
circulation patterns in chaotic systems and his Nobel prize acceptance
lecture will repay careful study although it is heavy going. The model is
one of sudden jumps between stable states. The quantum effect writ large.
Modern research shows that, as far as global climate is concerned, these
changes can happen over a period of a few years and that the last such
change was about 8,000 years ago when there were far fewer than 6 billion
people on earth. No worries; our large brains, language and tool making
abilities, and social structures are all adaptations driven mostly by
numerous sudden changes in climate over the last few million years.

03-22-2007, 04:59 AM

WASHINGTON, DC – Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today’s global warming hearing.

Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”

Gore has been criticized for excessive home energy usage at his residence in Tennessee. His electricity usage is reportedly 20 times higher than the average American household.

It has been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway. Also, carbon offset projects such as planting trees can take decades or even a century to sequester the carbon emitted today. So energy usage today results in greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere for decades, even with the purchase of so-called carbon offsets.

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.

“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.

Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge:

As a believer:
ÃâÅÚà that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

ÃâÅÚà that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

ÃâÅÚà that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

ÃâÅÚà that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”

Gore refused to take the pledge.


More... Very important!

Ranking Member of the EPW Committee

Hearing on Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming
March 21, 2007

Thank you for holding this hearing, Madame Chairman, and to you also, Mr. Vice President, for agreeing to come before our Committee to testify about your perspectives. Your views are already known to many Americans, but today will allow us to engage in a dialogue which should be interesting.

It is my perspective that your global warming alarmist pronouncements are now and have always been filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements. Many of the peer-reviewed studies published in such journals as Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, and Science are radically at odds with your claims. I do not have time to delve into each flaw with your movie, but I do want to touch on just 2.

First, you have claimed that there is a “strong, new emerging consensus” linking global warming to an increase in hurricane intensity and duration. Yet last year, the World Meteorological Organization very clearly rejected this assertion, and other scientists agree.

Secondly, you said that East Antarctica might melt and this could raise sea levels by 20 feet, so we’re all going to die. However, according to many scientists, Antarctica is gaining ice mass, not losing it. In a 2005 study published in Science a team of researchers led by Dr. Curt Davis found an overall gain in ice mass in Antarctica over a ten year period.

And the public is catching on. Even the New York Times last week published an article about scientists, many of them your supporters, who say you have overstated your case on global warming — in fact, they warn that you may be hurting the so-called cause with your "alarmism."

Given that, it is no wonder you have turned down the chance to debate the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus. And now I understand a debate challenge has been issued by Lord Monckton of Benchley.

Now there is a reason for this.

When the debate is balanced, skeptics win, alarmists lose. In New York last week, for instance, a major debate took place to examine whether global warming is a crisis. Prior to the debate, the hand-wringers, the alarmists, in the audience outnumbered those who didn’t think it was a crisis 2 to 1. After the debate, the alarmists were outnumbered – a major turnaround in beliefs in a single night.

That shift mirrors a larger one taking place in the scientific community. Claude Allegre, a French geophysicist – Nir Shaviv, an Israeli astrophysicist – and meteorologist Reid Bryson have converted from alarmists to believing that climate variability is largely natural. In short, the ranks of converted scientists are skyrocketing.

Lastly, the cost: Global warming is now big business. Thousands of individuals and even some Fortune 100 companies stand to make tens of billions of dollars.

I was on the floor opposing the ’93 Clinton-Gore tax increase of $32 billion, but the cost of Kyoto and other CO2 reduction schemes are estimated to be over $300 billion, ten times the cost of your ’93 tax increase. And who’s paying for it? Those on fixed incomes and the poor, who as a percent of their monthly budget spend five times more on energy than the average household.

Largest tax increase in history – 10 times Clinton-Gore of ’93 and the poor pay for it… and the science isn’t there. We just can’t do that to America, Mr. Vice President… and we’re not gonna.


03-22-2007, 05:23 AM
No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic.

These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions.

First, there's the hypocrisy and corruption. At the 1992 Democratic Convention in New York, Al Gore said: "The central organizing principle of governments everywhere must be the environment." The environment would not, however, be the central organizing principle of Gore's own life.

The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

Never mind his carbon footprint have you seen the size of Al Gore's regular footprint lately? It's almost as deep as Janet Reno's.

But I digress. As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased "carbon offsets."

It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called "carbon offsets."

Americans spend an extra $2.2 billion on gas a year because they're overweight, requiring more fuel in cars to carry the extra pounds. So even with all those papal indulgences, Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print.

Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming.

A few years ago, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming and other environmentalist scares. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester or, as he is described on liberal websites, he is a "young, gay vegetarian Dane with tight T-shirts." His book was cited favorably in the New York Times.

But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day.

The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burned at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this heresy, Ball has received hate mail with such messages as, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming."

I'm against political writers whining about their hate mail because it makes them sound like Paul Krugman. But that's political writers arguing about ideology.

Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics."

Come to think of it, one can't imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further infallibility."

If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

A few years ago, the New York Times ran an article about the continuing furious debates among physicists about quantum mechanics, which differs from global warming in the sense that it is supported by physical evidence and it doesn't make you feel good inside to "do something" about quantum mechanics. It is, in short, science.

Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark called the constant testing and arguing about quantum mechanics "a 75-year war."

That's how a real scientific theory operates. That's even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.


03-23-2007, 02:00 PM
Gore and excess energy comsumption (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/gore_and_excess_energy_comsump.html)

Al Gore testified before a Senate Committee on global warming and blamed Mankind as its cause. His proposal: raise energy taxes. Regardless of the reality of global warming, I for one believe this is an excellent idea. Yes, let's raise taxes on the biggest residential consumers who use more than 2 times the energy of an average American household.

I propose the following Excess Energy Consumption Tax (EECT): All residential electric and natural gas consumption taxes should be based upon excess energy use; after all, the point of raising taxes is to discourage excessive consumption to save the planet, right? Any excess energy consumption will be defined as being twice the national average consumption. All consumption in excess of the threshold will be taxed at the multiple of the national average rate of energy use.

Using Al Gore as the example of 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. He uses 20 times the national average therefore his bill should be as follows: Assuming the national average at 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year or 890 kwhrs/month, on the first 1780 kwhr, there would be no tax, on the next 890 kwhrs he would pay a 100% EECT equal to the electric utilitys kwhr charge, on the next 890 kwhrs he would pay a 200% EECT and so on. By taking this taxation route to saving the planet we will wring out the worst and most wasteful energy consumers.

Those high energy consumption consumers have two choices: reduce consumption preferably using the most efficient electrical devices or get off the electric grid by installing solar panels or wind turbines. It should be obvious that those who now pay in excess of a $1,000 a month for electricity, never mind natural gas, have the financial means to buy small scale electrical generation (18,000 kwhr/mo or so). How long do you think Al Gore would continue to consume energy at his current rate under this taxation regime before he both reduces his consumption and then gets off the electric grid?

Of course we can quibble about how much the EECT should be, but one fact remains, if Al Gore and the rest of the wealthy 5% or 15 million people (who own 70% of the personal wealth of the US) would reduce their consumption, residential electrical use in the US (1,140 billion kwhr) would drop at least 50%, and that's a big number! Their share, 570 billion kwhrs is a lot of energy in anyones book.

Do any of you really doubt that Al Gore is not typical of the wealthy? If you doubt that the wealthy, represented by Al Gore, John Edwards or Nancy Pelosi, consume at least half of all residential electricity, do the math: 15 million people X 20 times average US household = 300 million people. This is a very conservative estimate since we know that Al Gore and the rest of the wealthy have more than one house each and most if not all of those houses are significantly larger than the average American household of 2,500 sq ft.

Now tell me if the US couldn't meet it's Kyoto targets if the wealthy like Al Gore were get off the electric grid or reduce their consumption down to that of the average American household? For those of us who dont believe its mankinds fault, we can still support this approach because such a reduction in energy use would bring the US very close to energy independence.

If this approach is successful, then it should also be applied to fuel for private jets. Remember, one transcontinental flight, one way, consumes as much fuel as two commuters driving (2 vehicles) to work for an entire year. So who is consuming the planet? Al Gore and his friends like Brad Pitt or the average American?

03-23-2007, 02:32 PM
People like Gore and Pitt are not Americans. They are nationless, globalist, jew-bolshivik parasites.

03-24-2007, 01:19 PM
Global warming on trial
Sixth-graders decide that humans arent to blame

By Ben Ready
The Daily Times-Call

LONGMONT Humans dont cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.

Theyre pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great," paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute trial" in his classroom.

With Earths warming accepted as a tenet, pre-teen lawyers" and scientists" debated whether humans have caused it.

Eleven jurors listened intently as prosecutors and defendants flashed contradictory graphs tracking global temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, polar ice cap statistics, volcanic activity and sea surface temperatures all of which were found Wednesday in the schools computer lab.

The earth has warmed and cooled over many years. If its caused by CO2, why havent the charts shot up?" Poppes son and lead prosecutor Caleb argued during a rebuttal.

In a climax that sent half the class to its feet and forced the judge to call for order, opponent Monique Nem slapped a contradictory graph onto the prosecutions table.

Weve proven you wrong! The CO2 levels have shot up," she said.

The jury responded more warmly, however, to Caleb Poppes response: The graphic cited a Hawaiian source; Hawaii has volcanoes; volcanoes emit CO2.

In closing arguments, Alexia Hegy said global temperatures actually decreased in the 1960s, while the global population rose. Humans cannot be at fault, she concluded.

With the final word, defense attorney Sarah Steed countered: It all comes back to us, the people not the sun, not the weather. We need to turn off lights when we dont need them. Bikes can work. The environment can be richer."

Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning.

It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points," said student Samantha Roberts.

Ken Poppe said he let students choose which side of the debate to argue. Poppe personally believes global warming is cyclical and not affected by humans, while his Colorado State University student aide David Richards believes the opposite. Both, however, said they presented both sides equally to the students leading up to Thursdays debate.

What I think is not the issue. Its what the students dig up and how they present the case," Poppe said.

Only one parent questioned Poppes decision to hold a global warming debate. That mother expected him to present Al Gores global warming movie An Inconvenient Truth" as indisputable facts, Poppe said. After he explained his neutrality in the classroom, the mom allowed her child to participate in the debate, he said.

You dont understand someones position until you can argue it to their satisfaction," Poppe said, quoting a famous physicist. I dont believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist."


03-25-2007, 10:33 PM
It's no surprise that some scientists have begun to quietly complain about Gore.

Hot-Headed Gore Needs To Cool Off (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/opinion/main2601819.shtml)
Weekly Standard: Gore's Exaggerations Hurt Science And His Cause

Gore proposes essentially four assertions, which build conditionally: (1) Earth's climate is getting warmer; (2) man is responsible in substantial part for this change; (3) this change will result in net harm; and (4) this change can be reversed by man. Let's take them in order.

Here is what we know for certain about climate change: In the last 100 years, the average temperature on Earth has risen 1 degree Fahrenheit. This is not unprecedented. Throughout history, the planet has gone through temperature cycles. There have been "warm periods" and ice ages. To take just one example, Swiss climatologists believe that the glaciers in the Alps have melted into near nothingness 10 times in the last 10,000 years.

As recently as the 1970s, global cooling was considered by many scientists to be a major imminent threat, with the book The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age" doing the work of today's An Inconvenient Truth."

Given the history of fluctuations in temperatures, to what degree is man responsible for the current rise? That depends on whom you ask and when you ask them. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it believes that human activity has been a primary driver.

But this verdict is not final: The IPCC recently explained that its initial work on climate change overestimated man's impact by as much as 25 percent. Who knows how it will change its estimates in the future.

Meanwhile, other scientists say they believe the sun is responsible. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany note that the sun has seemed to be burning more brightly for the last 60 years, which may account for the increase of 1 degree.

But as British scientist Nigel Calder notes, theories about climate change that don't finger man as the culprit are met with hostility or blank stares in the parts of the scientific community most heavily invested in Gore's theses, such as the IPCC.

Which brings us to the third part: If global warming is real, what would the net effect be? Gore says it would be very bad indeed. Taking his cue from the former vice president, the announcer of the Academy Awards telecast gushed that "Davis Guggenheim and the cast were scheduled to shoot in New Orleans the night before Hurricane Katrina hit, an event that brought home the threat and the impact of global warming." If global warming causes more storms like Katrina, that would be trouble.

But as a recent piece in Slate acknowledges, "the hurricane-warming link isn't settled at all. Rather, it's a very contentious debate between two groups of scientists computer-modeling atmospheric scientists versus meteorologists."

Gore, however, goes further. In promoting the 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow," he told the press, "I hope this movie will provide many opportunities for in-depth conversations about what this issue is really all about." The movie depicted a series of super storms that cause a near apocalypse and bring about, in a matter of days, a new ice age.

Given this promiscuous doomsaying, it's no surprise that some scientists have begun to quietly complain about Gore. A number of them recently went on record with their complaints to the New York Times.

Kevin Vranes, a University of Colorado climatologist, worried that Gore had been "overselling our certainty about knowing the future."

Gore warns about a 20-foot rise in sea level; the IPCC panel estimates "that the world's seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches down from earlier estimates."

Ever apocalyptic, Gore says that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this." But Don Easterbrook, a geology professor from Western Washington University, notes that within the last 15,000 years there have been shifts up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

What's more, some broad historical evidence, such as that presented by Thomas Gale Moore in his book Climate of Fear," suggests that Earth's "warming periods" have been accompanied by advances in human civilization. As the saying goes, past performance is not an indication of future gains. But if the climate were to warm gradually, it's not obvious why man wouldn't adapt and flourish again, as we have in the past.

Of course, none of that matters if the final condition of the Gore hypothesis doesn't hold. Can man stop the changing of the climate?

Again, the science is conflicted. Gore certainly believes we can. Others are less certain. Climate-change alarmist Paul Hellyer, a former Canadian minister of defense, recently said he believed advanced technology from extraterrestrial civilizations offered the best hope to "save our planet" from the perils of climate change.

Art Bell and Whitley Strieber take a backseat to no one in their worries about climate change. They wrote the book The Coming Global Superstorm," on which The Day After Tomorrow" was based, and they, too, fear it may be too late. Bell is host on a radio show about UFOs and the paranormal. Before hooking up with Bell, Strieber wrote five nonfiction books about having been abducted by aliens.

Nothing wrong with any of that, of course. We all have to believe in something.

But when you compound the probabilities, the claims of environmentalists such as Gore begin to look less and less certain. In fact, in their unwillingness to brook dissent or countervailing theories, they seem less like scientists and more like the fundamentalists they otherwise scorn.

The Bobster
04-04-2007, 10:14 AM

A CEO With A Spine

April 3, 2007

The New York Coal Trade Association, headquartered in New York City, recently held its 94th annual banquet and meeting at the New York Hilton. One of the guest speakers was Bob Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation and probably one of the few CEOs brave enough to challenge the militant climate control movement that threatens the future of America's economy. In his speech, he dared to say that he regards Al Gore as the shaman of global doom and gloom. He is not joking when he says, "He is more dangerous than his global warming."

Unlike many heads of corporations who are taking their companies on that long green mile and caving in to the demands of environmental militants, Mr. Murray is fighting tooth and nail for what he says is, "the little guy that nobody cares about."

"Some wealthy elitists in our country," he told the audience, "who cannot tell fact from fiction, can afford an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions to them, but they are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of the American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these elitists' ill-conceived global goofiness' campaigns."

Mr. Murray was a coal miner in Ohio who survived two mining accidents and built funds from a mortgaged house into a private coal mining company with more than 3,000 employees. He expresses concern about the proposals in Congress that will ration the use of coal, warning of much worse adverse consequences to Americans than those experienced after the 1990 amendment of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Murray told me that he had seen the effect of the drastic reductions in coal production, and the wrenching impact on hundreds of communities, as a result of that legislation. In Ohio alone, from 1990 to 2005, about 118 mines were shut down, costing more than 36,000 primary and secondary jobs. These impacted areas have spent years recovering, and some never will. He spoke of the families that broke up, many lost homes, and some were impoverished, because of legislation that the environmentalists call a "success."

"I don't need a computer graphic like in Gore's movie, to learn about this havoc," he told me, "I lived it and saw it firsthand."

To Mr. Murray, so-called "global warming" is a human issue, not just an environmental one. In his speech, Murray said, "The unfolding debate over atmospheric warming in the Congress, the news media, and by the pundits has been skewed and totally one-sided, in that they have been preoccupied, speculative environmental disasters of climate change."

Mr. Murray told me that the Democrats had tried to stop his scheduled testimony on March 20 before the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, titled "Toward a Clean Energy Future: Energy Policy and Climate Change on Public Lands." But after Mr. Murray was interviewed by Bloomberg News and by the Wall Street Journal, they relented. The chairman refused to hear his testimony and left Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a Democrat of Rhode Island, in charge.

In his testimony, Mr. Murray explained: " America is dependent on our coal because it is abundant, with some of our best deposits located on public lands; it is affordable; and it is critical to our energy security to protect all Americans from the hostile and unstable governments from which much of our country's energy is currently imported."

Right now about 52% of the country's electricity is generated by coal. In the coastal cities we tend to forget about that because we get most of our electricity from oil, natural gas, and nuclear power plants. But the farms that grow our food and many other industries around the country can't afford these more expensive sources of energy. Manufacturers will outsource jobs to foreign countries that will not subscribe to emission caps and controls. China is building 50 new coal-fired power plants, and Beijing has stated it will not agree to mandatory emission constraints in the post-2012 Kyoto treaty. Why are we being so stupid about this issue?

The irony is that these caps and controls will do little to affect climate. Timothy Ball, a renowned environmental consultant, testified before the committee that global warming is more likely to be caused by sun spots rather than human activity. Mr. Murray's passion for saving the "little guy" is truly admirable. Too bad that fervor is completely absent in Congress.

04-18-2007, 12:54 PM
Pack ice forces evacuation of vessels off N.L. (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/04/18/4056611-cp.html)

Pack ice forces evacuation of vessels off N.L.

ST. JOHN'S, N.L. (CP) - Coast guard icebreakers were smashing through a massive expanse of pack ice Wednesday in a bid to free about 100 sealing vessels stuck off Newfoundland's northeast coast and southern Labrador.

A spokesman for the Canadian Coast Guard said at least 10 vessels, in an area off Fogo Island, were in "extreme difficulty" with the risk that ice could pierce their hulls. There were also three vessels in a similar predicament off southern Labrador, in the Strait of Belle Isle.

Local fishermen say the ice conditions are the worst they've seen in more than 20 years.

Brian Penney, a superintendent with the coast guard in Newfoundland and Labrador, said helicopters could be called in to rescue stranded crews as a northeast wind continues to jam the ice floes together.

"There's vessels disabled, there's vessels damaged. There's crews that are out on the ice because there's quite a possibility that their vessels may sink or the vessels are out on their sides," he said.

"There's a strong possibility that there will be other crews we may have to rescue by coast guard ship or helicopter."

Earlier in the day, a helicopter airlifted the crew from the Dad and Sons, which was damaged by ice off Fogo Island.

Penney said the stricken vessel is in danger of sinking.

"She's damaged and just listed out on the ice, and once the ice pressure comes off there's a good possibility the vessel will sink," he said.

Meanwhile, the coast guard is trying to get supplies to those vessels that are "in most dire straits," said Penney.

"Supplies are starting to run very low, in addition to fuel."

Frank Pinhorn, executive director of the Canadian Sealers Association, said the amount of ice was unprecedented.

"Ice conditions are some of the most severe we've seen in 25 to 30 years," said Pinhorn.

"I've talked to a lot of sealers and they've got holes punched in their new boats and they're taking on water."

Search and rescue officials said the vessel Sir Wilfred Grenfell, which ventured further than it normally does into the pack ice, is also having difficulty and will need help from other icebreakers.

Another coast guard vessel, the George R. Pearkes, has been trying to reach the Grenfell, along with other vessels that have been pushed close to shore by the heaving ice.

The coast guard said two vessels in the Strait of Belle Isle - the Southern Pride and the Labrador Current - were in severe difficulty.

The crew of the Southern Pride had abandoned the vessel and was waiting on the ice for help, while many vessels in other areas were also being monitored.

Poor weather conditions grounded rescue aircraft and the Quebec-based icebreaker Desgrosier, which has been working in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, was called in to help.

Penney said many of the crews are reluctant to abandon their vessels as most sealers consider that option a last resort.

In "the worst-case scenarios" boats are sandwiched by the thick, moving ice and their hulls are cracked open.

05-17-2007, 04:34 AM
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing cl
imate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!"

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warm
ing skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,”

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, a
lso reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006.

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon.

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research,
I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006.

Many more ....

Read the entire article at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

05-28-2007, 03:52 AM
"The Issue of the Potential Impacts of Global Warming on Recreation and the Recreation Industry"
Thursday May 24, 2007

[ Read highlights of witness hearing testimony ]

Thank you for having this hearing today, Madam Chairman. I have to say, however, that we seem to have hearing after hearing after hearing on climate change indeed, this is the Committee's second one this week alone but we dont seem to actually discuss legislation. While other Committees without jurisdiction on this issue attempt to write our nations global warming policies, this Committee sits idly by talking about tangential issues. I believe that if we do wrestle with actual legislation, then the folly of cap-and-trade carbon legislation will become apparent.

The recreation industrys true threats come not from
climate change which has always changed and will always change but from the so-called global warming solutions being proposed by government policymakers. Misguided efforts to solve global warming threaten to damage the travel and recreation industry. In short, it is a direct threat Americas way of life. If we cannot fly to remote locations, and if few automobiles are capable of pulling boats, jet skies, and campers, and if RVs become a thing of the past as environmentalists would like, then minor climate fluctuations will have little impact on recreation because Americans will not have the means to recreate.

I will not belabor my views about the scientific underpinnings of global warming alarmism, other than to make a few observations. The fact that climate fluctuates changes is nothing new, and should not be feared. It has always changed, and unless the processes of the planet suddenly stopped, it always will. There is little disagreement that it warmed in the Northern
Hemisphere from about 1970s until 1998, and that since that time, temperatures flattened. And there is general agreement that some human activities such as the building of cities and expanding agriculture, have contributed to this. But there remains much debate in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as to the many factors which may influence climate that is of importance to the question of whether climate fluctuations are natural or caused by humans. But regardless of that debate, a healthy functioning planet means constant changes in our climate.

There are winners and losers as climate fluctuates. A warming period could be a boon for warm weather destinations like beaches and lakes and a cooling period like we experienced from 1940-1970s could be beneficial for cold weather recreation like skiing and snowboarding. This past winter saw record snows in the Rocky Mountain region as well as an unusually cold spring in Alaska. Currently, we are seeing a Memorial Day snow advisory for the Colorado
Mountains. Wyoming being buried in a May snowstorm and parts of Canada are still enduring winter. In addition, South Africa just set 54 new cold weather records with some parts seeing snow for the first time in 33 years as snow and ice continue to fall. And I am not finished. A massive snowstorm in China has closed highways and stranded motorists. And finally, winter has arrived early in Australia as the snow season is off to a promising start for the winter recreation industry.

But the most verifiable threat to the recreation and travel industry is the unintended consequences of misguided government policy and environmental activists. The chilling effect of guilt that the climate alarmists are attempting to instill in Americans for owning four wheel drive vehicles, flying in an airplane and enjoying travel is enough to harm the industry. For examples of this promotion of misguided policies and guilt, you need look no further than a proposal in April by the UK-based Institute for Public Policy Rese
arch, which called for tobacco-style health warnings on airplanes to warn passengers that the plane flight may be contributing to a global warming crisis. The group proposed posting signs on airplanes which read flying causes climate change."

Another example of unintended consequences by climate crusaders was the recent proclamation by a UK grocery store announcing it would usher in carbon friendly policies and stop importing food from faraway nations. This proposal may have been popular with wealthy Western environmentalists, but the idea did not sit so well with poor African farmers. As a February 21, 2007 BBC article details:

Kenyan farmers, whose lifelong carbon emissions are negligible compared with their counterparts in the West, are fast becoming the victims of a green campaign that could threaten their livelihoods. A recent bold statement by UK supermarket Tesco ushering in carbon friendly measures - such as restricting the imports of air freighted goods by half an
d the introduction of "carbon counting" labeling - has had environmentalists dancing in the fresh produce aisles, but has left African horticulturists confused and concerned."

The BBC article continues:

Half of this produce goes to the UK's supermarkets, generating at least Ú100m per year for this developing country. The dependence on the UK market cannot be underestimated, says Stephen Mbithi Mwikya, chief executive of FPEAK. For Kenya, horticulture is the country's second biggest foreign exchange earner after tourism. This announcement from Tesco is devastating, says Mr Mbithi."

The recent announcement by travel guru Mark Ellingham, the author of the Rough Guide travel book series, that he was now recanting his promotion of worldwide travel is another blow to the travel and recreation industry. Ellingham now says that our addiction to binge flying is killing the planet.

This kind of alarmism should concern the travel and recreation industry, not natural cl
imate fluctuations which mankind has no control over.

There is even more proof showing that the dangers facing travel and recreation are coming from climate hysteria. The Associated Press on May 16, 2007 reported that ecotourism --the type of travel you would expect environmentalists to endorse--is no more Earth friendly than regular travel due to the long plane flights necessary to bring vacationers to exotic locales. The Norwegian Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoey is now warning about long distance travel.

"Long distance travel especially air travel is a challenge to all of us. We know that it has serious impacts on the climate," Bjoernoey said.

I cannot think of a more devastating sentiment to the industry than that. Reduce air travel because of unfounded fears of climate doom. That is the authentic threat not only to the travel industry, but the developing world which depends so much on tourism to improve the life its residents. Clearly, the unfounded fears of a man-
made climate catastrophe and the proposed solutions represent the gravest threats to the industry.

Thank you.


06-14-2007, 05:31 PM
Washington Proponents of tough legislation against greenhouse gas emissions are seizing on a new argument in their attempts to talk lawmakers into taking action: the threat that global warming will lead to instability in the Middle East and endanger Israels security.

In a series of briefings last week on Capitol Hill and with Jewish organizations, a team of experts from Israel presented data indicating that if action to stop global warming is not taken immediately, moderate regimes in the Middle East might collapse and tensions between Israel and its neighbors might rise due to a decrease in rainfall, loss of water sources and increase in extreme weather phenomena.

Jewish groups and activists have already been pressing for action on global warming, with security-minded voices prioritizing the need to end Americas dependence on foreign oil, and others stressing environmental concerns. But the current efforts to predict global warmings geopolitical effects on Israeli and American regional interests represent a new approach to trigger action on the issue.

We came here to raise a red flag," said Gidon Bromberg, one of the Israeli experts who appeared in Washington last week. We are saying that there is a security interest that needs to be dealt with, and for that we need American leadership."

Bromberg serves as director of the Israeli office of Friends of the Earth Middle East, a nongovernmental Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian project established in 1994. The chief scientist of Israels Ministry of Environmental Protection, Yeshayahu Bar-Or, joined him in Washington.

The Israeli experts met with lawmakers and congressional staffers, most of them Democrats, involved in legislation regarding climate change. The only Republican on the list was Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who is pushing his own version of global warming legislation.

We want to provide [the lawmakers] with another tool they can use in order to gain support for legislation aimed at curbing emissions," said Reut Snir, who is in charge of global warming effects on the Middle East at the National Environmental Trust. Snir was behind the initiative to convince policymakers in Washington that climate change will have adverse effects on Middle East security.

Global warming in the Middle East has not gained much attention in international public opinion, which is focused more on dramatic changes already occurring in areas close to the North Pole and less on the subtle transformation in other parts of the world.

According to Bar-Or, rainfall in Israel has decreased, and the Jewish states summer season is becoming increasingly hotter.

Israel is an insignificant player in contributing to global warming, but it suffers from it in a nonproportional rate," Bar-Or said.

The main changes, the Israeli experts predicted, would be a drop in the water supply already a scarce commodity in the Middle East and an expected rise in temperature that will make it even more difficult to replenish water sources. According to the information presented this week, if action is not taken, then Israel might be facing a loss of up to 100 millimeters of rain a year almost 20% of the countrys annual rainfall.

For Israel, water shortages could influence not only its population but also the future of its relations with neighboring countries. Israel is already facing difficulties fulfilling its agreement as part of its 1994 peace treaty with Jordan to transfer water to the Hashemite kingdom, and will face great problems when trying to work out water arrangements with Palestinians in a final status agreement. The Jordanian monarchy, which is based on support of the agricultural communities, might be in danger. The same is true for the Palestinian leadership, which might encounter an uprising of extremists who will feed on the poverty and despair caused by the collapse of agriculture due to lack of water.

In Egypt, the expected rise of the Mediterranean Sea level could flood rich areas in the Niles Delta and lead to food shortages, which could destabilize the regime.

The geopolitical aspects of climate change were recently discussed in a study in which former generals and admirals of the American military looked at the influence of global warming on national security. The chapter regarding the Middle East was written by Anthony Zinni, the general who once commanded American military in the region and then acted as Middle East peace envoy for the Bush administration. Its not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability or climate change and terrorism," Zinni wrote. He added: The existing situation makes [the Middle East] more susceptible to problems. Even small changes may have a greater impact here than they may have elsewhere."

The Israeli experts who came to Washington last week told the Forward that they were well received by lawmakers and staffers and encountered a great willingness to hear more about the less-known effects of global warming on the region.

The issue probably will be raised again in the fall, when a high-level delegation of Jordanian and Israeli officials will come to the United States to stress the need for American action to stop global warming.

In addition to visiting Washington, the Israeli experts addressed members of the Jewish community during a meeting in Philadelphia that was sponsored by the citys local Jewish charitable federation.

In recent years, American Jewish organizations have embraced the energy issue, though not all agree on the means to deal with it. Liberal-leaning groups are emphasizing environmental needs when lobbying for tighter emission standards and for the development of alternative energy sources. Some centrist and right-wing security-focused groups, on the other hand, prioritize the goal of achieving energy independence from Arab and Muslim regimes, and are therefore open to more domestic oil drilling and to the development of other alternatives.

One Jewish communal official who is involved in energy issues told the Forward this week that the attempt to focus the debate on global warmings impact on Israels security will have no more than a marginal effect, since most pro-Israeli lawmakers are already on board on the climate change issue, and those who oppose taking action will not be convinced by arguments relating to Israels security.

The question of where religious communities stand on global warming was also discussed last week, at a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Witnesses at the hearing among them representatives of Catholic, Episcopalian and Southern Baptist churches, as well as Reform synagogues all stressed the religious importance they see in countering global warming.

In his testimony, Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Reform movements Washington-based Religious Action Center, argued that religious groups must focus on the issue because the worlds most vulnerable, impoverished populations will be the ones most adversely impacted by global warming.

This is not simply an issue of the environment," the Reform rabbi said. It is at the core of the religious communitys passion for economic justice."

Saperstein added that protecting the environment now tops the list of concerns of religious communities and is becoming the defining characteristic and priority of the next generation of religious leaders."

The threat of global warming will also take up a significant part of the upcoming annual Hadassah conference. The meeting, scheduled to take place next month, will dedicate two plenary sessions to the issue of climate change and ways of advocating for an environmental agenda that deals with the problem.

Among the speakers at the Hadassah conference is Ohio State Universitys Ellen Mosley-Thompson, one of the leading researchers mapping the melting of mountain ice tips in an attempt to track the rate of global warming.

Global Warming: NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

06-21-2007, 12:07 AM
Read the sunspots - prepare now for dangerous global cooling
The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.

Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.

In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

link (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)

07-01-2007, 04:43 AM
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

June 30, 2007
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.


07-10-2007, 04:39 AM
EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. - The American leg of Live Earth: The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis, like the other concerts on all seven continents, proved to be as complex as the issue it is trying to solve.

As the anointed launch of a social movement, Live Earth U.S.A. pushed and pulled a wide range of ideas - some political, some social, some as big as government policy change, some as small as changing a lightbulb - seemingly anxious to see what method may prove most effective. As a superstar concert, it was a bit more straightforward - with standout sets from Alicia Keys, Kanye West and Kelly Clarkson showing why they are A-list performers with high-energy, high-impact sets.

In either case, the eight-hour show at Giants Stadium yesterday confirmed that there is no single way to attack the climate crisis issue. Some artists, especially Melissa Etheridge, used their set time to passionately discuss the environmental cause at length. Others, like Smashing Pumpkins, didn't mention it at all.

Most took the middle ground, like Keys. "Today is not about the problem," she said as she introduced her new song "That's the Thing About Love." "It is more about the solution."

And for organizers, the solution will come with raised awareness. "Today, more than 2 billion of us have come together in more than 130 countries on all seven continents," said former Vice President Al Gore, the event's organizer. "Times like these demand action," he added, after announcing the 7-Point Pledge that he hoped millions would sign while watching the concert.

However, Etheridge aside, it was nonmusicians at this concert who made the most passionate pleas about demanding action for the environment. "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."Primatologist Jane Goodall offered a greeting in chimpanzee language, before saying, "Up in the North the ice is melting, what will it take to melt the ice in the human heart?"

Perhaps it would take the passion of singers like Keys, whose "If I Ain't Got You" was a thrilling highlight, or Clarkson, who turned her new single "Sober" into a poignant ballad. Or maybe it would take the heat from a trio of young rock groups - Fall Out Boy, AFI and Rockville Centre's Taking Back Sunday - who all put on strong sets and showed the rising influence coming from the indie-rock scene.

The reunited Smashing Pumpkins offered plenty of rage in their set, the classic "Bullet With Butterfly Wings" and the new single "Tarantula." And Pink Floyd's Roger Waters offered stately classic rock, as well as an inflatable pig, hailed by a children's choir during "Another Brick in the Wall." The reunited Police capped the evening with topical tracks like "Driven to Tears" and the all-star jam "Message in a Bottle."

Organizers said Live Earth was the largest musical event ever held, as well as the biggest green event of any kind. MSN, which was hosting the concert on its Web site, said that by 3 p.m., it had played more than 10 million video streams and had the most simultaneous viewers of any online concert ever.

For John Mayer, the raised awareness that Live Earth U.S.A. brought to the issue of climate change made the event a success. "I think a lot of people at Giants Stadium today want to listen," he said. "Awareness works likes a vitamin. You go to the bathroom and 99 percent of it is gone but you hope that you retained 1 percent."


07-11-2007, 12:38 PM
Primatologist Jane Goodall offered a greeting in chimpanzee language, before saying, "Up in the North the ice is melting, what will it take to melt the ice in the human heart?"

These so called experts crack me up Gabrielle, thanks for posting.

So, is miscegenist monkey-lover Jane Groidall studying Yeti's now? Of course the ice up North is melting; it's the beginning of summer in the northern arctic region. Have you never heard of the midnight sun Jane? I'll try to explain it to your chimpanzee mind. Better yet, check jeWikipedia: Midnight sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun).

The midnight sun is a phenomenon occurring in latitudes north of the Arctic Circle and south of the Antarctic Circle. The sun remains visible at the local midnight. Given fair weather, the sun is visible for a continuous 24 hours.

Since there are no permanent human settlements south of the Antarctic Circle, the countries and territories whose population experiences it are limited to the ones crossed by the Arctic Circle, i.e. Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, and extremities of Iceland. A quarter of Finland's territory lies north of the Arctic Circle, and as a consequence the midnight sun can be experienced for more and more days, the further north one goes. At Finland's northernmost point, the sun does not set for 73 days during summer. In Svalbard, Norway, the northernmost inhabited region of Europe, there is no sunset from approximately April 19th to August 23rd. The extreme sites are the poles where the sun can be visible for a continuous half year.

07-12-2007, 11:11 AM
Great post and a great debate topic! I usually have to see something until I believe it. But I have been up to the Arctic Ocean occassionally in the las ten years and it appears to be detererating. Who knows though? I am no earth scientist:lol: Too many tree huggers dig in to this crap I doubt anything is really wrong at least in our life time!

07-14-2007, 06:41 PM
The BBC won't let the sunshine in

In the wake of the BBC's 15-hour marathon promoting Al Gore's propaganda fest for the "consensus" view of global warming (interspersed with rock music), a concerted effort was made last week to discredit the rival thesis which has recently been gaining widespread support: that the key to warming lies in the activity not of man but of the sun.

A rash of stories, typified by the BBC's " No Sun link to climate change", promoted a paper published by the Royal Society which accuses the scientists behind the "solar warming" thesis of "distorting" the data. The paper's authors admit that solar activity was higher in the 20th century than at any time in 6,000 years, and that until recently this could have been significant in raising temperatures on earth. But then everything changed. Since 1985, they claim, solar influence has weakened, while global temperatures have soared. "This debate is now settled," they say. The culprit is CO2 after all.

This may satisfy the BBC - but the latest surface and satellite data show that, since their peak in 1998, global temperatures have in fact dropped back. Last month, according to Nasa, they were as low as in 1983. Tellingly, the Royal Society paper ends its surface temperature graph in 2000 and omits the even more inconvenient satellite data altogether. However, if temperatures fall while CO2 levels rise, how can it be maintained that CO2 is the main driver of global warming?

Far from being settled, this debate is just beginning to get really interesting.

link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/15/nbook115.xml)

08-13-2007, 11:54 AM
Global warming? Look at the numbers (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=61b0590f-c5e6-4772-8cd1-2fefe0905363)


Global warming? Look at the numbers

In his enviro-propaganda flick, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claims nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. That's been a common refrain for environmentalists, too, and one of the centrepieces of global warming hysteria: It's been really hot lately -- abnormally hot -- so we all need to be afraid, very afraid. The trouble is, it's no longer true.

Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.

A little less than a decade ago, the U.S. government changed the way it recorded temperatures. No one thought to correlate the new temperatures with the old ones, though -- no one until Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, that is.

McIntyre has become the bane of many warmers' religious-like belief in climate catastrophe. In 2003, along with economist Ross McKitrick, McIntyre demolished the Mann "hockey stick" --a graph that showed stable temperatures for 1,000 years, then shooting up dangerously in the last half of the 20th Century.

The graph was used prominently by the UN and nearly every major eco lobby. But McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated it was based on incomplete and inaccurate data.

To NASA's credit, when McIntyre pointed out their temperature errors they quickly made corrections.

Still, the pro-warmers who dominate the Goddard Institute almost certainly recognized the impacts these changes would have on the global-warming debate, because they made no formal announcement of their recalculations.

In many cases, the changes are statistically minor, but their potential impact on the rhetoric surrounding global warming is huge.

The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.

Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.

The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.

In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.

Ever since the correction became a hot topic on blogs, the pro-warmers have tried to downplay its significance, insisting, for example, that the alterations merely amount to "very minor rearrangements in the various rankings."

It's true the changes aren't dramatic. But the optics are.

Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine the shrieking of the warmers if we had previously thought that hot years were scattered throughout the past 130 years, but after a correction the warmest years could be seen to be concentrated in the past decade.

They would insist the revised data proved their case. They would blitz every news organization and talk show. They would demand to be allowed to indoctrinate school children on the evils of cars and factories.

So they shouldn't be permitted to brush aside this new data, which makes their claims harder to prove.

Ten years ago, warmers found a similarly small error in the temperature data collected by weather satellites. The satellites were a thorn in their sides because while the warmers were insisting the Earth was getting hotter, the satellites showed it was in fact cooling ever so slightly.

Then the warmers discovered that the scientists who maintained the orbiting thermometers had failed to account for orbital decay, the almost infinitesimally small downward drift of the "birds" every year.

When the effects of drift were added into the observations, the cooling was found to be just 0.01 degree per decade rather than the 0.04 degrees previously claimed.

On this basis, the warmers now insisted then that even the satellites were somehow in agreement with their theory.

Of course, the current NASA changes are only for data collected in the United States. But available surface temperature readings cover only half the planet even today. Before the Second World War, they covered less than a quarter. So U.S. readings for a period that goes as far back as 1880 are among the most reliable there are.

Perhaps we will have uncontrollable warming in the future, but it likely hasn't started yet.

08-15-2007, 04:57 AM
Before Gore

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."


Agency roasted after Toronto blogger spots `hot years' data fumble

Aug 14, 2007 04:30 AM

In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all until someone checked the math.

After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.

Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. not 1998.

More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.

NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."

But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound.

Said Limbaugh last Thursday: "What do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA ... is in the scientific community with false data."

However Stephen McIntyre, who set off the uproar, described his finding as a "a micro-change. But it was kind of fun."

A former mining executive who runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, McIntyre, 59, earned attention in 2003 when he put out data challenging the so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting a spike in global temperatures.

This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.

Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.

McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review.

"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces."


08-22-2007, 01:27 AM
Arctic August: NYC Sets Record For Coldest Day (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_233143509.html)
High Of 59 Degrees Ties Chilliest August High Set In 1911

Don't forget to bundle up if you're headed out in New York City today. After all, it is August 21.

The city along with the rest of the tri-state region is feeling the chilly effect of a cold front sweeping through the region, accompanied by cool rain showers.

Tuesday's high temperature in Central Park was just 59 degrees. The normal high for today is 82 degrees. The normal low is 67.

"This unusual blast of cold air smashed our previous record for the coldest high temperature on August 21, which is 64 degrees, set back in 1999," CBS 2 meteorologist Jason Cali told wcbstv.com.

In fact, the 59-degree high tied the record for the coldest high temperature ever for the month of August in New York City, when it reached just 59 degrees in 1911.

Today's highs are more common in the city for the final days of October, when the average high ranges from 59 degrees to 61 degrees.

08-30-2007, 01:41 PM
Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
August 29, 2007

Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (4:45pm ET)

Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Marc Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.

Today, Michael Asher provides more details about this new survey in his blog post, Survey: Less Than Half Of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory. Asher writes that the study has been submitted for publication in the journal Energy and Environment.



Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.


09-07-2007, 05:27 AM

Fri Sep 07 2007 07:48:23 ET


As former Vice President Al Gore waits to hear if he has won this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless effort on climate change, a new video will air this weekend capturing Gore on a fuel-guzzling private jet!

FOXNEWS host Sean Hannity is set to unleash the damning video this Sunday night, network sources reveal.


09-10-2007, 05:59 AM

Activists take Al Gore to task on his diet
By Philip Sherwell, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:52pm BST 10/09/2007

He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse gases.

Al Gore has come under fire for failing to highlight the impact of animal agriculture

Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.

When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month, protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian? Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".

The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.

"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.

Mr Gore won an Oscar this year for An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary based on his lecture-circuit presentation detailing how man is allegedly destroying the environment.

But he is now under fire for failing to highlight the impact of meat-eating.

According to recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation research, animal agriculture generates 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions - more than the 13.5 per cent produced by all forms of transport combined.

Mr Gore's eating habits have previously drawn attention only because of his dramatic weight fluctuations.

He cut a far slimmer figure in the run-up to the 2000 election than since - and observers would regard a reduction in his waistline as a likely sign that he intends join the Democrats' race for the White House next year.


09-13-2007, 06:13 AM
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.
The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.
Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.
Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:


09-17-2007, 03:44 AM
Global Warming? Blame Jane Fonda

Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:54 PM

If you're wondering who's largely to blame for the alleged heating up of the climate you need look no further than Jane Fonda.

That's what "Freakanomics" columnists Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt suggest in Sunday's New York Times Magazine.

"If you were asked to name the biggest global warming villains of the past 30 years, here's one name that probably wouldn't spring to mind: Jane Fonda. But should it?" the authors ask.

According to Editor & Publisher, the two cite Fonda's anti-nuclear thriller "The China Syndrome," which opened just 12 days before the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, as helping stoke "a widespread panic." Fonda, E&P notes became a high-profile anti-nuke activist in an already-strong movement that resulted in the nuclear industry halting plans for expansion.

"And so," the authors continue, "instead of becoming a nation with clean and cheap nuclear energy, as once seemed inevitable, the United States kept building power plants that burned coal and other fossil fuels. Today such plants account for 40 percent of the country's energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions. Anyone hunting for a global-warming villain can't help blaming those power plants -- and can't help wondering too about the unintended consequences of Jane Fonda."

Despite Fonda's anti-nuke campaign, the columnists say that the "big news" is that with global warming fears mounting, "nuclear power may be making a comeback in the United States," with plans for two dozen reactors on the drawing boards.

"Will they get built?" E&P asks, explaining that "It may all depend on what kind of thrillers Hollywood has in the pipeline."

Neither E&P nor the Times columnists bothered to note that all those CO2 emissions contribute a barely measurable part of the greenhouse gasses present in the atmosphere. According to Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology, called by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world: "Theres been warming over the past 150 years, and even though its less than one degree Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the 'greenhouse effect,' various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

"Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor ...

"And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."


10-02-2007, 10:41 AM
Quebec introduces carbon tax, Canada CEOs urge more

Mon Oct 1, 2007 6:39 PM BST

TORONTO, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Quebec province slapped the country's first carbon tax on energy firms on Monday, as Canadian business leaders urged "environmental taxation" to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions.

The tax, proposed more than a year ago, is expected to raise C$200 million ($202 million) a year to fund the province's plans to reduce emissions.

It includes a per-litre levy of 0.8 Canadian cent for gasoline, 0.9 Canadian cent for diesel fuel, 0.96 Canadian cent for light heating oil, and C$8 a tonne for coal.

It wasn't immediately known whether the oil companies, including Petro-Canada (PCA.TO: Quote, Profile , Research) and Imperial Oil (IMO.TO: Quote, Profile , Research), would pass along the cost to consumers.

Separately, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives said Canada should become "an energy and environmental superpower," and suggested higher energy prices to help cut emissions, the Globe and Mail newspaper reported on Monday.

Since 1990, greenhouse-gas emissions in Canada, a net exporter of energy, have risen more than in any other leading industrialized country, data submitted by the Group of Eight rich nations to the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat shows.

Quebec has pledged to meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Canada has signed on to the agreement, which calls for a 6-percent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2012, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that target is impossible to achieve.

Instead, the minority Conservative government aims to cut emissions from greenhouse gases -- the key contributor to climate change -- by 20 percent from current levels by 2020.


10-02-2007, 01:44 PM
Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age, Study Says (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927154905.htm)

Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age, Study Says

Science Daily Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records.

"There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO₂ and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO₂ in climate change," said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express.

"You can no longer argue that CO₂ alone caused the end of the ice ages."

Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO₂, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown -- but was not its main cause.

The study does not question the fact that CO₂ plays a key role in climate.

"I don't want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO₂ doesn't affect climate," Stott cautioned. "It does, but the important point is that CO₂ is not the beginning and end of climate change."

While an increase in atmospheric CO₂ and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO₂ caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea.

The best estimate from other studies of when CO₂ began to rise is no earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep sea, which reflects oceanic temperature trends, started warming about 19,000 years ago.

"What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long before the rise in atmospheric CO₂," Stott said.

But where did this energy come from" Evidence pointed southward.

Water's salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin -- and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote.

This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence.

In addition, the researchers noted that deep-sea temperature increases coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemisphere's ice retreat began.

Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source.

As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea-ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes ocean water that reflects less light and absorbs more heat, much like a dark T-shirt on a hot day.

In addition, the authors' model showed how changed ocean conditions may have been responsible for the release of CO₂ from the ocean into the atmosphere, also accelerating the warming.

The link between the sun and ice age cycles is not new. The theory of Milankovitch cycles states that periodic changes in Earth's orbit cause increased summertime sun radiation in the northern hemisphere, which controls ice size.

However, this study suggests that the pace-keeper of ice sheet growth and retreat lies in the southern hemisphere's spring rather than the northern hemisphere's summer.

The conclusions also underscore the importance of regional climate dynamics, Stott said. "Here is an example of how a regional climate response translated into a global climate change," he explained.

Stott and colleagues arrived at their results by studying a unique sediment core from the western Pacific composed of fossilized surface-dwelling (planktonic) and bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms.

These organisms -- foraminifera -- incorporate different isotopes of oxygen from ocean water into their calcite shells, depending on the temperature. By measuring the change in these isotopes in shells of different ages, it is possible to reconstruct how the deep and surface ocean temperatures changed through time.

If CO₂ caused the warming, one would expect surface temperatures to increase before deep-sea temperatures, since the heat slowly would spread from top to bottom. Instead, carbon-dating showed that the water used by the bottom-dwelling organisms began warming about 1,300 years before the water used by surface-dwelling ones, suggesting that the warming spread bottom-up instead.

"The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO₂ rises and the temperature warms," Stott said. The complexities "have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future."

Stott's collaborators were Axel Timmermann of the University of Hawaii and Robert Thunell of the University of South Carolina. Stott was supported by the National Science Foundation and Timmerman by the International Pacific Research Center.

Stott is an expert in paleoclimatology and was a reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also recently co-authored a paper in Geophysical Research Letters tracing a 900-year history of monsoon variability in India.

The study, which analyzed isotopes in cave stalagmites, found correlations between recorded famines and monsoon failures, and found that some past monsoon failures appear to have lasted much longer than those that occurred during recorded history. The ongoing research is aimed at shedding light on the monsoon's poorly understood but vital role in Earth's climate.

10-03-2007, 05:24 PM
Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias

The lying swine

Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.

The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.

Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.

He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February.

Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'.

This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.

He said: 'The result is I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown.'

The outcome marks a partial victory for Mr Dimmock, who had accused the 'New Labour Thought Police' of indoctrinating youngsters by handing out thousands of Climate Change Packs to schools.

Mr Dimmock, a lorry driver from Dover with children aged 11 and 14, said at the outset of the hearing: 'I wish my children to have the best education possible, free from bias and political spin, and Mr Gore's film falls far short of the standard required.'

His solicitor John Day, said yesterday that the Government had been forced to make 'a U-turn', but said it did not go far enough.

He said 'no amount of turgid guidance' could change the fact that the film is unfit for consumption in the classroom.

The case arises from a decision in February by the then Education Secretary Alan Johnson that DVDs of the film would be sent to all secondary schools in England, along with a multimedia CD produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs containing two short films about climate change and an animation about the carbon cycle.

David Miliband, who was Environment-Secretary when the school packs were announced, said at the time: 'The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.'

But during the three-day hearing, the court heard that the critically-acclaimed film contains a number of inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there is currently insufficient scientific evidence.

The Climate Change Resource Pack has now been sent to more than 3,500 schools and is aimed at key stage 3 pupils - those aged 11 to

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan said last night: 'The judge's decision is clear that schools can continue to use An Inconvenient Truth as part of their teaching on climate change in accordance with the amended guidance, which will be available online today.

'We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of scientific points raised in the film.'


10-04-2007, 02:15 PM
Good Video


CNN Meteorologist: ‘Definitely Some Inaccuracies’ in Gore Film
By Paul Detrick | October 4, 2007 - 11:35 ET
CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands and exclaimed, "Finally," in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" from UK schools because, according to "American Morning," "it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies."

"There are definitely some inaccuracies," Marciano added. "The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming."


10-04-2007, 05:03 PM

Al Gore Getting Rich Spreading Global Warming Hysteria With Media’s Help
By Noel Sheppard | October 3, 2007 - 11:06 ET

Americans willing to look at the manmade global warming debate with any degree of impartiality and honesty are well aware that those spreading the hysteria have made a lot of money doing so, and stand to gain much more if governments mandate carbon dioxide emissions reductions.

In fact, just two months ago, ABC News.com estimated soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore's net worth at $100 million, which isn't bad considering that he was supposedly worth about $1 million when he watched George W. Bush get sworn in as president in January 2001.

Talk about your get-rich-quick schemes, how'd you like to increase your net worth 10,000 percent in less than seven years?

Fortunately for the world's foremost warm-monger - a term I'd love to see become part of the parlance concerning what, in the long run, will likely be viewed as the greatest con ever perpetrated on the American people - his current wealth represents a mere pittance of what it will be if governments around the world are scared into all of his preposterous recommendations.

With that in mind, Deborah Corey Barnes published a marvelous piece at Human Events Wednesday that would be rather sobering for folks on both sides of the aisle if only a global warming obsessed media would be willing to share the information with the citizenry (emphasis added throughout):

Al Gore's campaign against global warming is shifting into high gear. Reporters and commentators follow his every move and bombard the public with notice of his activities and opinions. But while the mainstream media promote his ideas about the state of planet Earth, they are mostly silent about the dramatic impact his economic proposals would have on America. And journalists routinely ignore evidence that he may personally benefit from his programs. Would the romance fizzle if Gore's followers realized how much their man stands to gain?

Of course it would, Deborah. That's why media have largely been mute on this matter.

With that as pretext, Barnes addressed Gore's cap-and-trade carbon scheme, and how he is well-positioned to benefit if governments across the globe implement it:

Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. "Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn't a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets," said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.


Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that's almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center. As a politician, Gore is all for transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming, according to Forbes magazine. Little is known about his firm's finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

After addressing how intimately tied to the investment firm Goldman Sachs Gore and his GIM associates are, Barnes presented further nefarious connections that make Ken Lay's Enron network in the '90s look almost amateurish:

We do know that Goldman Sachs has commissioned the World Resources Institute (affiliated with CCX), Resources for the Future, and the Woods Hole Research Center to research policy options for U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases. In 2006, Goldman Sachs provided research grants in this area totaling $2.3 million. The firm also has committed $1 billion to carbon-assets projects, a fancy term for projects that generate energy from sources other than oil and gas. In October 2006, Morgan Stanley committed to invest $3 billion in carbon-assets projects. Citigroup entered the emissions-trading market in May, and Bank of America got in on the action in June.

Some environmentalist groups disparage Gore and his investment banker friends. They say the Gore group caters to others who share their financial interest in the carbon-exchange concept. The bulletin of the World Rainforest Movement says that members of a United Nations-sponsored group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stand to gain by approving Gore's carbon-trading enterprise. The IPCC has devised what it says is a scientific measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. In fact, the critics charge, the IPCC sanctions a mechanism that mainly promotes the sham concept of carbon exchange.

The global non-profit organization Winrock International is an example of one IPCC panel member that seeks out groups and individuals with an interest in carbon trading. Arkansas-based Winrock provides worldwide "carbon-advisory services." Winrock has received government grants from the EPA, USAID and the Departments of Labor, State and Commerce, as well as from the Nature Conservancy (whose chairman used to be Henry Paulson). Winrock argues that cap-and-trade carbon trading is the best way to prevent a climate change crisis. But consider this: When a non-profit group takes money from oil companies and advocates drilling for oil as a solution to energy shortages, it is certain to be attacked as a tool of Big Oil. So far, the groups linked to Al Gore have avoided similar scrutiny.

Why is that? Why does everything Gore is involved in avoid government and media scrutiny?

While you ponder, there's more:

In June 2006, the World Bank announced that it, too, had joined CCX, saying that it intended to offset its greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing emission credits through CCX. The bank says its credits would contribute to restoring 4,600 hectares of degraded pastureland in Costa Rica. Somehow, CCX has figured out that this is an amount equivalent to 22,000 metric tons of emission that the bank calculates are created by its activities.

A World Bank blog called the Private Sector Development Blog regularly features items touting Al Gore and the concept of carbon credits. Its articles typically announce corporate "green" initiatives in which carbon credits are said to cancel out "bad" CO2 emissions released by a company's activities.

In fact, the World Bank now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX (half of which is owned by CCX, itself a creature of Al Gore's firm, Generation Investment Management). Can we connect the dots?


So it seems banks and investment houses are going green, eager to enter an emerging emissions market. Meanwhile, environmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests.

Add it all up, Al Gore really is perpetrating a scheme that could end up being much more costly to Americans than anything Ken Lay did. As if that's not bad enough, our media are totally complicit rather than doing their jobs exposing the scam.

I don't know about you, but suddenly I need another shower.


10-05-2007, 10:09 AM
Unusual Winds Caused Arctic Ice Melts, Not Global Warming
By Noel Sheppard | October 5, 2007 - 10:36 ET

Assume for a moment that a new study by NASA proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that manmade global warming was indeed responsible for the recent ice melts in the Arctic. Think media would have reported it?

In reality, that's a bit of a trick question, for in the past several weeks, television newscasts, papers, and magazines have been filled with hysterical assertions about decreasing Arctic ice levels destined to cause imminent flooding to coastal regions around the world.

As such, it certainly was no surprise when NASA released a report Monday claiming "the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds," virtually no media outlets shared the information with the citizenry, and those that did still blamed the melting ice on - you guessed it - global warming.

A team led by Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., studied trends in Arctic perennial ice cover by combining data from NASA's Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat) satellite with a computing model based on observations of sea ice drift from the International Arctic Buoy Programme. QuikScat can identify and map different classes of sea ice, including older, thicker perennial ice and younger, thinner seasonal ice.


Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

Hmmm. So, unusual winds pushed ice south into warmer waters causing the above average melt rates. That should be newsworthy, right?

Well, it clearly wasn't, as from a print perspective, only the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor felt this matter to be at all important; no other major dailies thought this announcement to be something the public would care about.

Yet, even those papers skewed the study to make the results support the global warming myth. For instance, the Times' Andrew Revkin wrote Tuesday:

The pace of change has far exceeded what had been estimated by almost all the simulations used to envision how the Arctic will respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
Proponents of cuts in greenhouse gases cited the meltdown as proof that human activities are propelling a slide toward climate calamity
Still, many of those scientists said they were becoming convinced that the system is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role.
The Monitor also used this report to advance global warming hysteria (emphasis added):

"While a number of natural factors have certainly contributed to the overall decline ... the effects of greenhouse warming are coming through loud and clear," notes Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the Snow and Ice Data Center.

Maybe even more disappointing, the broadcast networks, which had been all over this supposed "record" Arctic ice melt a few weeks ago, completely ignored this announcement.

And, leading the pack for the most disgraceful performance regarding this matter was ABC's Sam Champion who did a story concerning Arctic ice on Tuesday's "Good Morning America" that absurdly omitted this NASA announcement Monday:

Now, in August, we showed you those record levels of the melt of the sea ice. The new information out from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and those are the people who watch the ice all around the world, is that September levels are even lower and they also set a record. On this side of the screen, we're gonna show you generally an average from 1979 when we first started taking pictures with a satellite, all the way to about 2000. You can see the ice stays just about the same even though there is some melting there and almost runs all the way up to the Bering Strait.

This is a picture of the 2007 levels. Now take a look at the empty gap that goes all the way around here. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about the unprecedented melt of all that entire area. Now remember, that important sea ice is there. We believe it kind of regulates the global weather patterns and there's lots of it than ever before.

Out at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, their quote is that every summer, we melt more ice and it's just not getting replaced in the colder winter months because of the unusual amount of warm air that's still around the North Pole.

Nice job, Sam. Thanks for sharing.

As for the cable networks, only CNN thought this issue warranted air time, though not much. When "the most trusted name in news" finally got around to mentioning this study two days after the announcement, Jonathan Mann offered more fear than fact on Wednesday's "Your World Today":

This is big news. Literally news you can measure in miles and tons. News that's trouble for the environment. The Arctic has hit another milestone, or more accurately, you could say it's melted it. Less ice than ever measured before.


Look at this graph created by NASA. At first, the total of Arctic ice goes up and down year to year. But long-term, the total year-round ice has been going down ever since NASA started studying it by satellite. At first 10 percent per decade, then a whole lot faster.

And 2005 was the worst year, the previous record until just a few weeks ago when NASA saw ice was down by nearly 25 percent. It just about drops off the chart. That is a big, big thaw. The effect is to open up a million square miles or 2.5 million square kilometers of open water in a little less than 30 years. That's an area bigger than Greenland, up in the north, right next door.

To be fair, not all of it is melting. Some of it is actually moving, which is a little weird, too. Wind is pushing huge amounts of it to the west, and it is melting off there. That is still bad news though, because with less ice now, next year's thaw will probably be even bigger. Something to watch and worry about. Back to you.

That's all, folks: one sentence about this issue from all the cable news networks.

Yet, what might be even more disturbing about press coverage concerning polar ice is not just how media ignored something occurring in the Arctic that offerred a contrary explanation of recent melts, but also how what's happening in the Antarctic is similarly boycotted.

As Anthony Watts reported Wednesday:

The Arctic is almost as warm now as it was seventy years ago. Unsurprisingly, Arctic ice has diminished. But, as Polyakov et al.show, the long-term changes are "generally statistically insignificant". But there's more ice in Antarctica now. It seems that points more to a natural, cyclical variation on a global scale when one pole diminishes while another gains.

In fact, when you add up the total square kilometers of ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic, it is only five percent below normal.

Yep. Five percent.

As such, not only are there other explanations for what's happening to Arctic ice than the hysterical claims by media, the total picture at both poles is vastly less dire than what the press are leading the public to believe.

Why might that be?


The largely boycotted announcement out of NASA stated no such thing


10-05-2007, 12:17 PM
Al Gore Debates Global Warming ... not really


10-05-2007, 04:24 PM
Chilly reception for debate offer

October 5, 2007
STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley@suntimes.com

Seven hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money to spend to try to get someone to talk to you and not get an answer.

That's how much the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based libertarian think tank, has forked over in six months for advertisements in national newspapers trying to persuade Al Gore to debate one of its experts on global warming issues. "We have tried, repeatedly, to contact Gore directly, with registered letters and calls to his office, and have never received a reply," says Joseph Bast, Heartland president.

A spokeswoman for Gore told me by e-mail that Heartland is an oil-company-funded group that denies that global warming is real and caused by human activities.

"The debate has shifted to how to solve the climate crisis, not if there is one," said Kalee Kreider. "It does not make sense for him to engage in a dialogue with them at this time."

The issue is a bit more complicated than that. What Bast wants is for Gore to debate one of three authorities who dispute the former vice president's assertion that global warming is a crisis that requires an immediate, hugely expensive response potentially damaging to the U.S. and world economies.

One of the Heartland experts is Dennis Avery, an economist, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and co-author, with Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, of the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. As you might guess from that title, Avery sees global warming as a natural phenomenon in which "there may be a human factor but if so it's small." He describes the warming as "moderate" and says there's been no warming since 1998. "Where's the crisis?"

When you talk with Avery, he cites numbers on carbon dioxide and temperature change and dates of previous warming periods, such as during Roman and medieval times. A layman like me soon finds himself in deep water, and you know someone on the other side of the issue will cite other sources, such as a U.N. panel on climate change that says most of the warming since the mid-20th century is likely due to greenhouse gases.

But the point is that Gore and his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" aren't the last word. In March, the New York Times reported that while they praise Gore for raising awareness about warming, a number of scientists see exaggerations and errors in some of his assertions. "They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism," the Times wrote. For example, Gore forecasts sea levels rising up to 20 feet, flooding parts of New York and Florida. But the U.N. panel's actual estimate is that seas will rise 7 to 23 inches in this century.

As for the Gore camp's statement about Exxon funding, Bast says those contributions are too little to control Heartland policy and amount to "far less than what Heartland spends speaking out on climate change."

The Heartland case is not the first time Gore has ducked a forum. Earlier this year he canceled an interview with Denmark's largest newspaper when he learned it would include questions from Bjorn Lomborg, respected author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. "Gore's sermon is not one that will stand scrutiny," says Christopher C. Horner, another one of Heartland's debate candidates, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.

Bast says the ad campaign will continue until March, costing a total of $1.2 million. But he won't get a debate from Gore. Still, Heartland's effort serves the worthy purpose to spotlighting the need for an informed discussion on the severity of global warming and how best to deal with it, by trying to halt it or adapt to it. Gore offers a worst-case scenario of unmitigated disaster. If he's wrong about rising sea levels, what else is he wrong about?


10-05-2007, 05:24 PM
Even Journalism Conference Biased on Global Warming
By Dan Gainor | October 5, 2007 - 14:56 ET
So much for that Code of Ethics promoted by the Society of Professional Journalists. The group undermined its own code by holding an entirely eco-friendly session on climate change.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told a group at the 2007 Washington, D.C., conference on October 4 one of the things that made the SPJ great is its Code of Ethics. But the code didn't come into play during the hour-long October 5 program at the convention entitled "Climate Change Affects Every Beat."

The event had three panelists: Larry Evans, managing editor of Daily Environmental Report; Judi Greenwald, director of innovative solutions at the Pew Center on Climate Change; and Michelle Moore, vice president for policy and public affairs at the U.S. Green Building Council.

"We need help from journalists to explain to the public what is at stake and how we are going to be able to move forward," Greenwald said. "And I guess finally is to where I could use some help is on cap and trade because cap and trade is what we're talking about doing as the centerpiece ... Unless the public really understands how it works and why we need it, we're going to be in trouble, so I could use some help from people who do communication with normal people for a living to explain this and explain why this is the way forward."

However, when the panel was confronted with the question of maintaining the balance between reporting the news and playing the role of advocacy journalist, Greenwald offered the standard talking points.

"I think the facts are actually quite compelling," Greenwald said. "We advocate one thing, but a lot of what we do is just report the facts ... A lot of scientists worked on that question [if global warming was just natural] and did very sophisticated analysis that are sort of hard to explain because a lot of it is about pattern analysis and if you look at the pattern of global warming and try to find some sort of explanation, the only explanation that actually works for it is the greenhouse gases."

SPJ's Code of Ethics, already scarce in the media's climate coverage, includes among its stated principles:

Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.
Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
The Code was published on page 24 of the SPJ program guide.


10-11-2007, 05:36 AM
Al Gores inconvenient judgment
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
The nine inconveniences

Al Gores award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidates documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gores film was broadly accurate in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in the context of alarmism and exaggeration.

Cows targeted in climate change war
As part of a government-backed project, researchers are trying to find a diet for cattle that will cause less burping and flatulence

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the apocalyptic vision presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film, he said in his ruling. It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-Presi-dent, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.

It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion but that it is a political film.

The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gores one-sided views.

The Governments decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dim-mock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.

The first mistake made by Mr Gore, said Mr Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft in the near future was dismissed as distinctly alarmist. Such a rise would take place only after, and over, millennia.

Mr Justice Burton added: The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by no evidence, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an exact fit overstated the case.

Mr Gores suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Changes assessment that it was very unlikely to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaros snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability. The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded.

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gores arguments: That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (greenhouse gases).

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.


10-15-2007, 04:37 AM
Gore gets a cold shoulder
Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."


10-17-2007, 06:33 AM
ABC contributor Cokie Roberts apparently approves of propaganda, as long as she agrees with it. The veteran journalist appeared with George Will and Sam Donaldson on Sunday's "This Week." In response to a claim by token conservative Will that Al Gore grossly exaggerates the threat of global warming, Roberts positively assessed, "The truth is, there have always been propagandists who make something popular."

Using a strained comparison, Roberts continued to justify Gore's misinformation by arguing that the former Vice President popularizes the work of climate change scientists: "Go back to the revolution....You had Tom Paine and you had the Continental Congress. So you do have the two and they both work for a debate."

If there was any confusion about what Roberts thought of the useful nature of propaganda, she cleared it up by gushing, "But good for Al Gore. He worked hard on this. He got this prize." A few minutes earlier, host George Stephanopoulos allowed Will a few minutes to offer some token denunciations of Gore. Veteran ABC journalist Sam Donaldson apparently could only take so much. Like Roberts, he also lauded Gore for doing "very important" work and derided skeptics as being in denial. Addressing Will, he hyperbolically lectured, "Now, if you and Senator [James] Inhofe want to continue to stick your heads in the sand - I'm going to make it out. I'm old enough that I probably will get out of here before the Earth collapses, but I have grandchildren, George." A bewildered Will could only wonder, "How does the Earth collapse?"

On an unrelated note, host Stephanopoulos interviewed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier in the program. He closed the segment with some comments that seemed to be aimed at portraying the liberal Pelosi as a moderate. (Her lifetime score from the American Conservative Union, by the way, is three.) Stephanopoulos commented that the House Speaker has been facing "disaffection in the Democratic base, anti-war activists." After playing a clip of protester Cindy Sheehan attacking Pelosi, he marveled, "But how strange that is that for you, though? You know, your entire career you get attacked as a San Francisco liberal and now your most vociferous opponents are on your own side." The Congresswoman quickly retorted, "Well, I'm one of the most vociferous opponents of the war."

For a comprehensive look at Stephanopoulos's history of bias, check out the anchor's section in the MRC's Profiles in Bias.

Partial transcripts of the two segments, which aired at 10:15am and 10:33am on October 14, follow.


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We're just about out of time. You know, the Congressional approval ratings have taken a hit this year. A lot of that, as you know, is because of disaffection in the Democratic base, anti-war activists -


STEPHANOPOULOS: Cindy Sheehan's running against you.

CINDY SHEEHAN [Speech clip]: And not only am I going to run against her, but I will beat her in California.

PELOSI: I respect the dissatisfaction with the war and myself would not give Congress high marks on ending the war. We don't have the veto - the pen to sign or not to veto. But we are doing all we can to change the debate. But I do think that many of the things we have done again that I mentioned and I won't go over again, about the safety and security of our country and the strengthening our families and protecting our environment are very important to our base and to the country. And for that reason, we are double-digit in every issue - practically every issue you can name would you vote for Democrat or Republican in relationship to health, education, and the economy, the environment, et cetera. So I'm not sad about our Democratic numbers. They're excellent. Turning Congress - the opinion of Congress around is a big task and we're working on it. And you're right, most of the - much of the dissatisfaction is from the Democratic base.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But how strange that is that for you, though? You know, your entire career you get attacked as a San Francisco liberal and now your most vociferous opponents are on your own side.

PELOSI: Well, I'm one of the most vociferous opponents of the war. And so that is more ironic. But again, I was an advocate myself. By their nature, they are dissatisfied, persistent, and just keep fighting. And I respect that. It's an important part of our democracy. And I, you know, wish this war would end as well. And we will continue to pass legislation to make that point. We happen to be blocked by 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, but the public doesn't care about that. They just want us to end the war.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Barney Frank says this is a moment of truth for liberals. Is he right?

PELOSI: It is. It's a dynamic. I don't know if it's a moment but it is a dynamic. And it is - and any issue you can name, we want it more for SCHIP, that's for sure. We want more - we want to end the war faster. Almost every category you can name, we would have rather had a higher minimum wage and done it even - well, almost every category you want to do more. And the legislative process is you do what you can pass, but you don't settle for anything that isn't bold enough, that isn't bold enough. And so I'm very proud of our caucus, the consensus we have on a bold agenda to take us in a new direction. And again, sometimes our base is not happy with that. But I think in the long run, we will prevail in next year's election with even a stronger majority and a Democrat in the White House. And I look forward to that.


STEPHANOPOULOS: But I do want to begin, though, and I have to do this for George with the Al Gore Nobel Peace Prize because, George, when I heard this on Friday morning I said, this is designed to drive you, George Will, crazy. You don't like the Nobel Peace committee. You don't like Al Gore. You don't think global warming is a crisis.

GEORGE WILL: Right on all three counts. The New York Times, in one of those headlines that I'm sure it really believes is without editorial content said "Gore Vindicated." I suppose in that sense Yasser Arafat, world's foremost terrorist was vindicated by getting the Nobel Peace Prize. It actually was two prizes. They say he's sharing the price with the Intergovernmental Panel on -


WILL: --on climate change, but they're doing two different things. The panel does the science. He does the hyperbole that gets people to pay attention to the science. And there are all kinds of scientists who are quite candid about this. The panel says over the next century we might anticipate a one-foot increase in the sea levels, approximately what we've had since 1860 without a planetary crisis. Mr. Gore says 20 feet, hence the scene in his movie where Ground Zero is inundated.


WILL: Because he assumes all of the ice in Greenland melts, which scientists say could happen in a thousand years or more.

SAM DONALDSON: Whoa, whoa. There are now studies which suggest that within 30 years the polar ice cap may melt.

Will: It's not polar. We're talking about Greenland. Go ahead.

DONALDSON: Well it's near enough for government work. Did Al Gore deserve the prize? I think he's pointed out something and he's been the leading exponent publicly of something that's very important. Now, if you and Senator Inhofe want to continue to stick your heads in the sand - I'm going to make it out. I'm old enough that I probably will get out of here before the Earth collapses, but I have grandchildren, George.

WILL: How does the Earth collapse?

DONALDSON: Well, the Earth collapses -

COKIE ROBERTS: Well there have always - The truth is, there have always been propagandists who make something popular. Go back to the revolution. You know, oh, you had Tom Paine and you had the Continental Congress. So you do have the two and they both work for a debate. But good for Al Gore. He worked hard on this. He got this prize. The question now is what does it mean politically?

STEPHANOPOULOS: The immediate question.

ROBERTS: That's right.



10-18-2007, 03:06 PM
Skeptics Fight on in Climate Debate (http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-18/60918.html)

Skeptics Fight on in Climate Debate
Some scientists say politics and power are drowning out valid concerns

While Al Gore supporters everywhere were thrilled with his win of the Nobel Peace Prize last week, a British judge stole some of Gore's thunder with his finding that Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is laced with inaccuracies.

Justice Michael Burton had been asked by school governor and father of two, Stuart Dimmock, to rule on whether showing Gore's Oscar-winning movie about global warming in British schools constituted education or indoctrination.

Burton said that while the points raised in the documentary are broadly accurate, they are made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration," and the science in the film is used "in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political program."

While Burton stopped short of banning the movie from classrooms, he said that written guidance to teachers must accompany screenings to ensure that Gore's views are not being promoted uncritically.

Meanwhile, the movie continues to be shown in many Canadian high schools, prompting complaints from some parents and school officials who are concerned that students are getting only one side of the "global warming is man-made" debate.

This is why Mike Chernoff, a Vancouver businessman, offered free copies of The Great Global Warming Swindle to B.C. schools following an announcement last April by the Tides Charitable Foundation that it was giving free copies of Gore's movie to every B.C. high school.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial British documentary that argues against and attempts to disprove the widely-held theory that global warming is due to carbon emissions caused by human activity.

Last June, the Surrey, B.C., school board passed a motion that a documentary with an opposing viewpoint, such as the The Great Global Warming Swindle, be screened for students along with An Inconvenient Truth.

Surrey school trustee Heather Stilwell says that when she proposed the motion she was met with a strong reaction and "very ugly" vitriol.

"I was called a right-wing fundamentalist [George] Bush lover. All I wanted was to bring balance to the classroom."

Victoria climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, who has been arguing against man-made global warming for 30 years, found that he too was on the receiving end of much derision when he began publicly airing his view that the climate changes all the time and global warming isn't man-made.


Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball

He says he has received death threats, in fact, and that he and other scientists with the same view have been labeled "deniers" by environmentalists.

"Initially we were called skeptics, and I can live with that because all scientists should be skeptics, but what's nasty about being called a 'denier' is the holocaust connotation," says Ball, who argues that Gore's movie "would fail as a Grade 10 students' project."

He says focusing on CO₂ as the great culprit is wrong because human-produced carbon dioxide is only a very small fraction of the whole climate mechanism and doesn't drive climate change. In addition, the climate has always fluctuated between warm and cool periods.

"In the first part of the 19th century, from 1920 to 1940, the temperature rose more than it did from 1980 to now, yet human CO₂ was virtually non-existent prior to the war. Then post-war, when we started to produce huge amounts of CO₂, the temperature actually went down."

Judge Burton found nine scientific errors in Gore's movie, including the "distinctly alarmist" claim that sea level rises of seven metres could occur in the near future.

He also said there was insufficient evidence to back Gore's assertions that such events as Hurricane Katrina, species losses, and melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro are a result of global warming.

Inconvenient Inaccuracies

Gore's movie: Sea levels could rise by up to seven metres, caused by the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

Finding: This could only happen over millennia and is not in line with the scientific consensus.

Gore's movie: Rising sea levels because of man-made global warming have caused the evacuation of some Pacific islanders to New Zealand.

Finding: There is no evidence of any such evacuation having happened.

Gore's movie: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, triggering an ice age in Europe.

Finding: This is a scientific impossibility.

Gore's movie: The disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is evidence of global warming.

Finding: The government's expert witness conceded this was not correct.

Gore's movie: Global warming was the cause of Hurricane Katrina.

Finding: There is insufficient evidence to show this.

Gore's movie: Global warming is causing Africa's Lake Chad to dry up.

Finding: The Government's expert conceded that this is not the case.

Gore's movie: Polar bears have drowned because of disappearing Arctic ice.

Finding: Only four polar bears drowned, and it was due to a storm.

Gore's movie: Species losses, including coral reef bleaching, are the result of global warming.

Finding: There is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

Gore's movie: Ice core samples prove that rising levels of CO2 have caused temperature increases over a period of 650,000 years.

Finding: The two graphs Gore uses to prove this do not establish what he claims.

But Dale Marshall, policy analyst with the Suzuki Foundation, is of the opinion that the judge is wrong on all counts except the one concerning rising sea levels, and that the movie itself "does largely reflect the science."

He also points out that the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), co-winner of the Nobel with Gore, as well as numerous national academies of science, has concluded that climate change is happening because of human activity.

"You have to look at the weight of evidence," says Marshall. "The scientists who say that climate change is not driven by carbon dioxide are in the tiniest of minorities compared to the scientific community as a whole."

While the nature of science is all about continually questioning, searching and discovering, the so-called skeptics complain the anti-climate-change movement has become a powerful, well-funded lobby which insists that the man-made global warming question is settled and isn't up for debate.

But debate is what Calgary-based Friends of Science is pushing for. As far as FOS is concernedand scientists in The Great Global Warming Swindle take the same positionthe Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.

Composed of group of climate scientists from around the world, FOS says it sees an "abuse of science" in the Kyoto Protocol. According to FOS, the seemingly exclusive focus on global warming has distracted attention from reducing air and water pollution.

In a bulletin Tuesday, FOS said awarding the Nobel to Gore and the IPCC has done "inconceivable damage" to the scientific discourse around the subject of climate change.

Director John Leeson says FOS has ongoing concerns with what he calls the manipulation of scientific data in the IPCC process.

"I'm not talking about the large number of scientists who contribute their research. What we object to, and what has been demonstrated, is the process with which the bureaucrats at the summit of the process selectively use information to bolster up or support what they've already decided," says Leeson.

The Great Global Warming Swindle tells of a letter published in the Wall Street Journal in which former president of the U.S. Academy of Sciences, Professor Frederick Seitz, states that IPCC officials censored the comments of scientists and deleted 15 key sections of chapter eight, the science chapter.

One of the deleted comments read: "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

In reply, the IPCC said the changes had been made in response to comments from governments, individual scientists, and NGOs.

Bell says the "climate change hysteria" gripping the world is a result of "the political exploitation of science and the hidden motives of environmental extremists." Environmentalism, he says, has become a religion, and is based more on belief than on hard science.

"Darwin was an atheist, and he got rid of God. I'm not here to argue for or against God, but once you've got rid of God you've got a vacuum. Environmentalism as a religion pre-dates Christianity and goes back to the primitive ideas of animismworshiping nature, living in fear of nature."

In November 2006, 60 renowned scientists from around the world wrote an open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper requesting a rational examination of the science of global warming. There was no response.

Leeson says there's a strong move afoot by economists and scientists in the U.K., Australia and New Zealand to involve a separate agency so that the IPCC doesn't have the monopoly on the information the public receives regarding climate change.

He wants the same thing for Canada. With the billions being pumped into lowering CO₂ emissions, he believes there should be more than one body investigating and providing information.

"The debate on climate change is not over. We will continue to push to make sure it comes in front of the public as much as we can."

Meanwhile, a website called Junkscience.com is offering $125,000 to anyone who can prove that climate change is being caused by human activity. So far there have been no takers. :lol:

10-20-2007, 05:00 AM
Great post, Rasp. :)

10-21-2007, 07:22 AM
ABC's Stossel Takes on Gore Movie, Talks to Dissenting Scientists
By Brad Wilmouth | October 20, 2007 - 13:26 ET


On Friday's "20/20," ABC's John Stossel presented the views of scientists who dissent from the Al Gore view of global warming, including two former members of the IPCC the committee which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore. These scientists disagreed with the selection process of the committee's members and some of its conclusions. The ABC host disputed some of the claims in "An Inconvenient Truth," and even presented the view that increased carbon dioxide levels are the result of global warming, rather than the cause, as he took on Gore's famous graph from the movie. Stossel: "But the real inconvenient truth is that carbon increases came after temperature rose -- usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first. I wanted to ask Mr. Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't agree to talk about this." (Transcript follows)


The ABC host introduced his regular "Give Me a Break" segment: "You've heard the reports. The globe is warming. And it's our fault. And the consequences will be terrible. But you should know there is another side to this story. And scientists who've tried to tell it are often threatened. Which makes me say, 'Give Me a Break.'"

Then came a number of clips of journalists relaying the purported danger of global warming, and clips of children expressing their fears of the future. After arguing that "An Inconvenient Truth" was incorrect or misleading in the way it presented the dangers of rising sea levels and the plight of polar bears in the Arctic, the ABC host then got to the movie's famous graph that the former Vice President used to argue that higher carbon dioxide levels cause temperatures to increase. Stossel: "I knew that carbon dioxide's thought to amplify temperature increases, but this shows a clear cause an effect. For 600,000 years, when carbon rose, so did temperature. It suggests that carbon levels control temperature. But the real inconvenient truth is that carbon increases came after temperature rose -- usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first. I wanted to ask Mr. Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't agree to talk about this."

Stossel presented several scientists who dispute contentions by Gore and others that "the debate is over" on global warming. These scientists included Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, Tim Ball of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, and John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama. Stossel relayed their contentions that global warming and cooling trends have happened in the past, and related that the media had "fretted about that then, too." Stossel: "Climate changes, they point out. It always has -- with or without man. Early last century, even without today's big output of carbon dioxide, the Arctic went through a warm period. The media fretted about that then, too. And Greenland's temperatures rose 50 percent faster in the 1920s than they're rising now. Some scientists say the warming may be caused by changes in the sun or ocean currents or changes in cloud cover. Or other things we don't understand. The debate is not over."

More on the media's history of reporting on warming and cooling trends over the last century can be found in a May 2005 report by the MRC's Business and Media Institute.

Reiter and Christy had notably been members of the IPCC, and they were critical of the way governments chose the members of the committee, some of whom were merely activists instead of scientists, suggesting that politics had played too great a role.

STOSSEL: Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute and John Christy say they were members of the IPCC. That so-called group of scientists, they say, is not what people think it is.

REITER: The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is governments who nominate people. You'll find in many chapters that there are people who are not scientists at all.

STOSSEL: Who are they?

REITER: They were essentially activists.

STOSSEL: Members of groups like Greenpeace were involved. And when the IPCC report came out, not all its members agreed with what was said.

Reiter further said that he had resigned from the committee in protest because he disagreed with some of the report's findings, and had to threaten a lawsuit against the IPCC to have his name removed from the report, although, according to Stossel, the IPCC disputes this account.

Stossel then dealt with the issue of these types of global warming dissenters being "smeared as deniers," as those who support the more liberal view of global warming seek to compare their way of thinking to that of Holocaust deniers.

STOSSEL: Today, scientists like these are often smeared as "deniers."

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We have Holocaust deniers, we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don't think there's a great deal of difference.

LINDA DOUGLAS, ABC News: Deniers are confusing the issue and delaying solutions.

Last August, "Newsweek" ran a cover story attacking the global warming "denial machine," and the "NBC Nightly News" soon ran its own story with the same theme.

After recounting that many global warming activists, like Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., try to discredit skeptics by accusing them of "being purchased by a 'well-funded denial machine,'" these scientists were shown denying that they receive any money because of their views, as they contended that, rather than being rewarded for their views, they have faced harassment and threats.

Stossel summed up his report: "Is this what the global warming debate has come to? One side saying, 'Shut up, dissent must not be heard'? The truth is that, while everyone agrees the earth has warmed, lots of good scientists don't agree that it's mostly our fault, and don't agree that it's going to be a catastrophe."

Below is a complete transcript of Stossel's "Give Me a Break" segment from the Friday October 19 "20/20":

JOHN STOSSEL: You've heard the reports. The globe is warming. And it's our fault. And the consequences will be terrible. But you should know there is another side to this story. And scientists who've tried to tell it are often threatened. Which makes me say, "Give Me a Break."

MATT LAUER, Today Show: -the world is heating up fast, and we have ourselves to blame.

DAWNA FRIESEN, Today Show: -global warming is real, and we humans are almost certainly the cause.

STOSSEL: Books warn that the earth is under fire, a suicidal planet's approaching a boiling point and a toxic burn. Children are frightened.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL #1: I worry. My mom worries.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL #2: The water might rise, and it might flood the whole town.

UNIDENTIFIED BOY #1: We won't be able to survive for long.

STOSSEL: And people say since global warming is because of man, it must be fixed by man now.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN in ad, standing in front of a moving train: Some say irreversible consequences are 30 years away.

STOSSEL: This Ad Council PSA says ignoring the coming crisis is like putting our kids in front of a train.

MAN: That won't affect me.

[The man steps off the track and leaves his daughter in front of the moving train.]

STOSSEL: What do you most worry will happen?

UNIDENTIFIED BOY #2: We'll all die.

STOSSEL: Are there some people who say this isn't true?

[Several children who are gathered say, "Yes."]

STOSSEL: Might they be right?

[Nearly all the children gathered say, "No."]

STOSSEL: How do you know they're not right?

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL #3: Well, because the Earth is getting hotter.

STOSSEL: Where do you learn this?

UNIDENTIFIED BOY #1: I saw the Al Gore video.

JERRY SEINFELD, at the Academy Awards: And the Oscar goes to An Inconvenient Truth.

STOSSEL: The global warming documentary featuring Vice President Al Gore has been seen by millions. People have proclaimed him a prophet, a cultural icon, a conquering hero.

LEONARDO DICAPRIO: You are a true champion for the cause, Mr. Gore.

STOSSEL: And last week, he won a Nobel Peace Prize. The Oscars were followed by other worldwide media events.

GORE: You are Live Earth.

STOSSEL: With all this hoopla, it's no surprise that 86 percent of Americans say global warming is a serious problem.

JOHN EDWARDS: Global warming is now, by anybody's measure, a crisis.

STOSSEL: But is it a crisis? Yes, the globe is warming, but is it really all our fault? And is it true that the debate is over? No. What you think you know, may not be so. For example, in An Inconvenient Truth, Gore says if we allow the globe to warm, terrible things will happen. And:

AL GORE: Sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet.

UNIDENTIFIED BOY #3: Yeah, maybe like the height of this building.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL #4: We'll probably just, like, drown, and we'll die.

GORE: This is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen to San Francisco Bay.

STOSSEL: Maybe. Maybe in thousands of years, says the IPCC, the group that shared last week's Nobel Prize with the Vice President. But in 100 years, the oceans might rise 7 to 24 inches, not 20 feet.

GORE: A faster buildup of heat here.

STOSSEL: Mr. Gore also talks about melting ice caps.

GORE: That's not good for creatures like polar bears-

STOSSEL: They show this heart-rending cartoon.

[Cartoon of a polar bear swimming to floating ice and trying to get on, but it breaks leaving the bear in the water.]

GORE: A new scientific study shows that for the first time, they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned.

STOSSEL: But I bet you didn't know that polar bears appear to be doing all right. Future warming may hurt them, but right now, the World Conservation Union and the U.S. Geological Survey say most populations of polar bears are stable or increasing.

GORE: There is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others-

STOSSEL: The most impressive demonstration in Mr. Gore's movie is the big graph of carbon dioxide levels.

GORE: Here's what the temperature has been on our Earth. Now, one thing that kind of jumps out at you is: Did they ever fit together?

STOSSEL: My goodness! I knew that carbon dioxide's thought to amplify temperature increases, but this shows a clear cause and effect. For 600,000 years, when carbon rose, so did temperature. It suggests that carbon levels control temperature. But the real inconvenient truth is that carbon increases came after temperature rose -- usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first. I wanted to ask Mr. Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't agree to talk about this. Why should he when he and others say-

GORE: The debate's over.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The science is agreed upon.

Governor ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R-CA): The debate is over, and the science is in.

PAUL REITER, Pasteur Institute: It's absurd for people to say that sort of thing. It's really wrong.

STOSSEL: These scientists are among those who say the debate is by no means over. John Christie and Roy Spencer won NASA's Medal for Exceptional Achievement for figuring out how to get temperature data from satellites. They agree that the Earth has warmed.

JOHN CHRISTY, University of Alabama: We all agree that it's warmed, I think. The big question is, and the thing that we dispute, is: Is it because of mankind?

STOSSEL: Climate changes, they point out. It always has -- with or without man. Early last century, even without today's big output of carbon dioxide, the Arctic went through a warm period. The media fretted about that then, too. And Greenland's temperatures rose 50 percent faster in the 1920s than they're rising now. Some scientists say the warming may be caused by changes in the sun or ocean currents or changes in cloud cover. Or other things we don't understand. The debate is not over. And, anyway, who's to say that yesterday's temperature was the perfect one. If temperatures keep rising now, these scientists say we don't know that that will be all bad.

TIM BALL, Natural Resources Stewardship Project: The fact is, when the climate changes, there are gains and there are losses.

STOSSEL: But Tim Ball, who studies the history of climate change, points out that all we hear about is the bad news from the IPCC, that massive group of global warming scientists.

RICHARD BRANSON: 2,000 scientists.

LESTER HOLT, NBC News: 2,000 scientists.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN: 2,500 scientists say the globe is getting warmer and we are to blame.

REITER: There's the most unmitigated rubbish talked about-

STOSSEL: Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute and John Christy say they were members of the IPCC. That so-called group of scientists, they say, is not what people think it is.

REITER: The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is governments who nominate people. You'll find in many chapters that there are people who are not scientists at all.

STOSSEL: Who are they?

REITER: They were essentially activists.

STOSSEL: Members of groups like Greenpeace were involved. And when the IPCC report came out, not all its members agreed with what was said.

ROY SPENCER, University of Alabama: We were not asked to look at a particular statement and sign our names to it at all.

REITER: I got very frustrated, and I resigned.

STOSSEL: But the IPCC still listed Reiter as part of the so-called consensus.

REITER: I contacted the IPCC and said, "Look, I've resigned. I don't want to have anything more to do with this." And they said, "Well, you've been involved, so you're still on the list."

STOSSEL: Only when he threatened to sue, he says, did they take his name off the report. The IPCC denies that that happened. Today, scientists like these are often smeared as deniers.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We have Holocaust deniers, we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don't think there's a great deal of difference.

LINDA DOUGLAS, ABC News: Deniers are confusing the issue and delaying solutions.

STOSSEL: Often they're accused of being purchased by a "well-funded denial machine."

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: These corporate toadies lying to you and telling you that global warming doesn't exist.

GORE: The illusion of a debate has been purchased with millions of dollars a year-

STOSSEL: Aren't you guys all on the take?

BALL: I wish I was. I wouldn't be driving a 1992 car and living in a leaky apartment.

STOSSEL: These scientists all say they don't get any money from business, yet some have been threatened. One email said, "You will not live long enough to see global warming."

BALL: And even more direct than that.

REITER: We stick our necks out. We do get hurt.

STOSSEL: Is this what the global warming debate has come to? One side saying, "Shut up, dissent must not be heard." The truth is that, while everyone agrees the earth has warmed, lots of good scientists don't agree that it's mostly our fault, and don't agree that it's going to be a catastrophe. So when the Nobel Prize winner says-

GORE: The debate's over. The debate's over.

STOSSEL: I say, "Give Me a Break."


10-22-2007, 04:41 AM

NewsBusters readers are well aware of the recent controversy involving Al Gores schlockumentary An Inconvenient Truth.

A few weeks ago, a British judge cited nine errors in the film. Team Gore responded Thursday in a rebuttal published at the Washington Posts Fact Checker blog.

Now, famed climate change skeptic Christopher Monckton, in a detailed report published by the Science and Public Policy Institute, not only refuted Gores defense of the movie's contents, but also listed a total of 35 errors in the award-winning abomination responsible for most of the global warming hysteria sweeping the planet (emphasis added):

Al Gores spokesman and environment advisor, Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented thousands and thousands of facts. It did not: just 2,000 facts in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate.

The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term errors. In fact, the judge used the term errors, in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.


Ms. Kreider then says, The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.

However, the single web-page entitled The Science on the movies official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.

Ms. Kreider then says, The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling. He did not need to. Each of the nine errors which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider says the IPCCs results are sometimes conservative, and continues: Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious. Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.

Readers are strongly encouraged to review the entire report, as well as all 35 errors chronicled by Monckton. Your attention is critical, for Gores film, though powerfully and convincingly presented, is indeed a work of fiction, and its veracity should be questioned with every conceivable opportunity.

Any other conclusion is facile and devoid of logic.

Make no mistake: as was clearly intended by the films producers, its star, and our woefully biased media, this celluloid canard has provoked tremendous international alarm concerning global warming that is neither warranted nor beneficial.

It should come as no great surprise that such was forecast in April when NewsBusters warned readers of the dangers associated with Gores propaganda. For those that have forgotten, a federal judge cited An Inconvenient Truth in his ruling against the government for its financing of overseas projects that supposedly contribute to climate change.

At the time, I cautioned (emphasis added): [T]he alarmism running through society concerning this issue, and being flamed by Gore and his sycophant cadre in the media and Hollywood, clearly carries risks that an obedient and complicit press ignore.

Six months later, these warnings seem rather prescient, as the hysteria has now officially begun to impact energy policy as evidenced by Thursdays decision in Kansas to deny a license to an electricity producer for the construction of a new coal-fired power plant. Ominously, concerns over carbon emissions and their supposed impact on climate change were cited in the state's announcement regarding the matter.

Maybe just as cautionary, it appears Europe is going to start requiring carbon dioxide emissions warnings in advertisements for new cars, as well as imposing taxes on automobiles releasing the greatest amount of "greenhouse gases."

As a result, it should be crystal clear that the efforts on the left and by the media are beginning to have a policy impact not just here, but across the globe.

Sadly, this is just the beginning. Consider the proposal by House Energy and Commerce Committee chair John Dingell (D-MI) who in September offered a rather painful carbon emissions plan that would establish an additional 50 cent tax on gasoline as well as scale back the deductability of the interest on mortgages for some homeowners.

Lest we not forget House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Cal.) call for a European-style cap-and-trade program that reins in corporate carbon dioxide emissions.

These are but two of the dangerous schemes being tossed around Washington that would have potentially catastrophic impacts upon the economy, and have gained steam as a direct consequence of Gore's indoctrination campaign aided and abetted by a green media.

It has therefore become imperative for all supporters of liberty, democracy, and capitalism to fight the propagandist forces in our nation seeking to undermine our very way of life.

If you think that's putting too fine a point on the situation, ask yourself how you're going to provide electricity to your home, and what it's going to cost, if the warm-mongers have their way, and no more coal-fired OR nuclear power plants are built in this country.

Try also to imagine how our economy, and, therefore, your personal finances, are going to suffer as countries like China, India, Russia, and Brazil are allowed unfettered expansion of their energy creation while America curtails its own all to solve a problem that has yet to be proved either exists or can be mitigated by anything under man's control.

If you don't think one movie can cause this much political and economic upheaval, please recall what "The China Syndrome" did to catalyze the No Nukes movement in the '80s, and how America is still suffering from the hysteria it provoked 28 years ago.

The only remaining question is whether we are going to learn from this horrendous past mistake, or once again allow our economic and energy policies to be controlled by misplaced and erroneous environmental alarmism.


10-23-2007, 12:27 PM
The global-warming hucksters

Posted: October 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


The scaremongers are not always wrong. The Trojans should have listened to Cassandra. But history shows that the scaremongers are usually wrong.

Parson Malthus predicted mass starvation 250 years ago, as the population was growing geometrically, doubling each generation, while agricultural production was going arithmetically, by 2 percent or so a year. But today, with perhaps 1 percent of our population in full-time food production, we are the best-fed and fattest 300 million people on Earth.

Karl Marx was proven dead wrong about the immiseration of the masses under capitalism and the coming revolution in the industrial West, though they still have hopes at Harvard.

Neville Chute's "On the Beach" proved as fictional as "Dr. Strangelove" and "Seven Days in May." Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" never exploded. It fizzled when the Birth Dearth followed the Baby Boom.

"The Crash of '79" never happened. Instead, we got Ronald Reagan and record prosperity. The Club of Rome notwithstanding, we did not run out of oil. The world did not end in Y2K, when we crossed the millennium, as some had prophesied. "Nuclear winter," where we were all going to freeze to death after the soot from Reagan's nuclear war blotted out the sun, didn't quite happen. Rather, the Soviet Empire gave up the ghost.

Is then global warming – a steady rise in the temperature of the Earth to where the polar ice caps melt, oceans rise 23 feet, cities sink into the sea and horrendous hurricanes devastate the land – an imminent and mortal danger?

Put me down as a disbeliever.

Like the panics of bygone eras, this one has the aspect of yet another re-enactment of the Big Con. The huckster arrives in town, tells all the rubes that disaster impends for them and their families, but says there may be one last chance they can be saved – but it will take a lot of money. And the folks should go about collecting it, right now.

This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, from which China and India were exempt, the United States was to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels, which could not be done without inducing a new Depression and reducing the standard of living of the American people. So, we ignored Kyoto – and how have we suffered? The Europeans who signed on also largely ignored it. How have they suffered?

We are told global warming was responsible for the hurricane summer of Katrina and Rita that devastated Texas, Mississippi and New Orleans. Yet Dr. William Gray, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on hurricanes, says he and his most experienced colleagues believe humans have little impact on global warming and global warming cannot explain the frequency or ferocity of hurricanes. After all, we had more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century than in the last 50 years, as global warming was taking place.

"We're brainwashing our children," says Gray. "They're going to the Gore movie ('An Inconvenient Truth') and being fed all this. It's ridiculous. ... We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was."

Gray does concede that for a scholar to question global warming can put his next federal grant in mortal peril.

While modest warming has taken place, there is no conclusive evidence human beings are responsible, no conclusive evidence Earth's temperature is rising dangerously or will reach intolerable levels and no conclusive evidence that warming will do more harm than good.

The glaciers may be receding, but the polar bear population is growing, alarmingly in some Canadian Indian villages. Though more people on our planet of 6 billion may die of heat, estimates are that many more may be spared death from the cold. The Arctic ice cap may be shrinking, but that may mean year-round passage through northern Canadian waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the immense resources of the Arctic made more accessible to man. Why else did Vladimir Putin's boys make their dash to claim the pole?

The mammoth government we have today is a result of politicians rushing to solve "crises" by creating and empowering new federal agencies.

Whether it's hunger, poverty or homelessness, in the end, the poor are always with us, but now we have something else always with us: scores of thousands of federal bureaucrats and armies of academics to study the problem and assess the progress, with all their pay and benefits provided by our tax dollars.

Cal Coolidge said that when you see 10 troubles coming up the road toward you, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing, because nine of them will fall into the ditch before they get to you. And so it will be with global warming, if we don't sell out America to the hucksters who would save us.


10-24-2007, 05:15 AM
Global warming to blame for fires, says Harry Reid
To astonishment of reporters, Senate majority leader makes link

(This guy is a dangerous freak )

Is there a political angle to the wildfires raging through Southern California?

You betcha – at least according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said global warming is at least partly responsible for the blazes.

"One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming," the Nevada Democrat told reporters, emphasizing the need to pass the Democrats' comprehensive energy package.

Pressed by astonished reporters on whether he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.

Meanwhile, President Bush has declared a state of emergency in California and sent Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator David Paulison to San Diego to assess the situation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would consider sending more aid to California.

"So far, [state officials] have been able to avail themselves of whatever is available from the federal government," the Northern California Democrat said. "We may have to expand on that as the fires continue to rage."

The California congressional delegation is reportedly drafting a resolution expressing Congress' support for the first responders and pledging to make resources available to help stop the fires.


10-26-2007, 03:01 PM

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, delivered a startling and historic two hour speech on the Senate floor Friday about "recent developments which are turning 2007 into a tipping point' for climate alarmism."

The Senator cautioned that bills being proposed by various members of Congress "come at a time when the science is overwhelmingly taking away the basis for alarm." These "so-called solutions' to global warming...will have no measurable impact on the climate," and "will create huge economic harm for American families and the poor residents of the developing world who may see development hindered by unfounded climate fears."

In addition, Inhofe went right after the Global Warmingist-in-Chief Al Gore, as well as others in the media responsible for inciting all this hysteria (partial video of the speech available here):

We are currently witnessing an international awakening of scientists who are speaking out in opposition to former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, the Hollywood elitists and the media-driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.

We have witnessed Antarctic ice GROW to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1970's. We have witnessed NASA temperature data errors that have made 1934 -- not 1998 -- the hottest year on record in the U.S. We have seen global averages temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years.

These new developments in just the last six months are but a sample of the new information coming out that continues to debunk climate alarm.

After this introduction, Inhofe spoke about:

Hollywoodans like Leonardo DiCaprio and Laurie David targeting children with climate fears
Four essential points which totally debunk global warming hysteria
Various entities that are distorting the facts and ignoring the climate history of Greenland
Antarctic ice rising to its highest level since records have been kept
The southern hemisphere is already experiencing a cooling from its 1998 peaks
The weather measurement scandal at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Climate fears are largely being driven by unproven computer models
Al Gore's refusal to accept wagers or engage in debates concerning his theories
Hysteria over polar bear extinction has absolutely no observable validity
The number of former warm-mongers that have become skeptics
Science not being determined by consensus
Politics governing the UN's IPCC
$50 Billion having been spent internationally on spreading global warming fears
Skeptics being labeled as traitors
Hundreds of skeptical scientists to be heard from in upcoming Senate report
Carbon mandates don't reduce temperatures
The Senator passionately concluded:

In conclusion, I would simply point out that climate alarmism has become a cottage industry in this country and many others, but a growing number of scientists and the general public are coming around to the idea that climate change is natural and that there is no reason for alarm. It is time to stop pretending that the world around us is headed for certain doom and that Kyoto-style policies will save us - when in fact, the biggest danger lies in these policies themselves. As I have noted, new studies continue to pile up debunking alarm and debunking the very foundation for so called "solutions" to warming.

I know this was a long, long speech, but I just want the real people, not the money driven liberals and the Hollywood elitists, but the real people who are out there raising their families and working hard to know that help is on its way and that all the UN and media driven hype to sell American down the river will fail.

And that truth, as Winston Churchill said, "is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is."

Bravo, Senator! Bravo!


10-28-2007, 04:42 PM

Funding Global Warming Hysteria
By Noel Sheppard | October 27, 2007 - 11:33 ET

As media regularly accuse every scientist skeptical of man's role in global warming as being on the payroll of Big Oil, you almost never see a news report addressing the funding of those responsible for spreading climate alarmism.

This all changed Thursday when the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published an op-ed by the John Locke Foundation's Paul Chesser detailing how one environmental advocate receives funds from largely liberal donors to encourage state governments to impose strict regulations on all things speculated to be causing global warming.

Chesser's fabulous expose began (emphasis added throughout, h/t James Dellinger):

Imagine you are an advocacy group and want to sway a government's policy development, but really want to keep your activism a secret. You could learn a lot by observing and then avoiding the practices of the Center for Climate Strategies, a group of global warming worrywarts.

CCS in recent years has approached many states, including Washington, with an inexpensive, tantalizing offer: to establish and manage a process for climate change policy development. The results are a study legitimized by government that promotes onerous regulations, property rights infringement through smart growth initiatives, and new taxes and fees on fuels and utilities.

CCS operates in Washington in nearly the same way it's worked in every other state where it's been hired. First a governor (such as Gov. Chris Gregoire) issues an executive order declaring global warming a problem that must be confronted through state policy. Then a so-called stakeholder (political appointees and special interests, really) panel considers dozens of CCS-created policy options -- most of which impinge upon individual rights, increase energy costs, or add to the cost of government -- that ostensibly reduce CO2 emissions in the state. CCS holds the hand of the group through several meetings and its decision-making, until the threats to personal liberty and financial well-being are established as official government philosophy. Ideally (to CCS), legislatures will adopt them and add to everyone's cost of living. Nanny-staters celebrate.

In doing this, CCS claims it is not acting as an anti-global warming advocate. Yet, look at how the finances of this organization work:

CCS comes to states promising to bring money with them to pay for their greenhouse-gas reduction development. Who foots the bill? Several foundations on the global warming panic train: the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The (Ted) Turner Foundation, The Heinz Endowments, the Energy Foundation, and many others. For example, the state of Washington is paying only $200,000 for CCS' services -- half of what their cheap process has cost in other states.

Then CCS controls the entire policy development: the agenda, scheduling and oversight of their meetings; the CO2 reduction options that stakeholders consider; analysis (which is not an examination of cost/benefit or climate impact) of those options; the voting process; the changing and/or elimination of options; and the writing of all meeting minutes, presentations and reports.

Virtually every one of CCS's greenhouse gas-reducing options, which stakeholders find almost impossible to eliminate or alter (as if they wanted to) because the voting procedures are stacked against it, will curtail individual freedom or further burden taxpayers and consumers. Rather than surveying stakeholders in an up-or-down vote, options are instead considered already approved unless enough members (who are political appointees, with almost no scientists or economists) are bold and knowledgeable enough to object to them.

Ominously, this advocacy is destined to arrive at a state capital near you:

CCS has conducted this cookie-cutter process in more than a dozen states, and more are in its sights. The motives, tactics and plans are not hard to see, but they are a threat.

Of course, CCS is doing nothing wrong here, and the reader should not infer such. Instead, as this global warming debate continues, and media regularly question the funding of virtually every individual and organization refuting the supposed consensus regarding the science involved, shouldn't the same scrutiny be applied to those advancing the hysteria?

Or, would that be too much like journalism?


11-01-2007, 11:56 AM
Emirates airline executive rubbishes Gore's climate film

A top executive of Dubai-based carrier Emirates on Thursday rubbished Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on climate change, saying he did not believe the film's scientific theory on global warming.
"Don't talk to me about global warming... I just do not buy it whatsoever," Maurice Flanagan, Emirates executive vice chairman, said at a regional aviation conference in Singapore.

"Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' is absolute rubbish," added Flanagan, who said he had watched the documentary three times.

The 2006 documentary, which won former US vice president Gore the Nobel Peace Prize last month, details scientific theory about global warming and its impact.

The aviation industry has been listed by some as among the main contributors of carbon dioxide emissions which are blamed for global warming.


11-04-2007, 01:32 AM
The deceit behind global warming (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml)

No one can deny that in recent years the need to "save the planet" from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses "a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism", warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the "Roman Warming", coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.

Around 1300 began "the Little Ice Age", that did not end until 200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the "Modern Warming". But even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the "Little Cooling" between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming again.

A scare is often set off as we show in our book with other examples when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers, drafted in con-sult-ation with governments and officials essentially a political document in which most of the caveats contained in the experts' report would not appear.

This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991, which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study came under heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated the evidence. But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the Summary for Policy-makers, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century. In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.

It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick". Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.

In the past three years, we have seen the EU announcing every kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to see the peoples of Europe accepting it.

All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth.

Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of question marks being raised over Gore's alleged consensus. For instance, he claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft when even the IPCC in its latest report, only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that, wholly unaffected by Kyoto, the economies of China and India are now expanding at nearly 10 per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting more CO2 than the US within two years.

More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.

Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.

If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.

"ÂàScared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum, Ã16.99) is available for Ã14.99 + Ã1.25 p&p. To order call Telegraph Books on 0870 428 4115 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk.

11-04-2007, 02:32 PM

Circumcision on Decline in Africa Due to Global Warming
By Noel Sheppard | November 2, 2007 - 20:55 ET

Maybe the finest example of Global Warming Derangement Syndrome to date is the claim by an Australian mammologist and paleontologist that climate change has reduced circumcision rates in Africa.

I kid you not.

Aside from his other lofty credentials, Tim Flannery is also a global warming activist, or did you guess that from the introduction?

Regardless, in his new book, "An Explorer's Notebook," Flannery, according to the excerpt published by Australia's The Age, should be rushed to the nearest sanitarium for emergency GWDS treatment (emphasis added for your entertainment pleasure):

left Europe to return home via Africa. A mate had started an ecotourism venture in Kenya and had asked me to come along on a 14-day safari. I agreed, both because I wanted to help him with his conservation effort and because I was keen to talk to the people living in northern Kenya, a land afflicted by drought. We saw lion, giraffe, elephant and rarer creatures such as Grevy's zebra, which I was particularly taken with. It is the largest and most elegantly striped of all zebras, and is a kind of living fossil whose lineage goes back about 3 million years. A few years ago there were about 5000, but today only 2000 survive, in part because of east Africa's chronic low rainfall - a result of climate change.

At the remote camp of Sarara, north of Nairobi, I asked village elders about the drought. This is the homeland of the Samburu people, traditional cattle grazers who have developed an intricate system of subsistence. There was an air of despair about these dignified old men as they explained that the weather patterns and signs of rain are now so altered that their long experience is no longer useful in advising the youth where to lead the cattle. Apparently American food aid is all that's keeping many in the region from starvation.

That evening I learnt of a most remarkable consequence of the drought. The Samburu circumcise their youths in grand ceremonies, which are held every seven years or so, when enough cattle and other foods have accumulated to support such celebrations. Circumcision represents a transition to manhood, and until a youth has passed it he can't marry. But it's been 14 years since a circumcision ceremony has been held here. There are now 40,000 uncircumcised young men, some in their late 20s, waiting their turn. All of the eligible young women, tired of waiting, have married older men (multiple wives are allowed), so there are no wives for the new initiates.

I could never have imagined that climate change would have such an effect on an entire society.

Honestly, folks, there's no way you can make this stuff up!


11-05-2007, 06:00 AM
Global Warming Tutorial Media Should be Required to Watch
By Noel Sheppard | November 4, 2007 - 20:34 ET

While media members fawn over Hollywood productions about manmade global warming such as Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" and Leonardo DiCaprio's box office disaster "The Eleventh Hour," they should take time out of their busy propagandist schedules to view a lecture that Australian research professor Bob Carter recently gave.

In fact, it should be required viewing for any member of the press who wants to report about climate change, for it more thoroughly and concisely explains the science refuting the current alarmism than anything to date.

During the roughly 37-minute lecture given at the Annual Conference of the Australian Environmental Foundation on September 8th in Melbourne (luckily caught on videotape, multiple links to follow), Carter debunked the hysterical claims regularly espoused by warm-mongers such as:

Today's temperatures deviate from historical norms
Today's temperatures will cause extinctions
Today's temperatures are caused by rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
In fact, and not to give too much away, one of Carter's rather startling observations is that a greater threat to mankind moving forward is the cooling trend that has likely already started, and that all this hysteria over a nominal warming period is distracting us from preparing for the colder temperatures destined to come.

As an added bonus, although the contents are highly scientific and, at times complicated, viewers will appreciate Carter's candid, personable delivery, as well as his sense of humor.

As such, without further ado, I strongly recommend NewsBusters readers take about a half-hour of their time to fully understand just how absurd the media's claims of imminent doom at the hands of global warming are.

Enjoy: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno


11-08-2007, 06:02 AM
If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the manmade global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began (emphasis added, h/t NB reader coffee250):

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.


I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

Let's hope so, John; let's hope so.


11-15-2007, 04:36 AM

NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It?
By Noel Sheppard | November 14, 2007 - 12:23 ET

Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?

Such seems likely to be alleged by hysterical alarmists in the press when and if they read a new study out of NASA which determined that "not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."

Goes quite counter to all the recent media reports, as well as assertions by Nobel Laureate Al Gore, that low ice conditions in the Arctic are all the fault of that despicable -- albeit essential to life and naturally occurring! -- gas carbon dioxide.

Of course, it's quite unlikely many climate alarmists will even hear about this study, for today's green media wouldn't want to do anything that destroys their illusion that there's a scientific consensus regarding this matter.

As such, consider yourself fortunate to be apprised of the highlights (emphasis added throughout):

A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.


The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said [James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory].

Somehow I imagine Morison won't be interviewed by any of the major television networks any time soon, especially as the study concluded that this circulation pattern may already be reversing possibly leading to increased ice levels in this area in coming years:

The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.

Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. "The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum," he said. "It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again."

Once again, another in a seeming litany of reports emerging offering scientific alternatives for climate change beyond it being all man's fault.

And folks wonder why so many people are skeptical concerning the anthropogenic impact on long-term weather patterns.

Of course, one thing's for certain: this news definitely won't make "An Inconvenient Truth" producer Laurie David happy!


11-16-2007, 05:57 AM
Shocking Stanford Luncheon: Is Global Warming a Myth?
By Noel Sheppard | November 15, 2007 - 13:14 ET

Don't weep for the youth of America, for about a week after the Harvard Crimson published a shocking editorial antagonistic to Nobel Laureate Al Gore, Stanford University held a luncheon entitled "Is Global Warming a Myth?"

Adding to your likely surprise, the guest speaker was the world-renowned global warming skeptic S. Frederick Singer.

Maybe even more astounding, the Stanford paper gave his speech a rather positive review (emphasis added throughout):

The former space scientist and government scientific administrator, who is co-author of the bestselling book, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years," claimed that observed warming is produced by the sun and that "human contribution is negligible." Singer's research suggests that for the past million years, the Earth has gone through warming and cooling phrases that have lasted about 1,500 years each. He writes that these phases are in no way correlated with carbon dioxide levels.


The speaker explained that the recent warming the Earth has experienced is not dangerous and is not something humans could alter. Global warming activists such as Al Gore, Singer chided, are hyping the problem. He said that such activists have not come close to demonstrating that human-generated greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming.

Amazingly fair representation of likely what Singer said, correct? The author, Mima Mohammed, chose not to reference noted alarmists in order to discredit the speaker's points, even as they went counter to the Global Warmingist-in-Chief's.

Rather refreshing, don't you think?

Of course, the folks at Think Progress and Media Matters wouldn't agree, but I digress as the article began presenting a number of inconvenient truths most media members have been hiding from the public:

If politicians truly wanted to make a change to affect energy use, Singer said, they would have to increase taxes on gasoline, which would decrease use of vehicles. He believes that such taxes would hit people of low income the hardest.

The speaker claimed that many businesses, such as the wind farm industry, are making money off the global warming hype. Singer said that it is essential to convince the proponents of global warming that what they are doing is counterproductive and will not make any difference to the climate.

Yet, what was likely most surprising was the following:

Paul Craft 09, an editor at The Stanford Review, said he appreciated the speaker's unconventional views.

"He made an interesting argument - the nature of science is to have a debate about the evidence," Craft said. "Therefore, I think it's healthy to have dissenting opinions regardless of where you stand of the issue."

How delightful: Someone that understands how science works, and that the debate is far from over.

We need more objective journalists like Craft and Mohammed, wouldn't you agree?

Bravo, Stanford - which is a lot coming from a Bear!


11-24-2007, 09:57 AM

Not Enough Parking for Private Jets Going to UN Climate Conference
By Noel Sheppard | November 23, 2007 - 16:32 ET

As climate alarmists from all over the world head to Bali to talk about the sacrifices regular folks have to make to save the planet from global warming, it seems certain media will ignore all the private jets clogging the tiny airport.

As if its not enough that the United Nations Climate Change Conference is being held at what NewsBusters reported as "a truly beautiful tropical island paradise," the management of the nearby airport has issued a warning to attendees that they are going to have to park their private jets somewhere else.

I kid you not.

Tempo Interaktif reports that Angkasa Pura - the management of Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport are concerned that the large number of additional private charter flights expected in Bali during the UN Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 3-15, 2007, will exceed the carrying capacity of apron areas. To meet the added demand for aircraft storage officials are allocating "parking space" at other airports in Indonesia.

The operational manager for Bali's Airport, Azjar Effendi, says his 3 parking areas can only accommodate 15 planes, which means that some of the jets used by VIP delegations will only be allowed to disembark and embark their planes in Bali with parking provided at airports in Surabaya, Lombok, Jakarta and Makassar.

Talk about your really inconvenient truths


12-05-2007, 05:57 AM
Your Computer is Causing Global Warming
By Noel Sheppard | December 4, 2007 - 17:24 ET

Did you know that you're causing global warming just by reading this article on your computer screen?

Or that a medium-sized server has the same annual carbon footprint of an SUV that gets 15 miles to the gallon?

Well, shame on you for not being aware of just how harmful to the environment your laptop is, because according to an English environmental organization called Global Action Plan, the Information and Computer Technology industry is about to surpass the aviation industry in annual carbon dioxide emissions.

I kid you not.

Here are some of the highlights of this organization's paper on the matter entitled "An Inefficient Truth":

Gartner, the ICT research and advisory company, estimates that the manufacture of ICT equipment, its use and disposal accounts for 2% of global CO2 emissions which is equivalent to the aviation industry
Servers and data centres have become integral to business but as the size and capacity of these servers increase, so too does the energy consumed by them
The intensive power requirements needed to run and cool data centres now account for around a quarter of the ICT sector's CO2 emissions
It is estimated that a medium-sized server has roughly the same annual carbon footprint as an SUV vehicle doing 15 miles per gallon
The manufacturing process for computers is very energy intensive. A recent study at the United Nations University in Tokyo found that most electrical products consume around 95% of lifecycle fossil fuels when in use; however, 75% of PC fossil fuel consumption has already happened before the computer is even switched on for the first time
Furthermore, the study found that the manufacture of one PC requires about 1.7 tonnes of raw materials and water, and consumes over ten times the computer's weight in fossil fuels.
So, do the world a favor and turn your darned computer off!


Wow! Sounds
December 4, 2007 - 17:51 ET by jdhawk
Wow! Sounds like Armegeddon!

But, before we all dive off a cliff like lemmings, let's start with what air is made of:
Dry air is primarily made up of nitrogen (78.09%) and oxygen (20.95%). The remaining 1% is made up of argon (0.93%), carbon dioxide (0.03%) and other trace gases (0.003%). Water vapor (water in its gaseous state) is also present in air in varying amounts.

So, of all the ingredients that make up air, C02 makes up only .03%. That's only 38 out of every 100,000 molecules of air are carbon dioxide.

What part of .03% is contributed by man? Mankind's addition of more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is only one molecule of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air every 5 years!

See the article here for the full explanation: http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm .

12-06-2007, 06:02 AM
How Gore and Media Fabricated a Global Warming Consensus
By Noel Sheppard | December 5, 2007 - 17:22 ET

How often in the past couple of years have you heard a climate alarmist refer to a so-called scientific consensus concerning man's role in global warming?

Almost any time you see a report on the subject, correct?

Have you ever considered how this belief that a consensus exists came to be, and if it actually means anything?

Answering such questions is the Wall Street Journal's Holman W. Jenkins Jr, whose op-ed Wednesday should be must reading for citizens, media representatives, and especially politicians that actually believe an overwhelming majority of scientists around the world are drinking Al Gore's Kool-Aid (h/t NBer dscott, emphasis added throughout):

A] Nobel has never been awarded for the science of global warming. Even Svante Arrhenius, who first described the "greenhouse" effect, won his for something else in 1903. Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.

How this honor has befallen the former Veep [Al Gore] could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on "availability bias," roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.

Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: "Availability cascade" has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; "informational cascade" for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd's beliefs; and "reputational cascade" for the rational incentive to do so.

Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he's playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: "The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona."

Here's exactly the problem that availability cascades pose: What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads?

Fascinating, wouldn't you agree? But there was more:

Less surprising is the readiness of many prominent journalists to embrace the role of enforcer of an orthodoxy simply because it is the orthodoxy. For them, a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself.


Now let's suppose a most improbable, rhapsodic lobbying success for Mr. Gore, [Vinod Khosla of the venture capital firm Gore now works for], and folks on their side of the table--say, a government mandate to replace half the gasoline consumed in the U.S. with a carbon-neutral alternative. This would represent a monumental, $400 billion-a-year business opportunity for the green energy lobby. The impact on global carbon emissions? Four percent--less than China's predicted emissions growth over the next three or four years.

Don't doubt that this is precisely the chasm that keeps Mr. Gore from running for president. He could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis." Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs. How much more practical, then, to cash in on the crowd-pleasing role of angry prophet, without having to take responsibility for policies that the public will eventually discover to be fraudulent.

All with media's help, of course.

In the end, a consensus concerning this issue is as much a media concocted illusion as the myth that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm beyond historical norms.

We can only hope such inconvenient truths will dawn upon enough press representatives before the United States kowtows to domestic and international socialist pressures to implement draconian measures whose only result will be our financial ruin.


12-13-2007, 05:57 AM

Headline: 'Pope Condemns the Climate Change Prophets of Doom'
By Noel Sheppard | December 12, 2007 - 20:04 ET

As a global warming skeptic, when I saw the headline "The Pope Condemns the Climate Change Prophets of Doom," it goes without saying I was as pleased as a child on Christmas Day that had gotten everything he asked Santa for and then some.

My glee accelerated after reading the marvelous beginning of this Daily Mail article (paragraph break removed for space considerations):

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

See why I was so thrilled?

Unfortunately, as I reviewed the text of the Pontiff's message, defeat was stripped from the jaws of victory upon realizing the Mail's author had divined intent that might have been absent from the Pope's words:

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-ÃÆÃ*ÚÃ*-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

8. In this regard, it is essential to "sense" that the earth is "our common home" and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this "home" of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

See anything about "climate prophets of doom?" Not nearly the castigation of global warming alarmists and their assertions depicted by the Mail, was it?

Despite the tenor of the Mail's piece, there was actually something for folks on both sides of the manmade global warming debate in the Pope's address. In fact, as Robert Duncan of Spero News pointed out, the Pontiff's holiday message was certainly not just about climate change:

It's funny how a person can write something, and others read only the things that interest them...The truth is that while global warming was a major subject of the speech, the press seems to have missed that it was couched in a bigger message of Peace and the Human Family...Once again it appears the press only got half of the message -- and decided to go with the flavor of the day, global warming, and ignore the underlying message of family and responsibility.

Clearly. And, as it pertains to global warming, the press seemed to see only one side of the debate, most surprisingly not the alarmist one we've grown accustomed to. Here's how Reuters reported the Pontiff's message:

International decisions on the impact of environmental change should be made prudently, avoiding hasty conclusions, ideological pressures and unilateral stands, Pope Benedict said in a peace message on Tuesday.

To be sure, almost nine months after Australia's Cardinal George Pell called global warming alarmism "an induced dose of mild hysteria -- semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition," I would welcome similar statements from his boss.

However, regardless of how the Mail and Reuters presented the Pontiff's proclamation, I don't believe he has gone as far as Cardinal Pell. Do you?

While delegates from around the world are meeting in Bali to discuss climate change, what does this tell us about the direction of this debate that many have arrogantly stated is over?

Are media starting to tire of this subject? Have two consecutive years of exaggerated hurricane projections as well as the lack of a second Katrina soured the press on the concept that scientists can accurately predict climate's future?

Maybe more importantly, as it appears that nothing substantial will come out of Bali concerning mandatory carbon dioxide emissions cuts - after similar failures by the G-8 six months ago - is it possible the press are beginning to realize that when it comes to global warming, despite posturing to the contrary, the governments of the developed world aren't as alarmed by this issue as they sometimes appear?

Consider statements made by President Bush on May 31 just before June's G-8 summit:

Bringing progress and prosperity to struggling nations requires growing amounts of energy. It's hard to grow your economy if you don't have energy. Yet, producing that energy can create environmental challenges for the world. We need to harness the power of technology to help nations meet their growing energy needs while protecting the environment and addressing the challenge of global climate change.

In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously. The new initiative I am outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week. The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

So my proposal is this: By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To help develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce most greenhouse gas emissions, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.

At the time, this was greeted with great enthusiasm by climate alarmists, and has since been used by such folks as demonstrating how strong the so-called consensus is concerning this issue. Yet, as previously mentioned, the G-8 punted in June, and did absolutely nothing to address climate change.

Now, six months later, the same results appear to be coming from Bali, and the world's press seem to be recognizing that politicians across the globe are willing to make speeches about this issue to appease environmentalists in their nations, but when the sun goes down, won't do anything that threatens their economies.

Although we shouldn't hold our collective breath for Brian, Charlie, or Katie to report this any time soon, maybe just knowing their brethren are starting to recognize that which has been obvious for years is quite enough.

After all, has any of us been good enough this year to deserve a Christmas present like the television news networks other than Fox admitting Nobel Laureate Al Gore is indeed no more than a snake oil salesman, and that the only thing warming the planet is the sun?


12-15-2007, 12:41 PM
When in doubt, just try a bit of arithmetic. According to the Green house gas hoax, the temperature goes up 5 degrees if the amount of CO2 doubles. Carbon dioxide is, in fact, plant food and therefore a rare gas. These people, with a learning disablilty, are suggesting that the temperature goes up 20 degrees C. when the the CO2 levels are at 4%. A rough calculation for F. degrees is to double and add 32 degrees. For Americans in Texas, 100 would change to 172 degrees.

When someone is around to ask questions, it becames man-made global warming. OK, can there be man-made global warming. Yes indeed, 10,000 to 20,000 megawats of nuclear power heats all the water going over Niagara falls 1 to 2 degrees. A nuclear power plant is an atomic bomb factory connected to a steam boiler. A steam boiler is a heat engine that follows the laws of the thermodynamics; that is, each watt of electricity has to produce around 4 to 5 watts of thermal pollution.

It used to be trendy to diss nuclear power. But not any more. We are expected to destroy our economy while Asia arms itself with nuclear warheads.

Homework assignment for mainstream media people:
1. Look up % of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
2. Try the above calculations.
3. Jump out the window. Since you can defy the laws of physics, there should be no such thing as gravity.

12-17-2007, 06:27 AM
If the amount of carbon dioxide were to double, the surface area of a plant increases by 418 cm, rather than 281 cm after 40 days. Note that surface area goes up by the second power, while volume goes up to the third power. In other words as carbon dioxide levels double, the growth of the plant doubles where everything else is held constant. 340 ppm means .34 of 1% atmospheric CO2.
Days: Leaf Area (cm2): 340 ppm CO2: Leaf Area (cm2): 680 ppm CO2
5 28 28
10 115 120
15 363 466
20 700 885
25 598 889
30 492 765
35 388 595
40 281 418

12-21-2007, 12:37 AM
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)


Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committees office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

Scientists from Around the World Dissent

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCCs view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were futile." (LINK)

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK)

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped consensus" that the debate is settled."

A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research (LINK) ]

The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

Read on: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

12-21-2007, 09:04 AM
Senate Floor Statement by
U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla)

September 25, 2006

I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media's coverage of climate change.

Global Warming -- just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the senator who has spent more time educating about the actual facts about global warming, I want to address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood's involvement in the issue. And of course I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media pedaled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of London's Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism. During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.


First, I would like to summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether or not humans have created a climate catastrophe. One of the key aspects that the United Nations, environmental groups and the media have promoted as the "smoking gun" of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called 'hockey stick' temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.

This graph purported to show that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century presumably due to human activity. Mann, who also co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group, had his "Hockey Stick" come under severe scrutiny.

The "hockey stick" was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the "hockey stick." http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period from the Earth's climate history for at least a decade. David Deming, an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Geosciences, can testify first hand about this effort.

Dr. Deming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that noted some warming in the 20th century. Deming says he was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming alarmist and told point blank "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." When the "Hockey Stick" first appeared in 1998, it did just that.


The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth's temperatures and mankind's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.

Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?


My skeptical views on man-made catastrophic global warming have only strengthened as new science comes in. There have been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for 50% of 20th century warming.

Recently, many scientists, including a leading member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6 of this year by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming.

The 60 scientists wrote: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

"If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted:

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"


One of the ways alarmists have pounded this mantra of "consensus" on global warming into our pop culture is through the use of computer models which project future calamity. But the science is simply not there to place so much faith in scary computer model scenarios which extrapolate the current and projected buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and conclude that the planet faces certain doom.

Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a 2001 reviewer with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted,

"The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models."

Earlier this year, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

In fact, after years of hearing about the computer generated scary scenarios about the future of our planet, I now believe that the greatest climate threat we face may be coming from alarmist computer models.

This threat is originating from the software installed on the hard drives of the publicity seeking climate modelers.

It is long past the time for us to separate climate change fact from hysteria.


One final point on the science of climate change: I am approached by many in the media and others who ask, "What if you are wrong to doubt the dire global warming predictions? Will you be able to live with yourself for opposing the Kyoto Protocol?"

My answer is blunt. The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future.

The more the eco-doomsayers' predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict. These failed predictions are just one reason I respect the serious scientists out there today debunking the latest scaremongering on climate change. Scientists like MIT's Richard Lindzen, former Colorado State climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr., the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer and John Christy, Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, Colorado State University's William Gray, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Oregon State climatologist George Taylor and astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, to name a few.

But more importantly, it is the global warming alarmists who should be asked the question -- "What if they are correct about man-made catastrophic global warming?" -- because they have come up with no meaningful solution to their supposed climate crisis in the two decades that they have been hyping this issue.

If the alarmists truly believe that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are dooming the planet, then they must face up to the fact that symbolism does not solve a supposed climate crisis.

The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. And keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the nations that ratified it, including 13 of the EU-15 nations that are not going to meet their emission reduction promises.

Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along:

The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.


Many in the media, as I noted earlier, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and instead become committed advocates for the issue.

Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine:

"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth."

A headline in the New York Times reads: "Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output."

Here is a quote from Time Magazine:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval."

All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek Magazine and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

They weren't referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age.

Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the 1970's and warned of a coming ice age.

In addition to global cooling fears, Time Magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example:

"[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore's movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.

Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.

Time Magazine in 1951 pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming.

In 1952, the New York Times noted that the "trump card" of global warming "has been the melting glaciers."


There are many more examples of the media and scientists flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares.

Here is a quote form the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again."

That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times. Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold."

An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:

"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.

An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:

"Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada."

The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade."

The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don't they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president's brand of climate alarmism.

After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today's voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.

Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented here today can be found in a publication titled "Fire and Ice" from the Business and Media Institute. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_timeswarns.asp


Which raises the question: Has this embarrassing 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories made the media more skeptical of today's sensational promoters of global warming? You be the judge.

On February 19th of this year, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water.

"60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

On March 19th of this year "60 Minutes" profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen.

The "60 Minutes" segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004.

Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation.

The foundation's money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.

"60 Minutes" also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue. http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html

Why would "60 Minutes" ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments?

The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of "Holocaust deniers." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml

This year also saw a New York Times reporter write a children's book entitled" The North Pole Was Here." The author of the book, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, wrote that it may someday be "easier to sail to than stand on" the North Pole in summer. So here we have a very prominent environmental reporter for the New York Times who is promoting aspects of global warming alarmism in a book aimed at children.


In April of this year, Time Magazine devoted an issue to global warming alarmism titled "Be Worried, Be Very Worried." http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html This is the same Time Magazine which first warned of a coming ice age in 1920's before switching to warning about global warming in the 1930's before switching yet again to promoting the 1970's coming ice age scare.

The April 3, 2006 global warming special report of Time Magazine was a prime example of the media's shortcomings, as the magazine cited partisan left-wing environmental groups with a vested financial interest in hyping alarmism.

Headlines blared:

"More and More Land is Being Devastated by Drought"

"Earth at the Tipping Point"

"The Climate is Crashing,"

Time Magazine did not make the slightest attempt to balance its reporting with any views with scientists skeptical of this alleged climate apocalypse.

I don't have journalism training, but I dare say calling a bunch of environmental groups with an obvious fund-raising agenda and asking them to make wild speculations on how bad global warming might become, is nothing more than advocacy for their left-wing causes. It is a violation of basic journalistic standards.

To his credit, New York Times reporter Revkin saw fit to criticize Time Magazine for its embarrassing coverage of climate science. http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/article.php?date=2006-04-28ÃâÅÚÃion=1&id=7 So in the end, Time's cover story title of "Be Worried, Be Very Worried," appears to have been apt. The American people should be worried --- very worried -- of such shoddy journalism.


In May, our nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time: former Vice President Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." In addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, Gore had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press.

On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared "Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie." The article quoted only five scientists praising Gore's science, despite AP's having contacted over 100 scientists. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2006-06-27-inconvenient-truth-reviews_x.htm

The fact that over 80% of the scientists contacted by the AP had not even seen the movie or that many scientists have harshly criticized the science presented by Gore did not dissuade the news outlet one bit from its mission to promote Gore's brand of climate alarmism. http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

I am almost at a loss as to how to begin to address the series of errors, misleading science and unfounded speculation that appear in the former Vice President's film

Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT has written about "An Inconvenient Truth."

"A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse." http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:

He promoted the now debunked "hockey stick" temperature chart in an attempt to prove man's overwhelming impact on the climate
He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age
He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most scientists believe does not exist.
He asserted that today's Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930's were as warm or warmer
He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.
He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland's ice is in danger of disappearing
He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices
He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific "consensus" and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.
He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing
He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits
He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving
He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in "An Inconvenient Truth." Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie -- there would not be enough time to deliver this speech today.

Following the promotion of "An Inconvenient Truth," the press did not miss a beat in their role as advocates for global warming fears.

ABC News put forth its best effort to secure its standing as an advocate for climate alarmism when the network put out a call for people to submit their anecdotal global warming horror stories in June for use in a future news segment. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2094224&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

In July, the Discovery Channel presented a documentary on global warming narrated by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The program presented only those views of scientists promoting the idea that humans are destroying the Earth's climate. http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=258659

You don't have to take my word for the program's overwhelming bias; a Bloomberg News TV review noted "You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program" because of its lack of scientific objectivity.

Brokaw also presented climate alarmist James Hansen to viewers as unbiased, failing to note his quarter million dollar grant form the partisan Heinz Foundation or his endorsement of Democrat Presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 and his role promoting former Vice President Gore's Hollywood movie.

Brokaw, however, did find time to impugn the motives of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism when he featured paid environmental partisan Michael Oppenhimer of the group Environmental Defense accusing skeptics of being bought out by the fossil fuel interests.

The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.

I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is 'Not Enough,' -- especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns.


Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323

However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser.

Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called "consensus view" that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view.

But despite this manufactured "consensus," the media continued to ignore any attempt to question the orthodoxy of climate alarmism.

As the dog days of August rolled in, the American people were once again hit with more hot hype regarding global warming, this time from The New York Times op-ed pages. A columnist penned an August 3rd column filled with so many inaccuracies it is a wonder the editor of the Times saw fit to publish it.

For instance, Bob Herbert's column made dubious claims about polar bears, the snows of Kilimanjaro and he attempted to link this past summer's heat wave in the U.S. to global warming - something even alarmist James Hansen does not support. http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=261382

12-22-2007, 03:45 PM

Gore is a liar, Global Warming is a hoax.

12-22-2007, 10:11 PM
How about a Nobel prize for this


By Bob Momenteller

Friday's leak through the Washington Post that the FBI has known since 1991 that the Democrat Party is infiltrated by Chinese agents is a seminal event. For it offers sufficient detail to complete the picture of how the entire Chinese intelligence penetration succeeded. When combining it with other leaks, intelligence reports, and congressional investigation results, the following picture can be put together:

In the 1980s, the People's Republic of China made a decision
to build the most powerful military force in the world. In less
than a decade, China's annual military spending tripled. In terms of manpower, it already had the largest army in the world. But to project force, it needed a modern Navy as well. To rival the U.S. military, it needed advanced U.S. military technology, and it needed U.S. dollars to purchase such technology. Republican administrations had permitted trade with China that produced hard currency, but had employed tight export controls to prevent advanced U.S. military technology from falling into the hands of Communists. So the Chinese government bet its money on two Southern Democrats with an expressed and desperate desire to ascend to the U.S. Presidency.


It is against the law for a foreign government to support U.S. politicians, and movement inside U.S. borders of Communist China agents is watched closely by FBI counterintelligence.

So Communist China set up a diversion so ingenious that it
has confused reporters for years, but has been known to and kept secret by the FBI. Mainland China used its archrival Taiwan, as well as Hong Kong, as conduits for the funds paid to Clinton and Gore. Democratic Taiwan and Hong Kong are the last places you could look for Communist agents, and the many U.S. subsidiaries of Taiwanese, Hong Kong, and Indonesian companies and organizations offered convenient footholds through which to launder money and buy influence with U.S. politicians.

China Resources bought into Lippo Bank of Hong Kong and
Indonesia and placed its officers John Huang and James Riady in Arkansas. John Huang was born in Mainland China, but had served in the Taiwanese air force. Ya Long Economic Trading of the Chinese Hainan province sought influence and legitimacy through the Hsi Lai temple of Taiwan, through its representative Maria Hsia, born in Taiwan.

Both John Huang and Maria Hsia are known by the FBI to be
agents of Communist China. Together with James Riady, they formed he Pacific Leadership Council, and invited none other than then-Senator Al Gore to the Hsi Lai temple headquarters in Taiwan in 1989. On behalf of the Chinese government, Maria Hsia promised Al Gore that she would persuade all her colleagues "in the future to play a leader role in your presidential race." When Al Gore entered the Hsi Lai temple of Los Angeles seven years later to facilitate the laundry of donations in a "fund-raiser," he must have known it came from the Chinese government.

12-25-2007, 07:03 AM
Ski town's flame too hot for global warming cops
Mayor targets downtown attraction for extinction

Posted: December 25, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

ÃâÅÚà 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

In the mountain resort of Aspen, where mansions each pump out more than 600 pounds of carbon dioxide annually, and jets delivering the rich and famous to their second homes add another 300,000 tons, the mayor is trying to eliminate a natural-gas fueled flame in an open municipal hearth in downtown that is intended to provide ambience.

"This isn't Arlington National Cemetery. It's not the eternal flame," Mayor Mick Ireland told the Denver Post. "It's a symbol like if the mayor were to run around in a Range Rover."

The flame was installed about 18 months ago amid the hoopla of increasing the city's "vibrancy" and "to encourage pedestrians to linger in Aspen's downtown center."

But it emits an estimated nine pounds or so of carbon dioxide every year, so even at its launching, the city acknowledged, "it is important to note that the city recognizes and acknowledges the energy use and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions from this project. However, the balance between creating vibrancy and managing our energy consumption is an ongoing and conscious effort we take very seriously. So, as part of our effort to reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions as outlined in the Canary Initiative, the city will be offsetting the emissions from the Community Fire Hearth by purchasing renewable energy credits equal to the electricity and natural gas emissions from the hearth."


But Ireland told the newspaper it's insensitive to burn natural gas, and made the extinguishment of the flame part of his recent campaign. A week ago he called for a vote to kill the light, but it failed, 3-2, meaning city workers will return to their brainstorming to find some way to make the hearth "environmentally acceptable."

The Aspen campaign against global warming is turned on high despite a recent report from the U.S. Senate that documents hundreds of prominent scientists experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.

Ireland said the natural gas used by the attraction sends the wrong message in a town trying to cut its carbon emissions, through a city effort called the Canary Initiative. The goal is to cut city carbon emissions more than 80 percent over the next 43 years.

The city already has held a contest to generate ideas for alternative sources of energy for the feature. It offered $500 cash and a $500 gift certificate for home energy efficiency appliances, but there were no winners.

The newspaper said the city concluded biofuels would use too much energy in development and delivery, cooking grease wasn't practical, burning wood releases too many particulates and an electric flame was too fake.

"And copying the city of San Francisco's efforts to make power from dog poo had too high a yuck factor," the newspaper said.

The "green" city already features free mass transit, solar parking meters, a carbon tax and a bike-riding mayor. Even Christmas lights are LEDs. The city also monitors water quality from runoff, features low-flow toilets, recycles electronics and urges consumers to patronize organic food suppliers.

Council member Jack Johnson told the paper the hearth should be an educational display, with a sign explanation how it is wasting fuel and why.

As the flame burns, Escalades and Hummers drive by, paparazzi trip over hearth chairs seeking photographs of supermodel Heidi Klum and sales associate Kate Kelly, in a nearby retailer, told the newspaper, "Al Gore wouldn't be too happy about this."

But participants in a newspaper forum ridiculed the situation.

"Maybe just put the fire out and hang a picture of a fire instead. You put up a kiosk with informational booklets (printed on recycled paper) that explain the Global Warming Crisis, why the fire had to be put out, and ask for donations to purchase Carbon Credits. Ask the rich to stop coming to Aspen, because it's actually bad for the environment, to have all those jets flying around. Shut down the ski area. Because, really; can we afford to waste time skiing, when the oceans are about to rise 20 ft.? I think not." wrote Rulo Melko. "Well, maybe not. We'll let the rich still fly their jets in and ski, and spend money. As long as they're the Hollywood rich who "get it". Who "understand".

"This article," Bart Gripenstraw told the newspaper, "gave me a good chuckle this morning. It almost made me want to drive up to Aspen in my gas guzzling SUV, premium unleaded gas of course, with my wife in her full length fur coat so we could enjoy this beautiful fire pit. I am sure Al Gore would jump on his private lear jet, (sic) leaving behind his tastefully done 30,000 sq. foot home in Tennessee, to join me in a toast to the sillyness (sic) he has helped create."


12-28-2007, 04:51 AM
Global Warming Will Save America from the Right...Eventually

Sat., 12/22/2007 - 19:21—Say what you will about the looming catastrophe facing the world as the pace of global heating and polar melting accelerates. There is a silver lining.

Look at a map of the US.

The area that will by completely inundated by the rising ocean—and not in a century but in the lifetime of my two cats—are the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. While the northeast will also see some coastal flooding, its geography is such that that aside from a few projecting sandbars like Long Island and Cape Cod, the land rises fairly quickly to well above sea level. Sure, Boston, New York and Philadelphia will be threatened, but these are geographically confined areas that could lend themselves to protection by Dutch-style dikes. The West Coast too tends to rise rapidly to well above sea level in most places. Only down in Southern California towards the San Diego area is the ground closer to sea level.

So what we see is that huge swaths of conservative America are set to face a biblical deluge in a few more presidential cycles.

Then there’s the matter of the Midwest, which climate experts say is likely to face a permanent condition of unprecedented drought, making the place largely unlivable, and certainly unfarmable. The agribusinesses and conservative farmers that have been growing corn and wheat may be able to stretch out this doomsday scenario by deep well drilling, but west of the Mississippi, the vast Ogallala Aquifer that has allowed for such irrigation is already being tapped out. It will not be replaced.

So again, we will see the decline and depopulation of the nation’s vast midsection—noted for its consistent conservatism. Only in the northernmost area, around the Great Lakes (which will be not so great anymore), and along the Canadian border, will there still be enough rain for farming and continued large population concentrations, but those regions, like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois, are also more liberal in their politics.

Finally, in the Southwest, already parched and stiflingly hot, the rise in energy costs and the soaring temperatures will put an end to right-wing retirement communities like Phoenix, Tucson and Palm Springs. Already the Salton Sea is fading away and putting Palm Springs on notice that the good times are coming to an end. Another right-wing haven soon to be gone.

So the future political map of America is likely to look as different as the much shrunken geographical map, with much of the so-called “red” state region either gone or depopulated.

There is a poetic justice to this of course. It is conservatives who are giving us the candidates who steadfastly refuse to have the nation take steps that could slow the pace of climate change, so it is appropriate that they should bear the brunt of its impact.

The important thing is that we, on the higher ground both actually and figuratively, need to remember that, when they begin their historic migration from their doomed regions, we not give them the keys to the city. They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes.

There will be much work to be done to help the earth and its residents—human and non-human—survive this man-made catastrophe, and we can’t have these future refugee troglodytes, should their personal disasters still fail to make them recognize reality, mucking things up again.

It should be considered acceptable, in this stifling new world, to say, “Shut up. We told you this would happen.”


Davy of old England
12-28-2007, 06:09 AM
The full unedited 75 minute hi-quality DivX version of The Global Warming Swindle can be viewed or downloaded here:


(codec or plugin download may be required)

12-28-2007, 11:29 AM

French scientist calls Gore a "Crook" and his followers "Zealots"

Climate-change skeptics are taking a beating these days even in France, where people long resisted the green creed.

Paris bookstores brim with guidebooks including one shaped like a toilet seat that tell readers how to help save our planet. Yet the dissidents refuse to shut up, even now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize and the U.S. government has agreed to negotiate a new global-warming treaty by 2009.

The most conspicuous doubter in France is Claude Allegre, a former education minister and a physicist by profession. His new book, ``Ma Verite Sur la Planete'' (``My Truth About the Planet''), doesn't mince words. He calls Gore a "crook" presiding over an eco-business that pumps out cash. As for Gore's French followers, the author likens them to religious zealots who, far from saving humanity, are endangering it. Driven by a Judeo-Christian guilt complex, he says, French greens paint worst-case scenarios and attribute little-understood cycles to human misbehavior.

Allegre doesn't deny that the climate has changed or that extreme weather has become more common. He instead emphasizes the local character of these phenomena.

While the icecap of the North Pole is shrinking, the one covering Antarctica or 92 percent of the Earth's ice is not, he says. Nor have Scandinavian glaciers receded, he says. To play down these differences by basing forecasts on a global average makes no sense to Allegre.

He dismisses talk of renewable energies, such as wind or solar power, saying it would take a century for them to become a serious factor in meeting the world's energy demands.


12-28-2007, 12:03 PM
The full unedited 75 minute hi-quality DivX version of The Global Warming Swindle can be viewed or downloaded here:


(codec or plugin download may be required)

Thanks, Davy!:)

12-30-2007, 09:28 AM
Greenhouse Gas, front for Nuclear Lobby?

Hanford Site
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hanford Site plutonium production reactors along the Columbia River during the Manhattan Project.The Hanford Site is a facility of the government of the United States established to provide plutonium necessary for the development of nuclear weapons. It was established in 1943 as the Hanford Engineer Works, part of the Manhattan Project, and codenamed "Site W." No longer used to produce plutonium, it is currently the United States' most contaminated nuclear site.[1]

The site occupies 586 square miles (1,517 kmÃâÅÚÃ) in Benton County, south-central Washington, and is approximately equivalent to half the total area of the state of Rhode Island (centered on 46ÃâÅÚÃ30′00″N, 119ÃâÅÚÃ30′00″W.) The Federal government bought the towns of White Bluffs and Hanford and all of the surrounding farmland and orchards, and evacuated the residents to make room for the site.

Plutonium manufactured at the Hanford site was used to build the first nuclear bomb, which was tested at the Trinity site near Alamogordo, New Mexico, and used to build Fat Man, the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.

Currently, the Hanford Site is engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup, with many challenges to be resolved in the face of overlapping technical, political, regulatory, and cultural interests. The cleanup effort is focused on three outcomes: restoring the Columbia River corridor for other uses, converting the central plateau to long-term waste treatment and storage, and preparing for the future.

Although most of the original Hanford Site is in Benton County, approximately twenty percent was once across the Columbia River in Grant and Franklin counties. This land has since been returned to private use and is now covered with orchards and irrigated fields. In 2000, large portions of Hanford were turned over to the Hanford Reach National Monument.

Contents [hide]
1 History of the Hanford Nuclear Site
1.1 Selecting the Hanford Site
1.2 Construction begins
1.3 Building the reactors
1.4 Plutonium separation plants
2 Cold War era
3 Cleanup era
3.1 Clean land released to other uses
4 Contemporary Hanford
5 References
6 External links

[edit] History of the Hanford Nuclear Site

Hanford High School, before and after operation of the Hanford Nuclear Site
The Uranium Committee of the federal Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) decided to sponsor an intensive research project on plutonium. At this time, plutonium was a rare element that had been isolated in a University of California laboratory only nine months prior. The OSRD placed the contract with the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory (Met Lab). Communities surrounding the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington were exposed to radionuclides, particularly iodine-131, released during the period 1945 to 1951.

[edit] Selecting the Hanford Site
In June 1942, the Army Corps of Engineers formed the Manhattan Engineer District (MED) to construct industrial-size plants to manufacture the plutonium and uranium for the Met Lab scientists. In November 1942, the DuPont Company was recruited, and reluctantly agreed, to be the prime contractor for the construction of the facility. DuPont recommended that the plutonium production facilities be located far away from the existing uranium production facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and described the ideal site:

A large and remote tract of land,
A "hazardous manufacturing area" of at least 12 by 16 miles (19 by 26 km),
Space for laboratory facilities at least 8 miles (13 km) from the nearest reactor or separations plant,
No towns of more than 1,000 people closer than 20 miles (32 km) from the hazardous rectangle,
No main highway, railway, or employee village closer than 10 miles (16 km) from the hazardous rectangle,
A clean and abundant water supply,
A large electric power supply,
Ground that could bear heavy loads.

01-01-2008, 03:14 PM
NYT Takes on Al Gore and Climate Alarmists...Happy New Year!

By Noel Sheppard | January 1, 2008 - 10:29 ET

The new year is beginning with some very serious shots being fired across the bow of the manmade global warming myth and at alarmists using it to advance their deplorable agendas.

Moments after Investor's Business Daily presaged that "2008 just might be the year the so-called scientific consensus that man is causing the Earth to warm begins to crack," the New York Times of all entities published a rather shocking piece pointing fingers at folks like Nobel Laureate Al Gore for being part of a group of "activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels."

This from the New York Times?

Hold on tightly to your seats, folks, for the shocks in this piece came early and often (emphasis added throughout):

Today's interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.

A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year's end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record - it was actually lower than any year since 2001 - the BBC confidently proclaimed, "2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend."

When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.

When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm - by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades - the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all).

Checking that link to make sure it really goes to a Times piece? I understand, I've checked it about nine times, and I still don't believe it:

When judging risks, we often go wrong by using what's called the availability heuristic: we gauge a danger according to how many examples of it are readily available in our minds. Thus we overestimate the odds of dying in a terrorist attack or a plane crash because we've seen such dramatic deaths so often on television; we underestimate the risks of dying from a stroke because we don't have so many vivid images readily available.

Slow warming doesn't make for memorable images on television or in people's minds, so activists, journalists and scientists have looked to hurricanes, wild fires and starving polar bears instead. They have used these images to start an "availability cascade," a term coined by Timur Kuran, a professor of economics and law at the University of Southern California, and Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.

The availability cascade is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear. Once the images of Sept. 11 made terrorism seem a major threat, the press and the police lavished attention on potential new attacks and supposed plots. After Three Mile Island and "The China Syndrome," minor malfunctions at nuclear power plants suddenly became newsworthy.

And, of course, those that have invested huge amounts of money in green alternatives as well as carbon credit manufacturers - Saint Albert Gore, for example! - benefit tremendously every time attention is drawn to a weather-related issue that can be used to incite fear in the population:

"Many people concerned about climate change," Dr. Sunstein says, "want to create an availability cascade by fixing an incident in people's minds. Hurricane Katrina is just an early example; there will be others. I don't doubt that climate change is real and that it presents a serious threat, but there's a danger that any consensus' on particular events or specific findings is, in part, a cascade."

Once a cascade is under way, it becomes tough to sort out risks because experts become reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom, and are ignored if they do. Now that the melting Arctic has become the symbol of global warming, there's not much interest in hearing other explanations of why the ice is melting - or why the globe's other pole isn't melting, too.

Amazingly, at this point Times author John Tierney addressed studies previously reported by NewsBusters while similarly pointing out how absurd the media's lack of coverage of said items was:

Global warming has an impact on both polar regions, but they're also strongly influenced by regional weather patterns and ocean currents. Two studies by NASA and university scientists last year concluded that much of the recent melting of Arctic sea ice was related to a cyclical change in ocean currents and winds, but those studies got relatively little attention - and were certainly no match for the images of struggling polar bears so popular with availability entrepreneurs.

Could have read that at NewsBusters, right? Same with this:

Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, recently noted the very different reception received last year by two conflicting papers on the link between hurricanes and global warming. He counted 79 news articles about a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and only 3 news articles about one in a far more prestigious journal, Nature.

Guess which paper jibed with the theory - and image of Katrina - presented by Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"?

It was, of course, the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December - by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize.

Incredible. Suddenly, the New York Times is acting as a media analyst exposing liberal bias. How exciting.

Yet, Tierney wasn't done, for in his conclusion, he pointed his pen at the man most responsible for inciting all this hysteria:

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Gore didn't dwell on the complexities of the hurricane debate. Nor, in his roundup of the 2007 weather, did he mention how calm the hurricane season had been. Instead, he alluded somewhat mysteriously to "stronger storms in the Atlantic and Pacific," and focused on other kinds of disasters, like "massive droughts" and "massive flooding."

"In the last few months," Mr. Gore said, "it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter." But he was being too modest. Thanks to availability entrepreneurs like him, misinterpreting the weather is getting easier and easier.

So true. Hopefully such will become less easy in 2008 if more writers like Tierney start acting like journalists instead of the green advocates they've been since Gore's schlockumentary was released in early 2006.

After all, it will truly be a happy new year if newspapers like the Times regularly publish articles tearing to shreds the deceptions fostered by Gore and his sycophants thereby shedding light on this issue, and, just maybe, allowing America to prevent a recurrence of the kind of costly foolishness that halted the construction of nuclear power plants decades ago.

Of course, one article like this doth not make a trend. In fact, it seems almost a metaphysical certitude that in an election year, with all the Democrat presidential candidates in lock-step with the availability entrepreneurs, a downpour of sanity regarding this matter is highly unlikely.

But, published just two days before the Iowa caucuses, this piece certainly offers hope that folks in the media are starting to realize all the hysteria being incited by people like Gore is almost as believable as a Hillary Clinton campaign promise.


01-03-2008, 05:34 PM
In Their Own Words

"Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say."
-Michael Schirber, LiveScience

June 29, 2005"The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says."
-Catherine Brahic, New Scientist

August 23, 2007"Utopia is an excellent escape for politicians because they can busy themselves with far-away goals and don't have to worry about immediate problems. Climate change is an excellent issue for that escape."
-Czech President Vaclav Klaus

"The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing."
-Gregg Easterbrook in Newsweek, Nov. 23, 1992


01-03-2008, 05:41 PM
35 Inconvenient Truths

The errors in Al Gores movie


01-05-2008, 07:44 AM
It's Official; Anthropogenic Global Warming May Cause Headaches

Now that global warmingists are getting governments like the UK and the US to ban fluorescent lightbulbs, we're hearing some inconvenient accusations about the bulbs. This time, a January 3 article in the UK's Telegraph said the bulbs may cause migraines (h/t NB reader Linda).

The UK's Migraine Action Association reported that some of its members say the bulbs trigger the headaches. As a result, they want an exception for health reasons included in the UK's ban on traditional incandescent bulbs.

Global warmingists claim that using fluorescent bulbs will reduce carbon emissions and help to stop anthropogenic global warming, but the Telegraph explained the bulbs may be a problem (bold mine):

Several versions use a technology similar to fluorescent strip lights and some migraine sufferers say they produce a flickering effect that triggers their condition.

Karen Manning, from the MAA, said: "When the Government announced that traditional light bulbs would be phased out, we were inundated with over 200 calls and emails from members who said the flickering had caused migraines.

"This is a debilitating condition which can often leave people bed-ridden for days.

"The bulbs do not necessarily affect every sufferer, but we are talking about up to six million people in the UK who suffer migraines - so this is a serious concern.

"We would ask the Government to avoid banning them completely and leave some opportunity for conventional bulbs to be purchased."

Of course, the people who make the bulbs disagree:

The Lighting Association, which represents manufacturers, denied that modern designs produced a flicker.

A spokesman said: "A small number of cases have been reported by people who suffer from reactions to certain types of linear fluorescent lamps. These were almost certainly triggered by old technology."

Migraine sufferers aren't the only people voicing concerns about mandatory usage of fluorescent bulbs. The article also explained that in addition to the few retro-environmentalists who haven't moved on to global warming and still worry about no-longer-trendy toxic chemicals, people with lupus and epilepsy have concerns.

It's always difficult to determine whether claims like these are valid, but this is what happens when governments make sweeping bans on something that is so pervasive in society.


01-06-2008, 09:56 AM
Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / January 6, 2008

THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.

In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.

University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling?

"Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."

Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.

"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.

Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO{-2} is the cause of climate change.

Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over."

But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current US approach of CO{-2} reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."

Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.


01-15-2008, 04:39 PM
Global Warming's Communist Underpinnings And the MSM's Active Participation in Same
By Warner Todd Huston | January 15, 2008 - 18:55 ET

If you need any more proof that the concept of Global Warming is less "science" and is more just a replacement for the kind of failed concepts of communism and socialism that is increasingly being rejected by the world, two recent stories helps clarify the point. These same stories also highlight how the media facilitate the lies that is globaloney.

The first is a recent article by one Kellie Hastings, a writer who claims that her "research is thorough" and her "articles are written with style and intellect." In a piece titled "Deadly Ozone From Drive-Thru Mania," our Miss Hastings pours out her considerable "intellect" into the theory that drive thru windows are destroying the planet and making us a bunch of fatties.

These drive-thru window services contribute to smog, emissions, noise pollution, air pollution, pollution within the store itself as employees at the window are constantly breathing in exhaust fumes. They add to our obesity problem creating a lazy society. They congest the parking lots creating line ups adding to even more idling vehicles.

Wow, that is quite a list, a result of her "thorough research," no doubt.

And what does all this evil come down to as far as Miss. Hastings is concerned?

And all this is for what, convenience sake, money, success?

Is the human species evolving or are we becoming selfish to our never ending needs, our services rendered mind set? Or is it because we cannot turn back the clock and change the structured society we all love so much?

Maybe we have misled ourselves in regards to the meaning of purpose. Materialistically speaking, is it our destiny or purpose to acquire as much as possible? Is our evolutionary success based on our technologically convenient lifestyle? Or are we here to serve the almighty dollar?

Yeah, it's all because of ... you guessed it... capitalism. Her solution, of course, is to put an end to all this capitalism stuff like all good communists aim to do.

She fails utterly to prove with all her "research" that the "air pollution" she claims is a result from drive-thru windows will be reduced by getting rid of the convenience. She just states it straight out as fact. But, if Miss. Hastings is unhappy over the continued and expanded use of automobiles because of the air pollution they cause, she can't be too happy about the Tata Corporation in India offering a new auto for around $2,500, an offering that will allow many millions more people than had ever been able to afford a brand new car.

Now, owning a car opens up possibilities to a person that is beyond their reach otherwise, it opens up a freedom that many millions do not currently enjoy. The ability to find work at further distances from their homes than ever gives them more choices to find lucrative employment opportunities, the ability to find markets and entertainments are also greatly expanded. All this greatly expands individual freedom.

If many millions more of the people of India (and around the world) find themselves able to afford this new car, it will incredibly improve their standard of living. It will also force the government to redirect their own efforts to internal improvements to accommodate this rise in cars that will add even more to raising the standard of living in once poor countries.

Isn't this great news? Not to the communists of Greenpeace who are protesting this new product. Green communists are attempting to forever keep the poor in the grinding poverty in which they currently wallow. These green communists do not want people to be raised up out of poverty because to do so will cause "pollution" and "global warming."

And Greenpeace isnt alone. Their pals in the media are happy to fan the flames of alarmism over the supposed "global disaster" of this incredible new freedom-promoting car. As the Washington Post proved with an article outrageous titled "It Costs Just $2,500. It's Cute as a Bug. And It Could Mean Global Disaster."

Green communists do not care about people and these two stories add to the ever growing proof that enviro-communists have gravitated to environmentalism as a replacement for an overt espousal of communist ideals.


01-19-2008, 06:16 AM
It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation's toughest greenhouse gas control law.

As supporters waved signs, chanted and banged drums, 18 legislators walked down a symbolic green carpet to sign up as co-sponsors to a bill that would mandate that all businesses in Maryland cut emissions of global warming pollution by 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050.

"We are going to pass this bill this year," said State Sen. Paul Pinsky, a Democrat from Prince
George's County and chairman of the senate's environmental matters subcommittee. "We are
not going to rest, we are not going to stop....We are going to keep going until we pass this

Pinsky and co-author Del. Kumar Barve, the house Democratic leader, proposed a similar
but unsuccessful Global Warming Solutions Act last year. It would have created a
system of financial rewards and punishments (known as a "cap and trade" system) to force all businesses to reduce their emissions.

The Maryland legislature over the last two year has approved more limited cuts in carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired power plants and cars. Together, these add up to an expected 25 percent reduction.

The Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Constellation Energy and many Republicans oppose the 90 percent mandate, saying such aggressive regulation could cripple the states economy if
other states don't have such limits.

"It would be harmful for employment," said Senate Republican Leader David R. Brinkley.
"We have a conscientious business community, and nobody wants to contribute to pollution,
but these guys are intent on making Maryland uncompetitive."

Rob Gould, a spokesman for Constellation Energy, the state's biggest owner of power plants, said federal or international regulation of greenhouse gases makes more sense. And he suggested that power shortages could result from excessive state regulation. "Constellation Energy is very supportive of federal and international regulation. Our concern with last year's bill was that it limited the ability to trade to sources inside Maryland. Given that the only way to reduce CO2 from non-nuclear power plants is to run those plants less, our concern remains that a single small state like Maryland cannot meet these aggressive targets without reliability impacts occurring."

The U.S. Congress is considering legislation that would set up a national system of greenhouse gas reductions through a "cap and trade" system. But the Bush administration has opposed any mandatory limits in part because China, India and other economic competitors of the U.S. have refused to impose cuts.

California has approved a law with an 80 percent reduction by midcentury, and Maryland's law
is modelled after this proposal. The bill would order state agencies to come up with a variety of regulations to increase energy efficiency, encourage mass transit, discourage the burning of fossil fuels and boost clean energy.

After last year's bill failed, Gov. Martin OMalley appointed a climate change advisory commission that recommend that the state adopt a California-style program and cut greenhouse
gases by 90 percent by 2050. A spokeswoman for O'Malley, Christine Hansen, wouldn't say this evening whether the governor would support the Pinsky/Barve legislation, but said he is going to look "very seriously" at the bill. "The governor knows that we need to work to address global climate change," Hansen said.

Many of the protesters who endured the cold to chant "Stop Global Warming!" said they
didn't think the snowfall conflicted with their message. Davey Roegner, a 22 year old student at the University of Maryland College Park, beat on an African Djembe drum to rev up the crowd. He said the snow was a "gift" to remind eveyone about how rarely Maryland has been blanketed with beautiful white in recent years as temperatures have increased.

"It's only the second snow of the year, which is very sad," said Rogner, from Silver Spring. "Global warming is the most important issue of our generation. The state of Maryland should be taking a leadership role in it, because of our vulerability with all our shoreline."

Barve said the snow was a good sign: "At least we have weather appropriate for winter time, finally."

The 18 legislators who "walked the green carpet" to co-sponsor the "Global Warming Solutions Act" included: Senators Frosh, Rosapepe and Pinsky; and Delegates Hecht, Nathan-Pulliam, Cardin, Stein, Bobo, Barve, Carr, Waldstreicher, Manno, Mizeur, Barnes, Kullen, Anderson, Neimann and Ramirez.

Claire Douglass, Maryland driector of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, told the cheering crowd: Maryland is the third most vulnerable state in the nation to sea level rise. With over 3,100 miles of coastline, it is our job to protect it.

Dr. Cindy Parker of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health said: "Im a physician, why am I here for a rally for an environmental bill? Its not an environmental bill, thats why. Its a health bill. This is the biggest threat to our health of anything going on right now, and anything we expect this century. We have to pass this bill for our health and for the health of everybody in the world and our children and their children."

Ted Rouse, an owner of the Baltimore-based development firm Struever Brothers Eccles and Rouse, and a leader of the Chesapeake Sustainable Business Alliance, said: "You can make a profit while looking after the planet. There is opportunity in this bill for business. So business supports this bill as well."

Reached by phone, a spokesman for the Maryland Chamber of Commerce disagreed. Will Burns, director of communications for the chamber, said Maryland should not impose restrictions that companies in Virginia, Pennsylvania and other regional states don't face.

"With an issue like this, its best not to act unilaterally. It's best to act regionally, so that youre not stepping out on your own," said Burns. "Our economy is not like California's...You certainly would put Maryland at a disadvantage when it takes such radical action alone.

A nonpartisan analysis of last year's proposal, by the Maryland Department of Legislative Services, said the law would impose new regulations on "all businesses, small and large" across the state. "Accordingly, costs could increase significantly, but any such increase cannot be reliability calculated at this time."

(Note: this story was featured on the Drudge Report soon after it went online this evening, and so many of the comments you'll see below are from readers who came to this blog from that web page).


01-19-2008, 06:33 AM
Comments from readers about the above story...


Let's see...if the climate doesn't change, we're al goners. Yet they are holding signs demanding to "Help Stop Climate Change". Where are the global warming signs on this snowy day?

Posted by: David | January 17, 2008 8:34 PM

Betcha $10 that most of those protesters have jobs and or money tied to global warming in some way shape or form.

It's all about the money.

Global warming protest frosted with snow
I wonder what caused the last 5 ice ages? Cars, factories, or elevated sun activity. Idiots.

Someday, many years from now, the current "global warming" hysteria will be recognized for the fraud that it is.

Hmmm, let's see here: first "global warming" conference canceled because of a blizzard, second conference held during a snowstorm, and now this.

Is anyone else getting a subtle hint here?

Does anyone else see the irony of a Global Warming protest during a freezing snow storm? By the way, Humans emit CO2, a greenhouse gas, are we to be limited too?

As we freeze here in New England, we muse that those poor cold souls in the photo are part of the great unwashed, ponty-tailed men, hairy legged women, Birkenstocks abound, no-so hot teeth, reliving the glory days of the 1960's when they were actually relevant....
It's cold out, my old hippy dippy friends....get inside, sip some hot cocoa, take a hot shower (this time, use that washcloth!), and watch NPR - you'll feel better! Afterall, what better way to hear some good old Bush-Bash impeachment programming!

It's going to be below zero most of the weekend. Come here to Minnesota and protest.

We will thaw the bodies in the spring.

Yes it's now called climate change. We used to call it seasons. Spring, summer, fall, winter, spring, summer, fall, winter, spring,......See the pattern, four times per year you have the opportunity to scream about climate change. Personally, I'm looking forward to the global warming (spring), it's been in the teens and twenties for so long I was starting to believe we were in an Ice Age. Thankfully, the earths orbit is returning to a closer proximity to the sun and warming will magically occur over the next few months.

The inept Democrats (redundant) of Maryland better hurry up and pass their ‘Climate-change’ legislation before their population freezes to death.

…and If Tom Pelton’s 5th grade writing skills are any indication of his knowledge of ANY subject, we know he has no clue about bogus weather reports about conditions 100-years from now - - AND, that the standards of baltimoresun.com are unquestionably the lowest in the United States.

As a start, The Sun might – at least get him lessons on how to use spell-check:

[sic] co-sporsors
[sic] arenot
[sic] ifother
[sic] govenror
[sic] theydidn't
[sic] oldstudent
[sic] improtant
[sic] reguilations

To the idiot (Matt LeBlanc) who stated, "For all the people coming from the Drudge Report... you do realize it is "climate change" and not "global warming", right? So the irony of a snowfall during a "global warming" protest is a bit lost."

So am I to believe that those "climate change" people were protesting against global cooling?!?!?

And why stop at 90% emisions reduction? Why not 100%? After all, that's only 10% more.... Oh, and by the way, since all you people over there exhale CO2 with each breath, you all need to stop breathing as well....

Unbelieveable idiodicy...

Posted by: david | January 18, 2008 6:55 AM

Notice they have dropped the "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", what a crock, a sneaky way of leveling the world playing field, their signs should say, " Down with the U.S.".

Posted by: Rick | January 18, 2008 6:55 AM

Please pray for me- I have to live in this stupid state.

They are trying to destroy the Maryland economy. Not only are they trying to get this passed, they just passed the largest tax increase in the state's history. I guess they want everyone to leave the state and go somewhere else.

Davey Rogner, a 22 year old student at the University of Maryland College Park, . . . said the snow was a "gift" to remind eveyone about how rarely Maryland has been blanketed with beautiful white in recent years as temperatures have increased.

This is pure propaganda. This season Maryland has seen 7.2 inches of snow, which is 1.8 inches above Maryland's seasonal snow fall of 5.4 inches. To put this into language these simple dolts will understand "It has snowed more this year than normal". This is something neither the BS nor these pathetic propagandists will put forth. Actually, they probably don't remember the snow fall we have had this season - the GW cool aid is affecting their brains.

Posted by: indyprog | January 18, 2008 2:52 PM

When there are no jobs there you can always blame Bush

Posted by: smitty | January 18, 2008 3:40 PM

With Democrats now controlling all branches of government , and dominating local media, Maryland has become the perfect environment to pursue a big government , anti-business, anti-liberty agenda. O'Malley's tax plan would move the state to the second worst business friendly state in the region , behind NJ , which at least has the NY businesses to draw revenue from (see www.taxfoundation.org for the data). And 42nd worst in the nation. Now come the global warming wacko's with new regulation, does anyone in this state worry about global competitiveness with China?
I've run a business here and I'm trying to leave....tip to the Baltimore Sun and other left wing fools in government and academia ...socialism doesn't work

01-19-2008, 10:02 AM
Posted by: MikeC | January 18, 2008 9:40 AM

Global warming is a lie created by politicians and backed by politically correct scientists, and it's great evil is when people begin to believe, even to some small extent, that "Global warming is the most important issue of our generation." What evil! That men and women would postulate that climate change is the most important issue of our day!

What about MORALITY?

What about the disintegration of the family?

What about the gradual extinction of the white race?

What about the threat of radical Islam?

What about the neglect Washington has today for the Constitution and it's principles of individual rights, free trade, and personal responsibility?

Even if global warming was REAL, I would rather die from global warming a free man, in a free society, than live my life in a society crippled with climate fear and taxed and regulated to the bones by Al Gore and those who swallow his disgusting lies.

Posted by: UseYourHeadFolks | January 18, 2008 9:59 AM

"... Human-caused global warming is now spreading to other planets and is causing the polar caps on Mars to disappear..."

My god... one typical example of the arrogant liberals who think we human can make such difference to the universe. He must also think Earth is the center of the universe!!! These people are dangerous. Like those who would abort their babies to save the earth, but then they happily fly around on airjets to enjoy themselves. These are dangerous people because they are not only hypocrite, but also... they even con themselves into thinking they were making a difference. That's scary. This is like a religious cult!!!

Posted by: EM | January 18, 2008 10:00 AM









Posted by: Frosty | January 18, 2008 10:02 AM

Both side of the Global Warming issue are pretty passionate; that is a given. What troubles me the most is that the ones who have the ablity to take my money want to take more of it to try and fix this "problem."

Everyone should be ready for the day when YOU are told how you may live and how much it will cost you...so we can SAVE the planet that has done pretty well for billions of years without our help.

Posted by: indyprog | January 18, 2008 2:52 PM

With Democrats now controlling all branches of government , and dominating local media, Maryland has become the perfect environment to pursue a big government , anti-business, anti-liberty agenda. O'Malley's tax plan would move the state to the second worst business friendly state in the region , behind NJ , which at least has the NY businesses to draw revenue from (see www.taxfoundation.org for the data). And 42nd worst in the nation. Now come the global warming wacko's with new regulation, does anyone in this state worry about global competitiveness with China?
I've run a business here and I'm trying to leave....tip to the Baltimore Sun and other left wing fools in government and academia ...socialism doesn't work

01-19-2008, 10:09 AM
B-r-r utal: Upper Midwest Locked In Deep Freeze
Air Temperature May Hit 25 Below Overnight In Northwest Wisconsin; 14 Below in Minnesota, Minus 3 In Chicago

CHICAGO (CBS) ― Bitter, dangerous cold has settled across the Chicago area and its neighbors in the Upper Midwest, making just walking a block a miserable experience.

A wind chill advisory is in effect for all of northern Illinois and most of Indiana, as well as the entire states of Wisconsin and Minnesota and most of Michigan.

The forecast high for the day in Chicago is a mere 7 degrees, with an overnight low of 3 below zero. But with northwest winds at 20 to 25 mph, the wind chills will make it feel as if it were 20 to 25 below.

Thus far this January, people across the Chicago area have been treated to a warm spell with one day where the mercury reached a shocking 65 degrees. But with the temperatures plummeting beginning last night, Chicagoans have been preparing.

"I probably won't go outside at all, so I won't have to think about what I have to wear," said Chicagoan Meredith Shaiv.

But the fact that the cold will only last a couple of days does not diminish its danger.

When air temperatures drop below zero, hospital rooms expect to be busy with cases of frostbite. Doctors say it's important to protect your skin, even if you're only outside for a short time.

"Supposedly tonight it's going to be negative 15 degree windchill," Mitton said. "Negative 15 degree wind chill you can get frost bite in 20 minutes."

Dr. Janet Lin, a physician at the University of Illinois-Chicago Medical Center, said, "you're freezing the cells and so the pain is probably the first thing that you actually see. The worrisome thing is when you don't; when you actually freeze the cells, then the cells could actually die off."

Anyone going out is encouraged to dress in layers with socks, hats and gloves. Click here for facts on frostbite and hypothermia.

In the Rockford area west of Chicago, the air temperature is expected to drop to 9 below zero overnight.

In northwestern Wisconsin, the forecast high is 5 below zero in some areas for both Saturday and Sunday. For Saturday night, the overnight air temperatures – not wind chills, but air temperatures – are expected to drop to 25 below in that area.

The cold will make for a difficult game for both players and spectators when the Green Bay Packers play the New York Giants at Lambeau Field.

Minnesota has it equally hard.

At Minneapolis' Crystal Airport, the temperature at 6:15 a.m. was 14 below zero. The forecast high for Minneapolis on Saturday is 2 below zero, on Sunday 0 degrees, CBS station WCCO-TV reported.

In Detroit, the temperatures are well below normal, but almost balmy relative to the rest of the Upper Midwest. Highs there are expected to topping out at 16 degrees with scattered snow showers, CBS station WWJ-TV reported


02-05-2008, 01:51 AM
BBC ignores global warming research (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/threelinewhip/feb/global-warming.htm)

More 'we're all going to die' reporting from the BBC on the 10 o'clock news. Climate change will turn nasty suddenly, we will have little warning and then, I am sorry to report, every one of us will indeed drown, starve, fry or freeze.

The corporation is obsessed by this stuff, giving air time to everything which backs the consensus that man made climate change is hurtling us towards disaster. But did the Beeb have room anywhere on it many outlets for the research Christopher Booker (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbook103.xml) highlighted in the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend under the headline: "So it appears the Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all"?

"Last autumn the BBC and others could scarcely contain their excitement in reporting that the Arctic ice was melting so fast there would soon be none left.

Sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the website Cryosphere Today by the University of Illinois.

This body is committed to warmist orthodoxy and contributes to the work of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yet its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km.

A second graph, "Global Ice Area", shows a similar pattern repeated every year since satellite records began in 1979; while a third, "Southern Hemisphere Ice", shows that sea ice has actually expanded in recent years, well above its 30-year mean."

Booker also unearthed amusing information which puts the famous "stranded polar bears" image so beloved of Al Gore and his followers in a new light.

If the BBC mentioned this material on any of its many outlets, I missed it. If a reader can find an example of the Beeb using the information fairly and prominently then I stand corrected.

02-06-2008, 07:04 PM
Almost Unthinkable Global Warming Skepticism at NYT
By Noel Sheppard | February 6, 2008 - 16:10 ET
The New York Times' John Tierney is at it again.

As NewsBusters reported last September, the science columnist published a surprisingly skeptical piece concerning man's role in the liberal bogeyman known as global warming.

On Wednesday, Tierney followed suit with a marvelous article entitled "Global-Warming Jujitsu" (emphasis added):

Suppose that the pessimistic forecasts of global warming are accurate. Suppose that the planets temperature rises according to the high-end scenario of the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that we experience the economic and social impacts (like hunger, malaria and coastal flooding) projected by the much-publicized Stern Review sponsored by the British government.

Does that mean our best course of action is to quickly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases?

Great question, to be sure. But from the New York Times?

Maybe even more shocking, Tierney answered it by quoting from a new report just published by Indur Goklany of the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute:

The surprising conclusion using the Stern Reviews own estimates," Dr. Goklany writes, is that future generations will be better off in the richest but warmest" of the I.P.C.C.s scenarios. He concludes that cutting emissions will do much less good than encouraging sustainable development in poor countries and policies of focused adaptation" to deal with disease and environmental problems like coastal flooding. For a fifth the cost of the Kyoto Protocol, he calculates, these adaptation policies could yield more immediate and also long-term benefits than would a policy that entirely halted global warming (which would cost far, far more than Kyoto). He argues that this path isnt merely an economic but also a moral imperative.

Shocking. Tierney was actually writing derisively about the Kyoto Protocol, and sounding quite like folks his paper normally accuse of being deniers:

I think he points to a real risk in making large sacrifices today to address problems that will be easier to address when people are richer and more technologically advanced. If anything, Dr. Goklany writes, his calculations underestimate the capacity of future generations to deal with these problems because theyll have technologies we cant imagine today (just as the advocates of draconian population-control policies during the 1960s didnt envision that future famines would be averted thanks to improvements in agriculture).

Bravo, John. Keep up the good work.


02-07-2008, 05:25 AM
Demorats are such whores...

Sen. Kerry Blames Tornados on Global Warming
Former Democratic presidential nominee blames 'intense storms' that have killed more than 50 on climate change.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
2/6/2008 5:07:05 PM

Politicians using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a tried-and-true strategy. Paint the idea green and a natural catastrophe became political fodder for former Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.).

Kerry appeared on MSNBC on February 6 to discuss storms that have killed at least 50 people throughout the Southeastern United States. So, of course, Kerry used the platform to advance global warming alarmism.

“[I] don’t want to sort of leap into the larger meaning of, you know, inappropriately, but on the other hand, the weather service has told us we are going to have more and more intense storms,” Kerry said. “And insurance companies are beginning to look at this issue and understand this is related to the intensity of storms that is related to the warming of the earth. And so it goes to global warming and larger issues that we’re not paying attention to. The fact is the hurricanes are more intensive, the storms are more intensive and the rainfall is more intense at certain places at certain times and the weather patterns have changed.”

Kerry’s assertion tornado activity is related to any type of climate change is questionable based on the writings of at least one meteorologist. Roger Edwards, a meteorologist at the Storm Prediction Center of the National Weather Center in Norman, Okla., has doubts about any global warming and tornado relationship.

“As of this writing, no scientific studies solidly relate climatic global temperature trends to tornadoes,” Edwards wrote on the Earth & Sky Web site in April 2007. “I don’t expect any such results in the near future either, because tornadoes are too small, short–lived, hard to measure and count, and too dependent on day to day, even minute to minute weather conditions.”


02-07-2008, 05:45 AM
Global Warming Evangelism: Give Up Carbon For Lent!
By Noel Sheppard | February 6, 2008 - 15:13 ET
Want more proof that global warming believers are becoming a religious sect?

Consider that in Great Britain, several Bishops are asking their flock to give up carbon for the season of Lent which begins Wednesday.

Think I'm kidding?

As reported by the British Telegraph Tuesday (emphasis added throughout):


The Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Rev James Jones and the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, will make the call before the 40 days of Lent begins on Wednesday February 6.

Lent is the time when Christians traditionally give up such things as sweets, chocolate or alcohol in recognition of the 40 days Christ spent fasting in the desert to prepare for his ministry.

This year they will be asked to think about their own carbon footprint and follow a few simple steps designed to help cut CO2 emissions. They include:

* avoiding plastic bags
* giving the dishwasher a day off
* insulating the hot water tank
* checking the house for drafts with a ribbon and buying draught excluders

Those taking part in the Carbon Fast will be asked to remove one lightbulb from a prominent place in the home and live without it for 40 days. On the final days of the Fast they will be asked to replace it with a low-energy bulb which over its lifetime will save 60kg of carbon dioxide per year and up to Ú60.

Gotta love it. However, the hysteria got, well, more hysterical:

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Met Office and the first chairman of the IPCC's scientific assessment, advises Tearfund on climate change. He said: "The scientific debate about the basic issue of climate change is over. Climate change is real. Evidence for it is to be seen in every corner of the globe.

"Tearfund have sounded an urgent warning that climate change is already hitting places like Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Niger hard. Climate change shows us that our energy-hungry lifestyles are harming our poorer neighbours across the world, now. The moral imperative for us to act is unquestionable and inescapable."

Yet, this goes counter to what we are seeing in developing nations such as China, India, and Brazil: as their carbon dioxide output increases, so do their standards of living.

As such, the humanitarian answer for the impoverished in the third world is NOT developed nations expelling less carbon dioxide, but, instead, lesser-developed nations expelling more, for there is a direct correlation between such emissions and standards of living as the article implied:

It's estimated that in the UK each person is responsible for 9.5 tons of carbon dioxide per year; in Ethiopia the average is 0.067 tons and in Bangladesh 0.24.

As the standard of living in the UK is significantly higher than in Ethiopa and Bangladesh, and British carbon emissions per capita dwarf those of Ethiopians and Bangladeshis, it seems quite clear that as emissions increase, so do standards of living.

As such, if Britain's per capita carbon emissions decline -- even by an astounding 90 percent -- while Ethiopa and Bangladesh's remain the same, Ethiopians and Bangladeshis will still be living in deplorable conditions.

Such logic mysteriously eluded the author. Yet, that wasn't even the most hypocritical element to this issue, for if you investigate the Carbon Fast further, you find the following (emphasis added):

What a shock lay in store for me at the Carbon Gym, an online CO2 calculator. It asks you about your heating, water use and electrical gadgets as well as travel and food. My total annual emissions were a weighty 21.06 tons, nearly double the national average. I rang the Carbon Gym in a panic.

The biggest area you need to cut back on is air flights, said information officer, Joel Rawson. I adopted a hangdog expression and explained that they were all for work: ironically two were on climate change stories.

That means you can exclude them from your calculations, he said. This is just about your private journeys.
Ah. So, if all of my airplane travel is related to work, it doesn't count? I can travel the world, expelling as much carbon dioxide as I want, as long as it's part of my job?

Hmmm. So, let me get this straight: expelling too much carbon dioxide is a sin because it's harming poor people. BUT, it's okay if it's work-related?

No wonder Nobel Laureate Al Gore can fly wherever and whenever he wants with a carbon-free conscience.


02-11-2008, 04:05 PM
Great global warming video


Minnesotans For Global Warming Day of Action!


02-16-2008, 06:34 AM
Bill would require California's science curriculum to cover climate change

Reading, writing and . . . global warming?

A Silicon Valley lawmaker is gaining momentum with a bill that would require "climate change" to be among the science topics that all California public school students are taught.

The measure, by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, also would mandate that future science textbooks approved for California public schools include climate change.

"You can't have a science curriculum that is relevant and current if it doesn't deal with the science behind climate change," Simitian said. "This is a phenomenon of global importance and our kids ought to understand the science behind that phenomenon."

The state Senate approved the bill, SB 908, Jan. 30 by a 26-13 vote. It heads now to the state Assembly. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken numerous actions to reduce global warming, but he has yet to weigh in on Simitian's bill. Other Republicans in the Capitol, however, are not happy about the proposal.

Some say the science on global warming isn't clear, while others worry the bill would inject environmental propaganda into classrooms.

"I find it disturbing that this mandate to teach this theory is not accompanied by a requirement that the discussion be science-based and include a critical analysis of all sides of the subject," said Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, during the Senate debate.

Only two Republicans voted for the bill, Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-San Luis Obispo, and

Sen. Tom Harman, R-Costa Mesa. Maldonado's district includes Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, parts of San Jose, Scotts Valley, Watsonville and Monterey. Harman represents Orange County. All 13 of the no votes were from Republicans.
One of the opponents, Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Modesto, said he wants guarantees that the views of global warming skeptics will be taught.

"Some wouldn't view them as skeptics. Some would view them as the right side of the issue," said Denham, an Atwater almond farmer who also runs a plastics recycling business.

"We don't have complete factual information yet," Denham said. "From what I have seen the Earth has heated and cooled on its own for centuries. I don't know that there's anything that is a direct cause of that right now, but we can do a better job of cleaning up our planet."

Simitian noted that his bill wouldn't dictate what to teach or in what grades, but rather would require the state Board of Education and state Department of Education to decide both.

Although global warming is mentioned in high school classes about weather, it is currently not required to be covered in all textbooks, said the head of the California Science Teachers Association.

"This is a great idea. I don't think there's any reason to talk about politics," said Christine Bertrand, the group's executive director. "There's no argument that there is climate change. The argument is how much is caused by the activities of mankind."

Bertrand said teachers would have plenty to discuss: rising levels of carbon dioxide, how temperatures are measured globally, and what is known and not known about global warming.

Meanwhile, the 10 hottest years - ranked by global surface temperature - since 1880 all have occurred since 1995, according to the National Climatic Data Center, a federal agency in North Carolina.

In 2005, America's most prestigious scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences, issued a statement with the headline "Climate change is real." It was signed by the national scientific academies of Japan, Britain, Canada, China, Germany, Italy, France, Russia, India and Brazil. Citing direct measurements of air and oceans, along with melting glaciers, it noted:

"There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. . . . It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate."


To read the bill, go to www.senate.ca.gov, click "legislation" and type SB 908.


02-17-2008, 05:22 AM
Western Greenland Ice Growing; Still Global Warming

By Lynn Davidson | February 16, 2008 - 21:00 ET
The lynchpin in the anthropogenic global warming theory is the shrinking Arctic ice, but now that some of that ice is actually increasing, scientists claim, without a trace of irony, it is normal for temperatures and ice sheets to fluctuate.

Greenland's Sermitsiak reported, The ice between Canada and southwestern Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years." Denmark's Meteorological Institute used satellite images to track the southward expansion of the ice and when the paper asked how these findings fit in with" continual reports of Arctic ice melting at a record rate due to increasing temperatures," global warming was, of course, affirmed (map) (bold mine throughout):

If it's up to meteorologists from Denmark's Meteorological Institute, there is not anything inherently contradictory that extreme cold is replaced by higher temperatures than average. Or that melting sea ice occasionally is replaced by expanding ice sheets.

'Weather is a phenomenon which changes from year to year and right now the atmosphere has changed so we have cold weather. That will certainly mean that melting ice in the North Pole will be less this year, but next year the situation can look completely different,' according to [no first name given] Henriksen.

To sum things up, global warming hasn't been called off. In the meanwhile, western Greenlanders will have to accept that the cold weather continues for some time. At least until next Tuesday when milder weather could be on the way, according to Polarfronten online.

Well, isn't that what some skeptics" have been saying about the recent temperature spikes? That climate changes over time, and it has been warming since the Little Ice Age?

Interestingly, Sermitsiak published an article the same day, reporting scientists are almost certain," based on satellite data, Greenland is sweating" and has lost twice as much ice last year as it did three years ago." Of course, there are no admonitions that this decrease in overall Greenland ice could just be part of weather's phenomenon which changes from year to year" and next year the situation can look completely different."

There was no mention of the increasing Western Greenland ice in this second piece, even though it was updated the day after both articles were published. But to be fair, once published, articles are rarely edited in a way that alters the original slant, and in the paper's favor, most of the other media ignored the story altogether. At the end of the article about a melting Greenland, the qualification that the scientists are almost certain" about the Arctic island's ice melt was buried at the bottom with the expected standard superfluous global warming alarmism:

If all the inland ice on Greenland was lost, the oceans would rise about seven metres. Antarctica contains about ten times as much ice.

Global warming skeptics wouldn't be so skeptical if these double standards weren't employed to support a popular theory. It's hard to believe in global warming when warm weather and shrinking ice is certain evidence of global warming, but cold weather and ice growth is either dismissed or chalked up to the all-encompassing climate change."

**Update 22:00--As far as I can tell, no one in the major media reported this.


02-25-2008, 04:39 AM
GM exec stands by calling global warming a "crock"

DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a "total crock of s---," saying his views had no bearing on GM's commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.

Lutz, GM's outspoken product development chief, has been under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when he was quoted as making the remark to reporters in Texas.

In a posting on his GM blog on Thursday, Lutz said those "spewing virtual vitriol" at him for minimizing the threat of climate change were "missing the big picture."

"What they should be doing in earnest is forming opinions, not about me but about GM and what this company is doing that is ... hugely beneficial to the causes they so enthusiastically claim to support," he said in a posting titled, "Talk About a Crock."

GM, the largest U.S. automaker by sales and market share, has been trying to change its image after taking years of heat for relying too much on sales of large sport-utility vehicles like the Hummer and not moving faster on fuel-saving hybrid technology.

"My thoughts on what has or hasn't been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors," he wrote.

Lutz said GM was continuing development of the battery-powered, plug-in Chevy Volt and other alternatives to traditional internal combustion engines.

GM is racing against Toyota Motor Corp to be first to market a plug-in hybrid car that can be recharged at a standard electric outlet.

Lutz has previously said GM made a mistake by allowing Toyota to seize "the mantle of green respectability and technology leadership" with its market-leading Prius hybrid.

A 40-year auto industry veteran who joined GM earlier in the decade with a mandate to shake up its vehicle line-up, Lutz is no stranger to controversy.

As part of a campaign against higher fuel economy standards, Lutz wrote in a 2006 blog posting that forcing automakers to sell smaller cars would be "like trying to address the obesity problem in this country by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell smaller, tighter sizes."

Automakers ended their opposition to higher fuel standards in 2007 when it became clear that proposed changes would become law with or without their support.

In December, President George W. Bush signed a law mandating a 40 percent increase in fleetwide fuel economy by 2020, the first substantial change in three decades.


3 Ks
03-03-2008, 04:52 PM
Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'

TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'


Story & Video Here (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx)

The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.

Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.

The Weather Channel had great promise, and thats all gone now because theyve made every mistake in the book on what theyve done and how theyve done it and its very sad," Coleman said. Its now for sale and theres a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Lets hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information."

The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channels Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called the fraud of global warming." He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

[I] have a feeling this is the opening," Coleman said. If the lawyers will take the case sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming."

Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the scare" of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.

03-03-2008, 05:41 PM
The broadcast spectrum is supposed to be public property. The green house gas hoax is just a computer program with parameters: a, b, c, adusted to give a print-out that says 3-5 degrees increase. Any high school student can write a phoney climate change program.

03-13-2008, 05:35 AM
Guns and fists as "snow rage" erupts

By David Ljunggren

QUEBEC CITY, Quebec (Reuters) - Although Canada is one of the snowiest countries in the world, a series of violent "snow rage" incidents reveal that even the locals have their limits.

Police in the French-speaking province of Quebec said on Wednesday that people were fighting over snow clearing and even parking spaces.

Recent Canadian winters have been mild but this one looks set to break all-time records for snow. One storm last weekend dumped 23 inches on the capital Ottawa and 19 inches on Quebec City, which has already received 210 inches this year.

Quebec City police said they had been called to a dozen violent disputes about snow from one property ending up on someone else's. The drifts outside some houses are 12 feet and higher.

Last Sunday, a man in an upscale Quebec City neighborhood became so upset a woman from a snow removal service was putting snow on his yard that he shouted at her and then took a shovel and hit the window of the vehicle she was driving.

"The woman apologized and returned to work ... a bit later the man opened his garage door and emerged with a shotgun, pointed it at the ground and looked at her in a threatening way," said police spokeswoman Catherine Viel.

Police arrested the man, who will be charged with negligent use of a firearm, and seized a total of 13 weapons from his home. Viel said snow-related fights were unusually common.

"It's happened particularly often this year ... you have to be used to snow if you live in Quebec but it's been a bit extreme this year. People are fed up," she said.

In Montreal, police said a man had produced a toy gun during a heated dispute Sunday between two drivers over a rare parking space. He may face weapons charges.

There may be more trouble to come, since Environment Canada says there is no sign winter is about to end. Snow fell again on Quebec City and Ottawa Wednesday.

Montreal is also having problems disposing of the snow. One massive mound is around 80-feet high and officials told reporters that unless steps were taken to dismantle the pile, much of it would still be there when next winter started.

(Reporting by David Ljunggren, editing by Mario Di Simine)


03-14-2008, 06:55 AM
Climate panel on the hot seat
By H. Sterling Burnett
March 14, 2008
More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.

These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."

The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.

Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists at least the lead scientists who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.

The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.


03-14-2008, 06:57 AM

Weather.gov Forecast

Active Weather Alerts
NOAA Organizations
Working With NOAA
Media & Constituents
NOAA In Your State
Emergency Information for NOAA Employees
Media Contact
John Leslie
301-713-2087, ext. 174
NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe
March 13, 2008


03-15-2008, 06:47 AM
Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

"ÃÆÃâÅÚà Click here to watch video of Coleman on "Fox and Friends."

Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing."

"ÃÆÃâÅÚà Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.

Coleman spoke to FOXNews.com after his appearance last week at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, where he called global warming a scam and lambasted the cable network he helped create.

"You want to tune to the Weather Channel and have them tell you how to live your life?" Coleman said. "Come on."

He laments the network's decision to focus on traffic and lifestyle reports over the weather.

"It's very clear that they don't realize that weather is the most significant impact in every human being's daily life, and good, solid, up-to-the-minute weather information and meaningful forecasts presented in such a way that people find them understandable and enjoyable can have a significant impact," he said.

"The more you cloud that up with other baloney, the weaker the product," he said.

Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the linchpin to his argument.

"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.

The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said.

"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

"ÃÆÃâÅÚà Click here for John Coleman's briefs on global warming.


03-15-2008, 10:13 AM
China says no to Greenhouse Gas Hoax, but would be happy to see competitors self destruct. In fact the Peoples Republic is dead without coal.


Grid Corp. of China show. Coal stockpiles at the plants have dropped below the ``caution line'' of three days' requirements.

China, the biggest coal producer, burns the fuel to generate about 78 percent of its electricity. Railway congestion as millions of Chinese travel before the Lunar New Year holiday, and heavy snowfalls have contributed to the lack of coal, said Chang Jianping, deputy director of market regulation at the State Electricity Regulatory Commission.

``It's not insufficient production that's leading to a lack of coal,'' Martin Wang, an analyst with Hong Kong-based Guotai Junan Securities HK Ltd., said by phone. ``Short-term transport bottlenecks caused by bad weather conditions and hoarding of the fuel by some sellers are to blame.''

As many as 13 provinces nationwide, including Hunan, Hubei, Sichuan, Jiangxi, Guangdong, and Tibet, are rationing power use because of the coal shortage, State Grid Corp. said in postings on its Web site.

``This could be the nation's worst power shortage in history,'' said Chang.

Guizhou Blackouts

As many as 17 counties in the northeastern part of Guizhou province are suffering blackouts as heavy snow and freezing temperatures damaged transmissions lines, Xiao Peng, vice president of China Southern Power Grid Co., said by phone today. Guizhou has 56 counties, according to the province's Web site.

``It is a natural disaster hit by the worst weather conditions in 50 years,'' Xiao said.

Southern China has shut 10,300 megawatts of power capacity because of coal shortages, Xiao said last week.

The country had thermal power plants with 554,420 megawatts of combined capacity by the end of last year, accounting for 77.7 percent of potential generation, according to the China Electricity Council.

``If the coal shortage worsens, it will pose a severe threat to the security of electricity grid operations,'' the commission said in a statement in its in-house newsletter yesterday.

Net Importer

China will become a net coal importer of 18 million tons in 2008, UBS analysts led by Ghee Peh in Hong Kong said in a Dec. 6 report. Exports dropped 16 percent and imports jumped 33 percent in 2007, leaving the nation with 2 million tons of net exports, according to customs data.

Heavy snow has disrupted road, rail and air transport in central and eastern China, the official Xinhua News Agency said Jan. 21, citing provincial officials.

Power lines from the Three Gorges hydro-electric dam in central Hubei province to Shanghai were damaged in the snowstorms, the agency reported, without saying when electricity is expected to be restored to the area.

3 Ks
03-24-2008, 09:04 PM
*****Critical update: Dr. Singer responds at end of post. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/23/abcs-global-warming-hit-piece-welcome-denial-machine)

ABC's Global Warming Hit Piece "Welcome to 'The Denial Machine'"
By Noel Sheppard | March 23, 2008 - 22:21 ET

Dr. S. Fred Singer

Climate alarmism reached a new low Sunday as ABC's "World News" featured a hit piece on Dr. S. Fred Singer, the esteemed Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

In a segment disgracefully entitled "Welcome to 'The Denial Machine,'" anchor Dan Harris disparaged Singer at every turn.

With a picture of Singer behind his right shoulder, under which was displayed the words "THE SKEPTIC," Harris began (video available here) (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4505513&affil=kgo):

One of the most influential scientists in what's been called "The Denial Machine," for decades, Fred Singer has argued loudly that global warming is not dangerous despite the vast majority of scientists who agree it is. His critics say Dr. Singer has helped create the mirage of a scientific debate which has preventing the American public and American politicians from taking action.

With a smile on his face, Harris asked Singer, "How would you describe yourself, as a skeptic, a denier, a doubter?"

Nice way to treat a distinguished member of the scientific community on Easter Sunday, wouldn't you agree? Alas, that was only the beginning of the insults:

This 84-year-old Princeton-trained physicist is the grandfather of a movement that rails against the broad, scientific understanding that global warming is real, manmade, and potentially catastrophic. [...]

Singer seems to enjoy being provocative, for example, about polar bears being threatened by melting ice. [...]

There are so many scientists that disagree with what your saying. The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society. We're talking about scientists all over the globe. [...]

Kert Davies, an environmental activist, says Singer is connected to a whole web of organizations, many funded by oil and coal companies that have spent millions trying to convince the public there's a real scientific debate about global warming slowing down government action on a phenomenon that could lead to storms, droughts, famines, massive refugee movements, and even wars.

KERT DAVIES, GREENPEACE: That will be how people remember Fred Singer, as someone who tried to slow down the reaction to global warming and in fact, in the end, that is going to cost lives, and cause us lost species, and cost major economic damage around the world.

How nice. On Easter Sunday, ABC News implied that an 84-year-old Ph.D. is thwarting science in a fashion that will cost lives. Astounding, wouldn't you agree? Sadly, there was more:

In this new report, he argues global warming is just part of a natural cycle, and that our carbon emissions are not dangerous. We ran Singer's data by climate scientists from Stanford, Princeton, and NASA who dismissed it with words like "fraudulent nonsense." This is not, by the way, the first time Singer has set himself against mainstream scientific opinion. He also argued against the dangers of second-hand smoke, toxic waste, and nuclear winter. [...]

We asked Dr. Singer if he ever took money from energy companies. At first he denied it, and then he said yes he had received one unsolicited check from Exxon for $10,000.

Wow. A whole $10,000? And how many millions of ad dollars does Exxon give to ABC and ABC News on a yearly basis, Dan?

I wonder if Dan knows that in 2006, Exxon contributed (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_contributions_report.aspx) almost $140 million to various entities around the world. Are all these recipients similarly corrupted as Singer?

*****Update: Article (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=4506059&page=1) about this interview posted at ABCNews.com entitled, "Global Warming Denier: Fraud or 'Realist'?":

His fellow scientists call him a fraud, a charlatan and a showman, but Fred Singer calls himself "a realist."

Do these people have any shame?

*****Critical Update: I received the following e-mail message from Dr. Singer Monday morning (published with his consent):

The interview with Dan Harris went for an hour or more. Clearly, he ignored my complete scientific story (NIPCC vs IPCC), the fact that 100 climate scientists presented papers at the Heartland Conference, and that hundreds more are now listed as climate skeptics. [I am not even counting the nearly 20,000 scientists of various specialties who signed the Oregon Petition.]

Then he added the Greenpeace guy with his weird Exxon conspiracy and the smear remarks of anonymous scientists from NASA, Princeton and Stanford (likely Hansen, Oppenheimer, and Schneider). I would love to debate these guys; we would win hands down

And he personally assured me he wouldn't do a 'hatchet job'

I commented on the suggestion that I am an 'all-around skeptic' to his Exec Producer <Felicia.Biberica@abc.com> as follows:

"Dan did well to mention my doubts about the cancer effects of Second-Hand Smoke, about the danger of spent nuclear fuel, and about 'Nuclear Winter.' All true -- Dan did his research. On SHS, I simply agree with the experts (see attached review from a medical doctor, specializing in lung disease). Nuclear fuel presents no technical problems, only political ones. France and Britain handle its disposal; why don't we? 'Nuclear Winter' (which burst onto the scene in 1983 -- and disappeared quickly) was basically a fraud, invented to shore up an ideological position. We disposed of it in a debate moderated by Ted Koppel on ABC-Nightline."

Journalists are better qualified than I to judge if ABC used proper journalistic standards and hold their feet to the fire.

03-29-2008, 11:07 AM
The Carbon Dioxide Hoax
Submitted by Planetary on Wed, 2006-12-20 16:25.
The Carbon Dioxide Hoax

Within the atmospheric conditions that exist on the Earth, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. This statement is supported by scientific observation and the chemical properties of the gas.

Observation number one:

The Earth's atmosphere contains 0.03 percent carbon dioxide. By contrast, the atmosphere of Mars contains more than 95.0 percent carbon dioxide. There is more than six hundred times as much carbon dioxide in a cubic meter of atmosphere at ground level on Mars than in the same volume of atmosphere at ground level on Earth. There is no greenhouse on Mars. NASA engineers had hoped for some small greenhouse effect on Mars when they began their surface explorations of the Red planet but, found none. When the Sun sets on Mars the temperature plummets. The pseudo scientists explain this observation away by saying that the atmosphere of Mars is too tenuous.(see observation number two)

Like Earth, Mars seems to be entering an interglacial stage. Variations in the tilt of the spin axis of Mars and the eccentricity of its orbit combine to increase and better distribute the Sun’s existing energy across the planet. This combined effect of spin axis tilt and orbital eccentricity is an excellent explanation for the multiple glaciations on Earth. It has nothing to do with greenhouse gas effects.

Observation number two:

The atmosphere of Mars is thin but definitely not tenuous. It is dense enough to create giant dust storms carrying fine rock particles a few miles above the surface. This is a phenomenon dependent upon atmospheric density. Wind velocity plays a part in picking up dust size particles but atmospheric density is what keeps it airborne. Sand dunes are built by the atmospheric winds. The size and distribution of sand dunes on Mars indicate the effects of an atmospheric density at least as dense as one would find at 60,000 feet above sea level on Earth. At this altitude on Earth, the atmosphere is thin but not tenuous. Aircraft fly at altitudes greater than this.

Observation number three:

Scientific probes are dropped onto the surface of Mars with parachutes. These probes also have heat shields on them to keep them from burning up when they enter the atmosphere of Mars. These are not the effects of a tenuous atmosphere. The numbers that pseudo scientists throw at this are meaningless. The observations are fact.

Observation number four:

A greenhouse gas works by absorbing energy and reemitting it. It does not work by acting as a blanket and trapping heated air inside. Nor does it work by reflecting energy back to the planet’s surface. Where is the experimental or observational evidence that proves that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? You can put any gas (even monatomic helium) in a closed container and get a greenhouse effect. However, this is due to the effect of the container, not the gas.

In the polar parts of Earth, little or no sunlight reaches the surface during the mid part of the winter. When normal clouds (of water vapor) move in during this time, the temperature at the surface increases. This is due to the greenhouse effect of water vapor emitting heat energy. In a closed room in the Arctic during winter, you can release water vapor into the room and increase the temperature in the room. However, you can release carbon dioxide into the same room and the temperature will not increase. This is proof that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas at the conditions that exist at Earth's surface. To qualify as a greenhouse gas, the gas has to release stored energy. At the atmospheric conditions on Earth or Mars carbon dioxide does not produce this effect to any significant extent.

Observation number five:

Professional Geologists have determined that in the geologic past an increase in carbon dioxide occurs after global warming begins, not before. This is because the oceans release carbon dioxide as they warm and less carbon dioxide can be dissolved into the warmer water. Visit the climate card at aapg.org.

Observation number six:

The countries of Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and others, flare almost as much natural gas each day as the USA uses in the same time period. The products of flaring natural gas are carbon dioxide and water vapor. If carbon dioxide is such a threat, this practice should be stopped. However, the media and the UN never mention this incredible waste of natural resources. Without a doubt, this indicates that the cry about carbon dioxide is a hoax, primarily intended to harm the economy of the USA.

Observation number seven:

Carbon dioxide is a linear molecule with two double bonds holding the oxygen atoms to the central carbon. These two double bonds are strong, giving carbon dioxide properties almost like that of an inert gas. This is not the chemical representation of a greenhouse gas. When I approached one of my peers about this fact he replied, “Don’t rock the boat, this is easy money.” This indicates why university professors and government scientists are so eager to keep this hoax alive. This is easy money from NSF and other government agencies that give out funds through grants. You don’t have to do anything but, rewrite previous work and regurgitate the dogma.


The Earth is currently in an interglacial stage. It has been steadily warming up for the last twelve thousand years. The Sun has been losing mass by converting it into energy since the Earth was formed. Throughout geologic time the Earth has been steadily moving away from the Sun because, the gravity of the Sun is being reduced by this lost of mass. Therefore, the heat energy that the Earth receives from the Sun has been getting less for the last five billion years and will continue to do so for the next ten billion. The geologic record also indicates that the Earth warms slowly after a glacial stage. However, it also indicates that the Earth goes into a glacial stage frighteningly fast. We should worry more about global cooling than global warming. If carbon dioxide is such a threat then ban the use of air conditioning in vehicles, businesses and homes. We use to live without air conditioning and much of the third world still does.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other such groups never have their meetings in Barrow, Alaska, in January. They should meet there because, there are facilities in Barrow, that could accommodate them, and they could experience first hand a balmy January day in the real Arctic. Since they don’t meet there in January and demonstrate their contentions to the world, it proves they are perpetrating a hoax. You will notice that all these media shows about warming in the Arctic take place in the summer. You know its summer because the Sun is shinning. In January it’s dark all day.
There is more than six hundred times as much carbon dioxide in a cubic meter of atmosphere at ground level on Mars than in the same volume of atmosphere at ground level on Earth. There is no greenhouse on Mars. This proves that carbon dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas.

Those who claim that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas should answer the following:

1. Where are the observations indicating that carbon dioxide gas is a greenhouse gas?

2. What experiments have been done which prove carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

3. How can carbon dioxide act like a greenhouse gas when its chemistry says it can’t?

4. Why doesn’t some media group put on a live show in Barrow, Alaska, in January?

5. Why doesn’t the media and the UN point out how much carbon dioxide is being generated each day by the wasteful flaring of natural gas.

04-01-2008, 05:58 AM
The Media Ignores Al Gore's Planned Global Warming Profiteering

By now you've probably read about how Al Gore and his Alliance for Climate Protection plan to drop $300 million on hard-hitting affective propaganda aimed at convincing the American viewing public to embrace the drastically reduced standard of living that carbon emission controls guarantee.

The first ad from the campaign, narrated by Oscar-nominated actor William H. Macy, shows footage of Americans taking action by storming the beaches at Normandy during World War II, marching for civil rights, and landing on the moon. Americans didn't wait to take action at these critical points in the nation's history, so "we can't wait for someone else to solve the global climate crisis. We need to act and we need to act now. Join us. Together we can solve the climate crisis..."

Setting aside the fact that "we" couldn't actually solve the imagined climate crisis even if stringent carbon controls were imposed on "us," why isn't the media taking a hard look at how much money Al Gore stands to personally take in as a result of the climate of mass hysteria hes been been helping to foment with his no-holds-barred campaign of misinformation aimed at marginalizing and ostracizing all those who dare to question his take on global warming? Why is the media giving Saint Albert of Carthage, Tennessee, a pass, treating him as a selfless truth-teller on a crusade to save the world, instead of as a masterful market manipulator? (NewsBusters' Dan Riehl hit the bullseye on his personal blog last year, "If Gore's motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, was it really necessarily for the already wealthy Gore to establish a multi-million dollar corporation in England to cash in?")

It's well-documented that the media treats Gore like a rock star. Fast Company hailed Gore as a comeback kid, describing him as "an epic loser [who] engineered what may be the greatest brand makeover of our time." Business Week said he "seems now to be tapped into the American zeitgeist." ClimateBiz cited one source calling Gore a "truly committed and courageous leader," another source in the same article described Gore's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize as "a huge intellectual milestone." And there have been a few puff pieces here and there on Gore's global warming-related business investments, but none that this writer was to find go beyond the superficial.

How is Gore trying to be a climate change profiteer? Essentially, he wants to make a fortune by creating a new market for a product that he is attempting to create by legislative fiat. If he succeeds and carbon emissions trading comes to the United States, Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in. He's made sure of that.

Gore himself is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). He says the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are becoming environmentally-friendly, to use green parlance. GIM appears to have considerable influence over major carbon credit trading firms: the U.S.-based Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the U.K.-based Carbon Neutral Company (CNC). CCX appears to be the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

As a politician, Gore speaks warmly of transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming. Little is known about his shadowy firms finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

As reported in the August 2007 issue of Foundation Watch ("Al Gores Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It," by Deborah Corey Barnes), with help from friends at Goldman Sachs, including Hank Paulson, the investment banks former CEO who is now the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Gore has created a web of organizations to promote the so-called climate crisis.

Meanwhile, Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection is pushing for tougher environmental regulations on the private sector. It wants cap-and-trade legislation enacted so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits. Untold billions of dollars could be generated in a brand new U.S. carbon market.

When Gore's potential for immense profits is factored in, the $300 million outlay for ads (some of which is likely to come from donations to the Alliance's "We Campaign") seems like a drop in the bucket.

If Gore can keep up the pressure for carbon emissions restrictions, he could end up a very wealthy man.

(This is an expanded version of a blog entry posted a few hours ago at Capital Research Center's blog.)


04-01-2008, 07:08 AM
With failure of American investments, the green has gas hoax is becoming a big cash cow. There is a diversity of tax exempt scams, for example:


Joined by stars such as Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Shakira and Elton John, former president Bill Clinton told a Toronto fundraising crowd last night of his latest foreign aid efforts in Latin America and the developing world.

The project, part of the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, will assist local leaders in addressing issues of social, economic and environmental impact through employment and economy.

That media report omitts Giustra's first name, the real story does not exist in the media, and needs and good search to find on the internet. Here is what is really going on.

In 2006, in the months after Mr. Clinton's visit secured Giustra's company the right to mine uranium in Kazakhstan, Mr. Giustra donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

In other words Clinton is cashing in on UNREGULATED uranium; but passing it off as GREEN.

04-04-2008, 06:22 AM
Scientists question global warming as world temperatures drop

Worldwide temperatures will drop this year due to the La Nina current in the Pacific, prompting some scientists to ask if global warming really exists.

China has suffered extreme blizzards and record low temperatures, while Australia has had torrential rain due to La Nina - one of the Pacific's two great natural currents.

Weather experts say La Nina will last into the summer - meaning world temperatures will not have risen since 1998.

A minority of scientists have argued this might mean the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

But the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record and forecast a new record high temperature within five years.

Over the last century the world's average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the WMO, said: "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year.

"You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."

A decade ago the world was suffering the warming effects of El Nino, which translates from Spanish as "the boy child". It is a warming current, the opposite of La Nina, "the girl child".

Scientist Adam Scaife, of the Hadley Centre in Exeter, said he estimated 2008 will be about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average.

He said: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."


04-04-2008, 04:37 PM
Global temperatures 'to decrease'


La Nina caused some of the coldest temperatures in memory in China

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.

Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.

Rises 'stalled'

La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.

El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.

It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

Watching trends

A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."

Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.

Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."


04-05-2008, 06:43 AM
Scientists downplay global warming's effect on hurricanes (http://www.miamiherald.com/574/story/483890.html)

ORLANDO -- We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict unimaginable damage, but global warming is not the cause, leading researchers told the nation's foremost forecasters and other experts Friday.

Chris Landsea, a respected researcher and the National Hurricane Center's science officer, told those at the National Hurricane Conference that there is no conclusive evidence that global warming has significantly enhanced or otherwise affected the number or intensity of hurricanes.

''Any trend we see due to global warming has very little impact, has caused very tiny changes, and might actually be slightly reducing the activity we see in the Atlantic,'' Landsea told the group, which numbered 2,100 earlier in the week, although some left before the global warming session began.

But overall, hurricane seasons will remain relatively active and they will become increasingly costly, researchers said.

Insurance experts warned Friday that the nation soon will absorb a hurricane that causes more than $100 billion in damage, and Landsea has estimated that a Category 5 hurricane could produce at least $140 billion in damage to South Florida.

But that, he and others said, has virtually nothing to do with global warming.


Landsea noted that former Vice President Al Gore's award-winning An Inconvenient Truth, which has galvanized attention to global warming, is promoted by a book cover and movie poster that show a hurricane emerging from a smokestack -- and spinning in the wrong direction, at least for residents of the Northern Hemisphere.

''So you might conclude that the hurricane science depicted in Mr. Gore's book just might have some inaccuracies,'' Landsea said.

William Gray of Colorado State University, another leading hurricane researcher, called any link between global warming and hurricanes ``an absolutely phony thing.''

The issue has divided much of the hurricane research community, with one group of scientists reporting strong relationships between global warming and recent storm activity.

That contingent asserts that hurricanes have been forming twice as often as they did a century ago and are growing stronger, mostly because of global warming caused, at least partially, by humans.

''When you look at the numbers and the strong relationship to sea surface temperatures and the reality of global warming, you end up with a causal link that can't be denied,'' Greg Holland, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said last year.


Another group -- largely led by Landsea -- refutes those assertions, saying they are based on faulty data. Like Census takers who work only one side of the street, these critics say, Holland and his colleagues simply missed many storms of the past.

Many far-from-land storms escaped detection before hurricane hunter flights began in the 1940s and satellite observations began in the 1970s, this contingent says, so historical comparisons cannot be trusted.

''Our ability to monitor the Atlantic was much more limited than it is now,'' Thomas Knutson, a research meteorologist at a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration laboratory in Princeton, N.J., told the group Friday.

The dispute has become so noteworthy and occasionally toxic that some are making fun of it.

Earlier this week, Jeff Masters, a former federal hurricane researcher who now serves as chief meteorologist of the Weather Underground, published a blog item that began:

``A stunning new breakthrough in hurricane research has conclusively settled the matter: global warming is making Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms more frequent.''

He said the research was accepted for publication ''later this millennium in The Journal of Irreproducible Results.'' Masters' lengthy satire was published Tuesday -- April Fools' Day. :biggrin::biggrin:

On Friday, Landsea said he was omitting from his presentation ``all the four-letter words for those with sensitive ears and eyes.''

It is important to note, however, that almost everyone involved in this debate agrees that the planet's seas and atmosphere have been warming.


''What we are seeing is consistent with what the global warming models are predicting,'' Knutson said.

In fact, a study published Friday concludes that climate models showing a warming trend of up to seven degrees during the next 100 years seem to be accurate. The research by University of Utah scientists appears in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Virtually all experts also agree that we are in the middle of an active hurricane period, even as more people flock to the coast.

The argument among hurricane researchers focuses narrowly on the effect, if any, global warming has had and will have on hurricane development and intensity.

''Global warming is real and hurricanes are a heat engine,'' Landsea said. ``The question is how much is global warming going to influence hurricanes?''

The answer, Landsea and other skeptics say, is not much. They attribute the upswing in hurricane activity during the past 13 years primarily to natural cycles that tend to ebb and flow over the decades.

Those cycles reach back long before a warming atmosphere became an issue, will continue in the future, and have left us in the middle of a natural upswing in activity, Landsea said.

''We're liable to see some very busy years in coming decades, not due to global warming but due to natural oscillations,'' he said. ``And the populations near the coast are still going to be a big issue.''

04-08-2008, 06:15 AM
Expert: "We're brainwashing our children" about global warming

Expert: "We're brainwashing our children" about global warming
Another post from guest blogger Rick Neale of Florida Today, from the National Hurricane Conference in Orlando:

William Gray, the well-known Colorado State University hurricane forecaster, routinely uses the annual National Hurricane Conference as a platform to bash global warming. In a statement to Florida Today, Gray argued that the scientific consensus on global warming is bogus and "a mild form of McCarthyism has developed toward those scientists who do not agree" that mankind is in danger.

"We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore's alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote.

Some scientists believe global warming will actually decrease not increase the number of hurricanes that form over the Atlantic Ocean each year. Last Friday, in the final session of the hurricane conference, a pair of climate experts said rising sea-surface temperatures in and near the Caribbean could strengthen vertical wind shear. Robust wind shear is the bane of hurricanes, as it tends to tear apart cyclones during their formative stages.

"If (global warming) were to happen, that is an effect which should be more hostile to hurricane building," said Thomas Knutson, research meteorologist with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.

Knutson and Chris Landsea, science and operations officer with the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said historic observation data and computer models debunk doomsday scenarios that foresee armadas of deadly hurricanes, slamming into the Southeast. "Any (hurricane) trend we're seeing due to global warming and I do agree global warming's real, and manmade causes contribute to it really has very limited impact, very tiny changes," Landsea said.

Both scientists referred to the global warming studies of ocean climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Emanuel noted that from 1972-2004, Atlantic surface temperatures and hurricane intensity were closely linked.

What are your thoughts about this? Do you think the global warming proponents are "brainwashing" our children? For another perspective about Al Gore's polarizing effect on the climate issue, check out Andrew Freedman's excellent blog post from today's washingtonpost.com.


04-08-2008, 06:27 AM
Los Angeles considers global warming tax

The Orange County Register
To fight global warming, a bill in Sacramento would enable Los Angeles County transit officials to increase taxes on motorists. It's a bad idea that may foreshadow even worse to come.

Billed as a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee," the measure would cost motorists either an additional 3 percent motor fuel tax, or up to a $90 annual flat fee, based on vehicle emissions. The new charges would be on top of taxes already paid at the pump. Either option requires a majority approval by a vote of the people.

"At this point the people of the Los Angeles region have just had it when it comes to traffic and air quality," claimed Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a Los Angeles Democrat and author of Assembly Bill 2558.

We concur about the traffic mess, but with little else Mr. Feuer claims in seeking to overtax motorists. The assemblyman's sleight of hand conflates two issues, the real problem of congested traffic and the contrived emergency of so-called global warming.

Congested traffic is easily verifiable. If it went away tomorrow, politicians would be unable to persuade voters to tax themselves to fix it.

Global warming at best amounts to less than a degree of temperature increase during the past century. If the recent several-year cooling trend is an indication, global warming may be going away. But because the only "proof" of long-term catastrophic consequences lies in contrived computer models, politicians like Mr. Feuer can insist even as temperatures decline that doomsday still lies ahead unless people tax themselves to fix the problem.

Los Angeles County motorists should ask Mr. Feuer what global temperature would persuade him that a new tax is unneeded. Global warming, now conveniently rechristened "climate change," is perfect for demagoguery. Those advancing the cause won't explain how they will know we have won the global warming fight, let alone what the ideal temperature is supposed to be.

Climate has changed as long as the Earth has spun on its axis. It's been considerably warmer in recent centuries than today, and during those periods humanity simply adapted, indeed, flourished with fewer cold-weather deaths and more abundant crops.

But facts don't deter schemes like Mr. Feuer's to raise $400 million in additional taxes to pay for already funded transit projects. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority would have to place the issue on the ballot if AB2558 becomes law, and probably would do so because the agency would reap the bounty.

We hope, however, that motorists see the ploy for what it is and reject the additional tax. If not, it's a good bet this scare tactic will be repeated throughout the state.


04-08-2008, 07:41 AM
The BBC Changes News to Accommodate Activist

I have been emailed the following correspondence, purportedly between an activist, Jo Abbess, and BBC Environment reporter Roger Harrabin. It would appear that the result of the email exchange between the activist and the reporter was that the BBC changed its story. In particular instead of reporting the story as received from the World Meteorological Organisation, the BBC modified the story as demanded by the activist who was concerned that in its original form it supported 'the skeptics' correct observation that there has been no warming since 1998.

continued at the link


04-08-2008, 07:44 AM
Has global warming stopped?

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'.

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Havent we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all thats left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?

Arent we told that if we dont act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCCs Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 there has been no warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earths surface causing some heat to be retained.

Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earths atmosphere. Its a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earths temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.

But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UKs Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) its apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. Its not a viewpoint or a sceptics inaccuracy. Its an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.

But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didnt discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?

Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.

Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.

I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.

The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earths atmospheres interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.

David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 19881998, Science Editor BBC News Online 19982006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).


04-09-2008, 04:01 PM
Global Warming Is Highly Beneficial (http://www.nolanchart.com/article3401.html)

Global Warming Is Highly Beneficial
by Walt Thiessen

According to a scientific report given at the International Conference on Climate Change last month, anthropogenic global warming is not only not bad for the earth, it's actually extremely beneficial, and more is needed!

It didn't get any attention in the media, but there was a highly significant presentation (http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf) made last month. According to the ICCC, David Archibald, the presenter, is a scientist (and entrepreneur) operating in the field of cancer research, climate science and oil exploration. His presentation made some startling points about the truth regarding global warming.

First and foremost, the greens refuse to understand that global warming is directly caused by the sun. That should be patently obvious to everyone, but apparently it isn't obvious to the greens. This isn't just sad; it turns out it's the basis for a potential global calamity (but not the one the greens want us to believe in). According to Archibald, green global warming fanatics are 100% diametrically wrong. The data shows that the Earth is actually getting colder, and that this trend is likely to accelerate. It also shows that carbon dioxide's warming effect is minimal at best. Most startling of all is his point that global warming increases agricultural production, and this is where things get interesting , because if Archibald is correct, we're in for some really bad times starting in about 20 years or so.

It turns out that as the earth cools, agricultural production declines. It's almost a perfect correlation. Archibald says that the peak in warming was reached in 1998, and that since then there has been a 0.06 degrees per year in temperature. Further, this will likely accelerate to about 0.2 degrees per year by 2009. Says Archibald:

"The carbon dioxide that Mankind will put into the atmosphere over the next few hundred years will offset a couple of millenia of post-Holocene Optimum cooling before we plunge into the next ice age. There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial."

Among other things, he is urging that we increase our burn rate of coal here in the United States to help continue the warming, because we apparently need all the warming we can get. He also gives a backhanded compliment to the greenies:

We have to be thankful to the anthropogenic global warming proponents for one thing. If it werent for them and their voodoo science, climate science wouldnt have attracted the attention of non-climate scientists, and we would be sleepwalking into the rather disruptive cooling that is coming next decade. We have a few years to prepare for that in terms of agricultural production.

It remains to be seen what the final verdict on global warming will be, but I'm glad to see that there's a little bit of sanity being introduced into the subject.

04-10-2008, 03:30 AM
The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change

Over the past half-century, we have become used to planetary scares. In the late Sixties, we were told of a population explosion that would lead to global starvation.

Then, a little later, we were warned the world was running out of natural resources. By the Seventies, when global temperatures began to dip, many eminent scientists warned us that we faced a new Ice Age.

But the latest scare, global warming, has engaged the political and opinion-forming classes to a greater extent than any of these.

The readiness to embrace this fashionable belief has led the present Labour Government, enthusiastically supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, to commit itself to a policy of drastically cutting back carbon dioxide emissions - at huge cost to the British economy and to the living standards not merely of this generation, but of our children's generation, too.

That is why I have written a book about the subject.

Now, I readily admit that I am not a scientist; but then neither are the vast majority of those who espouse the currently fashionable madness. Moreover, most of those scientists who speak with such certainty about global warming and climate change are not climate scientists, or Earth scientists of any kind, and thus have no special knowledge to contribute.

Those who have to take the key decisions aren't scientists either. They are politicians who, having listened cto the opinions of relevant scientists and having studied the evidence, must reach the best decisions they can - just as I did when I was Energy Secretary in Margaret Thatcher's first government in the early Eighties.

But science is only part of the story. Even if the climate scientists can tell us what is happening, and why they think it is happening, they cannot tell us what governments should be doing about it. For this, we also need an understanding of the economics: of what the economic consequences of any warming might be, and, if there is a problem, the best way of dealing with it.

First, then, what is happening? Given that nowadays pretty well every adverse development in the natural world is automatically attributed to global warming, perhaps the most surprising fact about it is that it is not, in fact, happening at all. The truth is that there has so far been no recorded global warming at all this century.

The world's temperature rose about half a degree centigrade during the last quarter of the 20th century; but even the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research - part of Britain's Met Office and a citadel of the current global warming orthodoxy - has now conceded that recorded temperature figures for the first seven years of the 21st century reveal there has been a standstill.

The centre now officially expects global warming to resume at some point between 2009 and 2014.

Maybe it will. But the fact that the present lull was not predicted by any of the complex computer models upon which the global warming orthodoxy relies is clear evidence that the science of what determines the world's temperature is distinctly uncertain and far from "settled".

Genuine climate scientists admit that Earth's climate is determined by hugely complex systems, and reliable prediction is impossible.

That does not mean, of course, that we know nothing. We know that the planet is made habitable only thanks to the warmth we receive from the rays of the sun. Most of this heat bounces back into space; but some of it is

trapped by the so-called greenhouse gases which exist in the Earth's atmosphere. If it were not for that, our planet would be far too cold for man to survive.

The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, including water suspended in clouds. Rather a long way behind, the second most important is carbon dioxide.

The vast bulk of the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is natural - that is, nothing to do with man. But there is no doubt that ever since the Industrial Revolution in the latter part of the 19th century, man has added greatly to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide by burning carbon - first in the form of coal, and subsequently in the form of oil and gas, too.

So it is reasonable to suppose that, other things being equal, this will have warmed the planet, and that further man-made carbon dioxide emissions will warm it still further.

But in the first place, other things are very far from equal. And in the second place, even if they were, there is no agreement among reputable climate scientists over how much this contributed to the modest late-20th century warming of the planet, and thus may be expected to do so in future.

It is striking that during the 21st century, carbon dioxide emissions have been growing faster than ever - thanks in particular to the rapid growth of the Chinese economy - yet there has been no further global warming at all.

Carbon dioxide, like water vapour and oxygen, is not only completely harmless but is an essential element in our life support system.

Not only do we exhale carbon dioxide every time we breathe (indeed, an important cause of the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is simply the huge increase in the world's population), but plants need to absorb carbon dioxide in order to survive. Without carbon dioxide, there would be no plant life on the planet. And without plant life, there would be no human life either.

While climate scientists disagree about how much further warming continued carbon dioxide emissions might cause, there is an established majority view.

This is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an offshoot of the United Nations, whose view is that 'most' of the modest (0.5 per cent) late-20th century warming was "very likely" caused by man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

And if the growth of such emissions continues unabated, their 'best guess' is that in 100 years' time, the planet will be somewhere between 1.8 and 4 per cent warmer than it is today, with a mid-point of a shade under 3 per cent. (Incidentally, this was published before the early 21st century warming standstill was officially acknowledged, so was not taken into account.)

Alistair Darling told us in his recent Budget speech that this would have "catastrophic economic and social consequences". But that is just alarmist poppycock.

Let's look at just two of the alleged "catastrophic" consequences of global warming: the threat to food production, leading to mass starvation; and the threat to human health, leading to disease and death.

So far as food production is concerned, it is not clear why a warmer climate would be a problem at all. Even the IPCC concedes that for a warming of anything up to 3 per cent, "globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase". Yes: increase.

As to health, in its most recent report, the IPCC found only one outcome which they ranked as "virtually certain" to happen - and that was "reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure".

This echoes a study done by our own Department of Health which predicted that by the 2050s, the UK would suffer an increase in heat-related deaths by 2,000 a year, and a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 deaths a year - something that ministers have been curiously silent about.

The IPCC systematically exaggerates the likely adverse effects of any warming that might occur because estimates of the likely impact of the global warming it projects for the next 100 years are explicitly based on two assumptions, both of them absurd.

The first is that while the developed world can adapt to warming, the developing world cannot.

The second is that even in the developed world, the capacity to adapt is constrained by the limits of existing technology. In other words, there will be no technological development over the next 100 years.

So far as the first of these two assumptions is concerned, if necessary, the developed world will focus its overseas aid on ensuring that the developing countries acquire the required ability to adapt. The second is, of course, ludicrous - notably in the case of food production, where, with the development of bio-engineering and genetic modification, the world is currently in the early stages of a genuine revolution in agricultural technology.

All in all, given that global warming produces benefits as well as costs, it is far from clear that the currently projected warming, far from being "catastrophic", will do any net harm at all.

To which it will be replied that while that may be so for the world as a whole, the people in the developing world will indeed suffer.

But the greatest curse of the developing world is mass poverty, and the malnutrition, disease and unnecessary death that poverty brings. To impede their escape from poverty by denying them the benefits of cheap carbon-based energy would damage them far more than global warming ever could.

Nonetheless, on the basis of its deeply flawed assumptions, the IPCC predicts that if the warming is as much as 4 degrees centigrade by the end of this century, then the economic cost would be a cut of between 1 per cent and 5 per cent of what world output (GDP) would otherwise have been - with the developed world suffering much less, and the developing world much more than this.

But supposing the developing world suffers as much as a 10 per cent loss of GDP from what it would have been in 100 years' time.

That means that by the year 2100, people in the developing world, instead of being some 9.5 times better off than they are today, will be 'only' 8.5 times better off (which, incidentally, will still leave them better off than people in the developed world today). And, remember, all this is on the basis of the IPCC's own grotesquely inflated estimate of the likely damage from further warming.

So the fundamental question is: how big a sacrifice should the present generation make now in the hope of avoiding this?

The cost of the drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions which we are told is necessary would be huge. The Government has introduced legislation to force us to cut emissions by between 60 per cent and 80 per cent by 2050, and Tony Blair, as self-appointed head of a group of "experts", last month declared that "emissions in the richer countries will have to fall close to zero".

One thing is clear: the "feelgood" measures so popular among some sections of the middle classes, from driving a hybrid car and having a wind turbine on one's roof to not leaving the television set on standby, are trivial to the point of total irrelevance. What would be required is for all transport to be 100 per cent electric, and all electricity to be generated by nuclear power.

To cut back carbon dioxide emissions on the scale the present Labour Government (supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) is demanding would require a fundamental restructuring of the economy, involving a rise in the cost of energy dwarfing anything we have seen so far.

No doubt we could afford this hardship if it made sense. But does it? The UK accounts for only 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Even if the entire European Union adopted this policy, that accounts for only 15 per cent of global emissions.

By contrast, China - which has already overtaken the U.S. as the biggest single emitter - has said that there is no way it will agree to a cap on its carbon dioxide emissions for the foreseeable future. And India has said precisely the same.

Both of them point out that it was the industrialised West, not they, that caused the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the last century, and that it is now their turn to catch up.

Also, that their emissions per head of population, although rising fast, are still well below those of the U.S. and Europe; and that their overriding priority is - quite rightly - the fastest possible rate of economic growth, and thus the most rapid emancipation of their people from poverty. One good reason why there will not be any effective global agreement.

So the chief consequence of decarbonising here, and making energy much more expensive, would simply be to accelerate the exodus of industry from the UK and Europe to China and elsewhere in the developing world - with, as a result, little or no reduction in overall global emissions.

And even if there were a global agreement to cut drastically carbon dioxide emissions, the economic cost of doing so would far exceed any benefit.

So does all this mean that we should do nothing about global warming? Well, not quite. (Although doing nothing is better than doing something stupid.)

We do need to monitor as accurately as we can what is happening to temperatures across the globe, and we do need to assist the developing countries to adapt to a warmer temperature, should (one day) the need arise.

It makes sense, too, to invest in research in the hoped-for technology of generating electricity using commercial carbon capture (so that carbon dioxide emissions might be "captured" before they can escape into the atmosphere) and also, as the U.S. is already doing, in the technology of geoengineering to cool the planet artificially.

But that is about the size of it. This is not the easiest message to get across - not least because the issues surrounding global warming are so often discussed in terms of belief rather than reason.

There may be a political explanation for this. With the collapse of Marxism and, to all intents and purposes, of other forms of socialism too, those who dislike capitalism and its foremost exemplar, the United States, with equal passion, have been obliged to find a new creed.

For many of them, green is the new red. And those who wish to order us how to run our lives, faced with the uncomfortable evidence that economic prosperity is more likely to be achieved by less government intervention rather than more, naturally welcome the emergence of a new licence to intrude, to interfere, to tax and to regulate: all in the great cause of saving the planet from the alleged horrors of global warming.

But there is something much more fundamental at work. I suspect that it is no accident that it is in Europe that eco-fundamentalism in general and global warming absolutism in particular has found its most fertile soil. For it is Europe that has become the most secular society in the world, where the traditional religions have the weakest hold.

Yet people still feel the need for the comfort and higher values that religion can provide; and it is the quasi-religion of green alarmism, of which the global warming issue is the most striking example, which has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilege.

Does all this matter? Up to a point, no.

Unbelievers should not be dismissive of the comfort that 'religion' can bring. If people feel better when they drive a hybrid car or ride a bicycle to work, and like to parade their virtue in this way, then so be it.

Nonetheless, the new and unattractively intolerant religion of eco-fundamentalism and global warming presents real dangers. The most obvious is that the governments of Europe may get so carried away by their own rhetoric as to impose measures that do serious harm to their economies. That is a particular danger at the present time in the UK.

Another danger is that even if the governments do not go too far and damage their own economies, they may still cause great damage to the developing world by engaging in what might be termed green protectionism. The movement to make us feel guilty about buying overseas produce because of the "food miles" involved is just one example of this.

And France's President Sarkozy is currently urging the European Union to impose trade barriers against those countries that are not prepared to limit their carbon dioxide emissions.

It should not need pointing out that a lurch into protectionism, and a rolling back of globalisation, would do far more damage to the world economy - and in particular to living standards in the developing countries - than could conceivably result from the projected continuation of global warming.

But even if this danger can be averted, it is clear that the would-be saviours of the planet are, in practice, the enemies of poverty reduction in the developing world.

So the new religion of global warming, however convenient it may be to the politicians, is not as harmless as it may appear. Indeed, the more one examines it, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story, and a phenomenal bestseller. It contains a grain of truth - and a mountain of nonsense.

And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed.

We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet.

 AN Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look At Global Warming by Nigel Lawson is published by Duckworth on April 10 at 9.99. To order a copy (p&p free), call 0845 606 4206.


04-10-2008, 10:16 AM
Climate change: A Contrarian's Opinion (http://www.meafordexpress.com/meafordexpress/article/69165)

Climate change: A Contrarian's Opinion
Author: Lance Burnham

Not a day goes by where we are not all bombarded with angst over global warming and climate change caused, apparently, by our over use of fossil fuels.

We are told how oceans will rise, crops will fail, the Arctic will melt, polar bears will die, droughts will happen, and a whole slew of other awful things.

I don't buy it, and would venture that the whole movement is another manifestation of man's inherent need to get power and control over others by any means necessary. The claim is out that the science is unequivocal and beyond doubt, but a cursory examination of the evidence with a skeptical mind suggests that nothing is a simple as we are told.

The prophets of doom such as Al Gore and David Suzuki are masters at controlling the agenda sold to the masses while they accumulate wealth and power while generally disregarding the changes in their own behaviour that they advocate against for all the regular less important folk out there.

Who amongst us is not familiar with Gore's excessively sized house and utility consumption? Suzuki is busy with tour buses and jet setting around the world, and in Toronto; Mayor David Miller left Earth Hour to shop and attend a party after extolling the rest to turn off the lights, not at all dissimilar to the communist cadres of the Soviet Union who sold communism to the masses while accumulating their own power, wealth, and privilege.

Have a look at Gore's balance sheet pre and post An Inconvenient Truth.

So how about a little bit of old-fashioned common sense to the whole premise of climate change?

Could the climate be changing? Absolutely! It has changed significantly one way or another since the dawn of time. Did man cause any of the previous climate changes? Well, Alberta is known to once have been a tropical sea, and no, we had nothing to do with it disappearing.

Is carbon dioxide increasing? Yes, but nowhere near as much as it did during other geologic ages such as the Jurassic period (dinosaurs) and others. Is there a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature change? No, but studies have shown it correlates highly with solar cycles.

What has the most effect on temperature and climate cycles? Unequivocally, it is the natural cycles of the sun. Has the temperature actually increased? It depends on whom you read and who funded the study. For the ambitious reader, take some time to study Dr. Theodr Landscheit from Germany and his studies into CO2 levels, and solar cycles. Some of those in these fields are more worried about a potential cooling than warming.

If one studies the human record for the last 10,000 years the climate has varied hugely, and the periods of prosperity are generally the warm periods. One must ask whether they would rather cope with warming or cooling. I think I know which I would fear more.

The world is a complex equilibrium and our creator, if that was the case, installed a lot of checks and balances. The carbon cycle is inherently balanced as an increase in carbon production in the atmosphere is followed by an increase in carbon storage and consumption by plants and algae. It is a generally accepted fact that North America is covered with more trees now than at the turn of the century.

And in global terms, 70 per cent of the world is covered by water and correspondingly 70 per cent of the climate is set by the sea regardless of what we do on land. If the world gets warmer, more cloud forms over the sea, reflects sunlight, and cools the world.

If you want to at least open your mind to being skeptical of global warming, you might start with john-daly.com. Ask yourself how a politician who failed at the presidency and an amphibian biologist became experts at an incredibly complicated science such as the climate. Ask yourself who and what companies gain in the race to trade and control the consumption/production of carbon.

Ask yourself if the climate can be predicted two weeks ahead let alone for two years. Ask yourself why the last great scare over the Ozone hole proved to be a non-event. We were told that it would take generations to repair the hole then it closed in two years, and then reopened partially indicating that it has a cycle of its own having little to do with hydrofluorocarbons.

Perhaps the whole debate should be reframed in terms of conserving energy, using it more efficiently, and wasting it less, because in the form of fossil fuels, energy is a somewhat finite resource. Energy breakthroughs are good for the economy and can make us more prosperous. In the bigger picture the world is awash in energy thanks to the limitless supply from the sun.

So instead of wasting our resources chasing our tails with carbon taxes and empowering the prophets of doom, unleash the creativity and power of humanity moving the production and use of energy up the chain closer to where it all comes from which is the sun. The market will help take care of this as traditional fossil fuels get pricier due to a higher level of scarcity.

Choose to be an optimist and relax a bit while tuning out the nihilistic Gore and Suzuki who really are more concerned with the vestiges of power and wealth than about what common sense dictates is best for us all. These people have just enough knowledge and conviction to be dangerous and have no place setting the agendas of large-scale policy that can affect us all so much.

04-13-2008, 05:19 AM
Good one, Rasp.

04-13-2008, 05:32 AM

Gore Bars Press From Speech In San Francisco

For a man who gets better press than virtually any person walking the planet, one has to wonder why Nobel Laureate Al Gore would ever want to bar media representatives from one of his speeches.

After all, it's not like anyone is going to ask him a tough question, or write something that might expose him as the charlatan most folks not drinking the Kool -- er, I mean Global Warming-Aid understand him to be.

However, that's exactly what happened Friday afternoon when the Global Warmingest-in-Chief spoke at the RSA Conference with specific instructions for no press members to be allowed through the doors of the Moscone Convention Center.

When Al Gore agreed to talk at the end of the RSA 2008 conference, the 2007 Nobel Laureate stipulated in his contract with RSA that no members of the press would be allowed inside the keynote address.
Apparently, this is a common practice now for Gore, at least according to the folks at Wired (emphasis added):

Press protestations are becoming a habit of Gore's.

When he gave his now-famous global warming slide presentation at the TED conference in 2006 (Technology, Entertainment and Design) I tried to approach him after the presentation to ask a question and was thwarted by his aggressive spokesman who planted himself between me and the former v.p. and griped that I'd been allowed to attend the presentation. He said the talk was supposed to have been off-limits to press (although the conference organizers never mentioned this to me, and no one tried to prevent me from entering the auditorium, although my badge clearly indicated I was press). Gore's spokesman took down my name and affiliation and warned that I wasn't to write anything about the event.

Gore, whose speaker fee is reportedly $100,000, spoke again at TED this year, which I wrote about for Wired's Epicenter blog. There were no restrictions on press covering that talk other than regarding photos. The conference wanted press to use only official photos provided by TED.

Last year the Smoking Gun published a copy of Gore's speaker's contract, which stipulates that all press are to be barred from his appearances and that the conditions of the contract cannot be disclosed to anyone.
Is it possible Gore doesn't want press members present as he recommends people invest in companies that he already has a stake in? This is exactly what he did about a month ago in Monterey, California, as NewBusters reported Friday.

In fact, according to C/Net News.com, this was virtually the same "You Should Be Investing in What I'm Investing In" speech he gave in Monterey:

The talk, which ran 45 minutes and closed the conference here, updated the presentation used in his Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Friday's talk was similar to one Gore delivered in February at the annual TED conference, but without the slides.
Makes sense to me why he wouldn't want media around to watch him behave like a stockbroker or hedge fund manager hawking his wares. Someone might actually get a clue that the former vice president is behaving signficantly more like Professor Harold Hill than Moses, not that any of these sycophantics would be likely to report it if such an obvious conclusion struck them on the head!

Speaking of which, here's another item these dolts in the press surely will ignore (from second referenced C/Net piece, emphasis added):

During the speech here, the 2007 Nobel Laureate was interrupted by hecklers three times; each was removed by security.

It seems a metaphysical certitude that we're just as likely to hear/read about the Man Who's Trying to Save the Planet's financial motivations as we are someone having the poor taste to actually heckle The Green King!

As such, move along...nothing to see here.


04-13-2008, 05:38 AM
Gore Admits Financial 'Stake' In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria


For years, NewsBusters has reported on Al Gore's financial interests in advancing global warming hysteria around the world.

On March 1, while speaking at the TED Conference in Monterey, California, the Nobel Laureate admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "sub-prime carbon assets" like "tar sands" and "shale oil."

This occurred as pictures of such products appeared on the screen with names of the companies involved (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00, h/t NBer Sick-and-Tired):

There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.

As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).

As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.

And, as he tours the world demanding nations stop burning fossil fuels, he will financially benefit if they follow his advice and move to technologies that he has already invested in.

I'm sure the sycophantic climate alarmists in the media will be all over this in the days to come...not!

*****Update: Readers should be reminded of an exchange last week between NewsBuster Matthew Vadum and a Gore representative.

If you recall, on April 1, Vadum wrote about how the media are ignoring Gore's global warming profiteering. The following day, Richard Campbell, a spokesman for Gore's Generation Investment Management fund, had an e-mail exchange with Ian Wilhelm from the Chronicle of Philanthropy:

However, Richard Campbell, a spokesman for Generation Investment Management, called the suggestions a “nonsense story.”

In an e-mail message to The Chronicle, he writes that neither Mr. Gore nor any other members of the investment company’s board will make money from the expansion of carbon trading.

“To suggest then that they are somehow benefiting from the growth of this industry betrays a complete lack of knowledge of the carbon offset industry,” he writes.

Now that Gore has admitted having investments in companies that will benefit from global warming hysteria, I wonder if Campbell's opinion might change. Stay tuned.


04-18-2008, 01:22 PM
What a disgrace!


Iwo Jima Veterans Blast Time's 'Special Environmental Issue' Cover
Time editor tells MSNBC 'there needs to be a real effort along the lines of World War II to combat global warming and climate change.'

For only the second time in 85 years, Time magazine abandoned the traditional red border it uses on its cover. The occasion to push more global warming alarmism.

The cover of the April 21 issue of Time took the famous Iwo Jima photograph by Joe Rosenthal of the Marines raising the American flag and replaced the flag with a tree. The cover story by Bryan Walsh calls green the new red, white and blue.

Donald Mates, an Iwo Jima veteran, told the Business & Media Institute on April 17 that using that photograph for that cause was a disgrace.

Its an absolute disgrace, Mates said. Whoever did it is going to hell. Thats a mortal sin. God forbid he runs into a Marine that was an Iwo Jima survivor.

Mates also said making the comparison of World War II to global warming was erroneous and disrespectful.

The second world war we knew was there, Mates said. Theres a big discussion. Some say there is global warming, some say there isnt. And to stick a tree in place of a flag on the Iwo Jima picture is just sacrilegious.

According to the American Veterans Center (AVC), Mates served in the 3rd Marine Division and fought in the battle of Iwo Jima, landing on Feb. 24, 1945.

A few days later, Mates eight-man patrol came under heavy assault from Japanese forces, Tim Holbert, a spokesman for the AVC, said. During fierce-hand-to-hand combat, Mates watched as his friend and fellow Marine, Jimmy Trimble, was killed in front of his eyes. Mates was severely wounded, and underwent repeated operations for shrapnel removal for over 30 years.

Lt. John Keith Wells, the leader of the platoon that raised the flags on Mt. Suribachi and co-author of Give Me Fifty Marines Not Afraid to Die: Iwo Jima wasnt impressed with Times efforts.

That global warming is the biggest joke Ive ever known, Wells told the Business & Media Institute. [W]ell stick a dadgum tree up somebodys rear if they want that and think thats going to cure something.

Time managing editor Richard Stengel appeared on MSNBC April 17 and said the United States needed to make a major effort to fight climate change, and that the covers purpose was to liken global warming to World War II.

[O]ne of the things we do in the story is we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change, Stengel said. It seems to me that this is an issue that is very popular with the voters, makes a lot of sense to them and a candidate who can actually bundle it up in some grand way and say, Look, we need a national and international Manhattan Project to solve this problem and my candidacy involves that. I don't understand why they dont do that.

Holbert, speaking on behalf of the American Veterans Center, said the editorial decision by Time to use the photograph for the cover trivialized the cause the veterans fought for.

Global warming may or may not be a significant threat to the United States, Holbert said. The Japanese Empire in February of 1945, however, certainly was, and this photo trivializes the most recognizable moment of one of the bloodiest battles in U.S. history. War analogies should be used sparingly by political advocates of all bents.

Stengel also appeared on MSNBCs Morning Joe on April 17 and had no difficulty admitting the magazine needed to have a point of view.

I think since Ive been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things thats needed in journalism is that you have to have a point of view about things, Stengel said. You cant always just say on the one hand, on the other and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. Were experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let's just say so.

Time has been banging the global warming drum for some time now. In April 2007, Time offered 51 ways to save the planet, which included more taxes and regulation.


04-20-2008, 04:27 AM
Stop the CO2 scare, before it's too late

As President Bush finally caved in to international pressure last week and committed the US to spending untold billions of dollars on "the fight against global warming", I happened to be in Washington at the same time, talking on the same subject to more than a dozen very lively and opinionated radio shows.

I was there with my co-author Richard North, at the invitation of an enterprising Washington think-tank, the Independent Women's Forum, to launch our book Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming, Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth.

Speaking to audiences across the country, for up to an hour at a time, we were impressed by how well informed -and sceptical about global warming - were the array of presenters who interviewed us. We told them it would have been unthinkable to have such intelligent conversations on this subject on any BBC programme back in Britain.

But the highlight of our visit was dinner with Dr Fred Singer, a distinguished US scientist, formerly professor at two universities, and founder of the US satellite weather service. He has done more than anyone in the scientific counter-attack against the ruthless promotion of global warming orthodoxy by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dr Singer played a key part in last month's scientific conference in New York organised by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and gave me an advance copy of its new report (which is now available online - just Google "sepp" and "NIPCC").

The report - Nature Not Human Activity Rules the Climate - presents a devastating analysis of the IPCC's case. Intended for a lay audience and signed by scientists from 15 countries, it takes all the key points of the IPCC's "consensus" case and tears them expertly apart, showing how the Intergovernmental Panel has either exaggerated, distorted or suppressed the evidence available to it, or has imputed much greater certainty to its findings than is justified by the data.

One of the central flaws in the IPCC's case is its reliance on computer models, based only on those parts of the evidence which suit its chosen "narrative", omitting or downplaying hugely important factors which might produce a very different picture. These range from the role played by water vapour, by far the most important of the greenhouse gases, to the influence of solar activity on cloud cover.

The report's most startling passage, however, is one that examines the "fingerprint" of warming at different levels of the atmosphere which the computer models come up with as proof that the warming is man-made. The pattern actually shown by balloon and satellite records is so dramatically different that, even on the IPCC's own evidence, the report concludes, "anthropogenic greenhouse gases can contribute only in a minor way to the current warming, which is mainly of natural origin".

The significance of this can scarcely be overestimated. At just the moment when, thanks to the overwhelming pressure generated by the IPCC, the world's politicians, led by the EU, are committing us to spending untold trillions of pounds, dollars and euros on measures to "mitigate" the claimed effects of man-made warming, here is a galaxy of experts producing hard evidence that - if the problem exists at all - the official explanation for it is oriented in wholly the wrong direction.

Furthermore the consequences of that warming and of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have, on balance, been wholly beneficial, by increasing plant growth.

The real danger, the report warns, is not a continued warming but that temperatures and agricultural production might drop as the world faces its worst food shortage in decades (now being made worse by the crazed rush to give over farmland to biofuels). And if that is the way the evidence lies, how much are any of our politicians doing to prepare for a crisis already upon us?


04-23-2008, 05:32 AM
Forget Global Warming, Prepare for New Ice Age, Says Scientist

Sunspot activity has not resumed after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that - far from warming - the globe is about to return to an Ice Age.

Astronaut and geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, said pictures from the U.S. Solar and Heliospheric Observatory showed no spots on the sun.

He said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr. Chapman writes in The Australian today.

"If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."


3 Ks
04-23-2008, 06:41 PM
Forget Global Warming, Prepare for New Ice Age, Says Scientist

Sunspot activity has not resumed after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that - far from warming - the globe is about to return to an Ice Age.

Astronaut and geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, said pictures from the U.S. Solar and Heliospheric Observatory showed no spots on the sun.

He said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr. Chapman writes in The Australian today.

"If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

I read about that! As the sun spots go, so does the gravitational pull, ie; the distance between the earth & sun. We are moving further away.
Hopefully (sooner then later) we can move to venus, and leave the niggers & jews here! :)

04-23-2008, 06:51 PM
This should come as no surprise (http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20080423128100/wire/health/epa-scientists-complain-about-political-interference-pressure-to-skew-findings.html)

EPA scientists complain about political pressure to skew findings

WASHINGTON - Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar attributed some of the discontent to the "passion" scientists have toward their work. He said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, as a longtime career scientist at the EPA himself, "weighs heavily the science given to him by the staff in making policy decisions."

But Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, said the survey results revealed "an agency in crisis" and "under siege from political pressures" especially among scientists involved in risk assessment and crafting regulations.

"The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," said Grifo.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), in a letter sent Wednesday to Johnson, called the survey results disturbing and said they "suggest a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science." He said he planned to pursue the issue at an upcoming hearing by his Oversight and Government Reform Committee where Johnson is scheduled to testify.

The group sent an online questionnaire to 5,500 EPA scientists and received 1,586 responses, a majority of them senior scientists who have worked for the agency for 10 years or more. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.

The report said 60 per cent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing what they viewed as political interference in their work over the last five years. Four in 10 scientists who have worked at the agency for more than a decade said they believe such interference has been more prevalent in the last five years than in the previous five years.

Timothy Donaghy, one of the report's co-authors, acknowledged that a large number of scientists did not respond to the survey and said the findings should not be viewed as a random sample of EPA scientists.

Nevertheless, said Donaghy, "we have hundreds of scientists saying there is a problem" with assuring scientific integrity within the federal government's principal environmental regulatory agency.

Asked to respond to the survey, EPA spokesman Shradar said, "We have the best scientists in the world at EPA."

The EPA has been under fire from members of Congress on a number of fronts including its delay in determining whether carbon dioxide should be regulated to combat global warming. Johnson also has been criticized for rejecting recommendations from science advisory boards on a number of air pollution issues including control of mercury from power plants and how much to reduce smog pollution.

In the survey, the EPA scientists described an agency suffering from low morale as senior managers and the White House Office of Management and Budget frequently second-guess scientific findings and change work conducted by EPA's scientists, the report said.

The survey covered employees at EPA headquarters, in each of the agency's 10 regions around the country and at more than a dozen research laboratories. The highest number of complaints about political interference came from scientists who are directly involved in writing regulations and those who conduct risk assessments such as determining a chemical cancer risk for humans.

Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had seen the "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" and 224 scientists said they had been directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" in an EPA document.

Nearly 200 of the respondents said they had been in situations where they or their colleagues actively objected to or resigned from projects "because of pressure to change scientific findings."

Donaghy said EPA management was aware of the survey, conducted by the Center for Survey Statistics & Methodology at Iowa State University. He said while some EPA managers initially instructed employees not to participate, the EPA's general counsel's office later sent an e-mail to employees saying they could participate on their private time.

04-25-2008, 05:19 AM
Food Crisis Eclipsing Climate Change
Gore Ducks, as a Backlash Builds Against Biofuels

By JOSH GERSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | April 25, 2008

The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels.

With prices for rice, wheat, and corn soaring, food-related unrest has broken out in places such as Haiti, Indonesia, and Afghanistan. Several countries have blocked the export of grain. There is even talk that governments could fall if they cannot bring food costs down.

One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.

“I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels.

Last year, Mr. Runge and a colleague, Benjamin Senauer, wrote an article in Foreign Affairs, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor.”
“We were criticized for being alarmist at the time,” Mr. Runge said. “I think our views, looking back a year, were probably too conservative.”

Ethanol was initially promoted as a vehicle for America to cut back on foreign oil. In recent years, biofuels have also been touted as a way to fight climate change, but the food crisis does not augur well for ethanol’s prospects.

“It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,” Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. “It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.”

Mr. Senauer said climate change advocates, such as Vice President Gore, need to distance themselves from ethanol to avoid tarnishing the effort against global warming. “Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution. They, in fact, add to the problem. Whether Al Gore has caught up with that, somebody ought to ask him,” the professor said. “There are lots of solutions, real solutions to climate change. We need to get to those.”

Mr. Gore was not available for an interview yesterday on the food crisis, according to his spokeswoman. A spokesman for Mr. Gore’s public campaign to address climate change, the Alliance for Climate Protection, declined to comment for this article.

However, the scientist who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore, Rajendra Pachauri of the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, has warned that climate campaigners are unwise to promote biofuels in a way that risks food supplies. “We should be very, very careful about coming up with biofuel solutions that have major impact on production of food grains and may have an implication for overall food security,” Mr. Pachauri told reporters last month, according to Reuters. “Questions do arise about what is being done in North America, for instance, to convert corn into sugar then into biofuels, into ethanol.”

In an interview last year, Mr. Gore expressed his support for corn-based ethanol, but endorsed moving to what he called a “third generation” of so-called cellulosic ethanol production, which is still in laboratory research. “It doesn’t compete with food crops, so it doesn’t put pressure on food prices,” the former vice president told Popular Mechanics magazine.

A Harvard professor of environmental studies who has advised Mr. Gore, Michael McElroy, warned in a November-December 2006 article in Harvard Magazine that “the production of ethanol from either corn or sugar cane presents a new dilemma: whether the feedstock should be devoted to food or fuel. With increasing use of corn and sugar cane for fuel, a rise in related food prices would seem inevitable.” The article, “The Ethanol Illusion” went so far as to praise Senator McCain for summing up the corn-ethanol energy initiative launched in the United States in 2003 as “highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress.”

In Britain, some hunger-relief and environmental groups have turned sharply against biofuels. “Setting mandatory targets for biofuels before we are aware of their full impact is madness,” Philip Bloomer of Oxfam told the BBC.

Biofuel advocates say they are being made a bogeyman for a food crisis that has much more to do with record oil prices, surging demand in the developing world, and unusual weather patterns. “The people who seek to solely blame ethanol for the food crisis and the rising price of food that we see across the globe are taking a terribly simplistic look at this very complex issue,” Matthew Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Association said.

Mr. Hartwig said oil companies and food manufacturers are behind the attempt to undercut ethanol. “There is a concerted misinformation campaign being put out there by those people who are threatened by ethanol’s growing prominence in the marketplace,” he said.

The most obvious impact the food crisis has had in America, aside from higher prices, is the imposition of rationing at some warehouse stores to deal with a spike in demand for large quantities of rice, oil, and flour. The CEO of Costco Wholesale Corp., James Sinegal, is blaming press hype for the buying limits, which were first reported Monday in The New York Sun.

“If it hadn’t been picked up and become so prominent in the news, I doubt that we would have had the problems that we’re having in trying to limit it at this point,” Mr. Sinegal told Fox News Thursday. “I mean, I can’t believe the amount of attention that is being paid to this.”

The Sun’s article, which came as food riots were reported abroad, circulated quickly on the Internet, was republished in newspapers as far away as India, and prompted local and network television stories.

Speaking in Kansas City, Mo., yesterday, the federal agriculture secretary, Edward Schafer, blamed emotion for the spurt of rice buying at warehouse stores. “We don’t see any evidence of the lack of availability of rice. There are no supply issues,” he told reporters, according to Reuters.


04-25-2008, 05:55 AM
Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power

Patrick Moore tells the Boise chamber that the world must wean itself from fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases.

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.
The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.

"It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident."

The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.

With development of coal-fired electric generation stopped cold over greenhouse gases, the only alternative to nuclear power for producing continuous energy at the levels needed is natural gas. But climate change isn't the only reason to move away from fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels also are a major health threat. "Coal causes the worst health impacts of anything we are doing today," Moore said.

Plus, uranium can be found within the United States and also comes in large quantities from Canada and Australia. Nuclear Power reduces the reliance on supplies in dangerous places including the Middle East, he said.

Moore spoke at the chamber breakfast after an appearance in Idaho Falls Tuesday night that attracted 300 people. He also spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum in Boise, all sponsored by the Partnership for Science and Technology.

He represents the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear energy-backed group promoting reactors for electric energy generation. He began his career as a leader of Greenpeace fighting nuclear testing and working to save whales.

In recent years, he has taken on causes unpopular with his former group, like old-growth logging, keeping polyvinyl chlorides and now nuclear energy.

He says his change of heart comes from his background in science and a different approach to sustainability.

He sees a need for maintaining technologies that are not harmful while fixing or replacing those that are harmful.

"We don't believe we have been making too much electricity," he said. "We believe we've been making energy with the wrong technologies."

His critics, like Andrea Shipley, executive director of the Snake River Alliance, say he has simply sold out.

"The only reason Patrick Moore is backing something as unsafe and risky as nuclear power is he is being paid by the nuclear industry to do so," Shipley said


04-26-2008, 07:03 AM

Al Gore's global warming debunked by kids!
Winners announced in 'The Sky's Not Falling' video-essay contest

Al Gore's global warming philosophy has been debunked by many scientists and studies, and now it has met the same fact at the hands of children, in "The Sky's Not Falling" video/essay contest, sponsored by WND Books, formerly World Ahead Media.

The contest was launched early I 2008 and was designed to highlight the absurdities, untruths and downright lies that children are being taught daily about "climate change" in public school.

Russell Young, a Minnesota writer who captured first place in the essay competition, explained the importance of using celebrities such as Gore and the medium of movies to enhance the educational experience for students.

Read on: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62598

Two videos at site

05-06-2008, 11:35 AM
You hippy-crites! When it comes to saving the planet do celebrities practise what they preach?

Is the hot air emitted by celebrities when they spout ecological platitudes a greenhouse gas?

If so, then the melting of the polar ice caps just moved a step closer, following calls by Trudie Styler, a leading celebrity ecological hypocrite - call them hippy-crites for short - for the general public to eat more locally grown vegetables.

Campaigning against food miles might seem an unlikely cause for Styler, given that a tribunal last year heard how she ordered her personal chef to travel over 100 miles to make a bowl of pasta for her youngest child and has sold olive oil and honey from her Tuscan estate, Il Palagio, 1,000 or so miles away, in Harrods in London.

So it was hardly surprising that an alert journalist present at the lecture, which was being staged as part of the Earls Court Real Food Festival, had the wit to question the environmental record of Styler and her husband Sting.

The couple's carbon footprint, the impertinent ink-stained wretch pointed out, has been estimated at 30 times greater than the average Briton's. How did Styler and Sting - who have seven homes - square that with their environmental crusading?

Styler conceded that as Sting "has a 750-person crew to bring around the world, it is a difficult challenge".

Her rare moment of ecological candour was shortly replaced by the more familiar self-congratulation and justification, however.

"I would like to think that we both work pretty hard for the rights of indigenous people and for the rights of conservation of the Amazon rainforest, but we do need to get around," she said.

Of course, Sting and Trudie's "do as I say not as I do" approach to the dilemma of environmental pollution is by no means unusual among the carbon-guzzling lifestyle of the celebrity elite.

Here's a roll call of some other startlingly hippy-critical celebrities









05-07-2008, 07:16 AM
The B-Cast: NBC News Removes Penguins From Arctic Global Warming Story


05-13-2008, 07:45 PM
Hannity Exposes Gore’s Connection to Ethanol and Higher Food Prices

Since media began recognizing the international food crisis and its ties to biofuels, NewsBusters has been wondering when press members will expose how intricately linked Nobel Laureate Al Gore is to this controversial issue.

On Sunday, Fox News's Sean Hannity finally did just that.

In a segment on "Hannity's America," the host addressed much of what NewsBusters has been reporting for the past several months about this matter, and established a template that hopefully others in the media will emulate if they are indeed interested in helping to solve this growing problem (video embedded right):

HANNITY: This year, nations all over the world are feeling the effects of a global food shortage which has driven the price of basic crops like corn, rice and wheat to an all-time high. So how did this happen? An unfortunate act of nature? Not hardly.


HANNITY: The U.N. World Food Program calls it a silent tsunami that's threatening millions of people on every continent - it's hunger. The price of food staples like rice, wheat and corn are suddenly going through the roof because there are not enough crops to go around. Economists fear this new global food shortage will get worse before it gets better and could result in massive malnutrition all over the world.

JOSETTE SHEERAN, U.N. FOOD PROGRAM: This is something that knows no borders and that is rolling through the world and really increasing the misery index of the world's most vulnerable.

HANNITY: Now, here in the United States, we are just beginning to feel the pain of high food prices. But in low income countries where 50-80 percent of a family's income is spent on food, the shortage is already having a devastating impact. In order to help those nations, President Bush has called for another $770 million in emergency foreign food assistance.

But how did the food shortage become so acute so fast? The growing consensus is that the crop deficit is directly related to the increased demand for production of, quote, "earth friendly" bio fuels, an effort pushed by none other than the vanquished vice president Al Gore and all in the name of quote, "saving the planet."

Now, this is how it works. Global warming alarmists preach that filling our cars with bio fuels like ethanol that that's the answer to protecting the environment. Then, larger portions of food crops are set aside for fuel production which cuts into the amount of corn, rice and wheat that make it to families all over the world. In the end, less available food causes sky rocketing prices. And it's low income families that are hurt the most. Al Gore himself took credit for the increase in the ethanol production in a speech that he delivered to the Third Annual Farm Conference back in 1998.

"I was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was under attack in congress; at on point, supplying a tie-breaking vote in the senate to save it. The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better off our farmers and our environment will be."

HANNITY: But a recent study by two professors at the University of Minnesota who specialize in economics and food policy, says misguided policies like that one are to blame for the food shortage that we are all feeling now.

BEN SENAUER, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: With all of this attention bio fuels is getting, it's supplying about three percent of the transportation fuel needs in the United States. If we use the entire corn crop, leave any of it to feed livestock and export, we could supply about 18 percent of our transportation of fuel needs. So in that sense of the word ethanol in and of itself is not the answer.

HANNITY: The connection between bio fuel and the food shortage is so clear that last week, 24 Republican senators sent a letter to the environmental protection agency suggesting a change to the current mandate on ethanol production.

SENAUER: So if you work out the math and you are going to fill up a 25 gallon tank of a big luxury car SUV with pure, 100 percent ethanol, that's going to take about 450 bushels of corn. That corn contains enough calories, something in the order of 2,000 calories a day to feed a person for a year.

HANNITY: But the fact is, Al Gore has a financial stake in spreading global warming hysteria. He's admitted to investing in the kinds of companies that will profit from his plea, to, quote, "Go green." Was Al Gore thinking about saving the planet or perhaps lining his pockets?

So here we have Professor Gore making the rounds to college campuses with his inconvenient documentary convincing impressionable kids that the U.S. is a country full of irresponsible gluttons with giant carbon footprints. The urged the world to conserve energy, turn to bio fuels like ethanol and cut down on air travel.

By the way, did he mention his mode of transportation? No, his private jet usage never came up. Of course, Al Gore's friends in the liberal media jumped on the global warming bandwagon, sounding the alarm on rising sea levels, melting glaciers and demise of the polar bears.

But they continue to ignore the fact scores of scientists all over the world say human activities are not heating up the earth at all. In fact, some studies indicate is poised to begin a period of global cooling. But the network news outlets - well, they never seem to report on that.

So did Al Gore blatantly disregard climate information that he didn't help his bottom line? Or is he just terribly wrong? Instead of making room on the mantel for his Academy Award, maybe Gore should have been looking a little bit harder at the impact of the shortsighted, quote, "go green" agenda. Now that the wheels are coming off of Al Gore's global warming bandwagon, well, even some of his loyal supporters may have to make a choice, "Should I follow Al Gore's half-baked notion to save the planet or feed my family?" The answer should be obvious.

We can only hope -- now that Hannity has let this cat out of the bag -- other media members around the nation will follow suit and start reporting the really inconvenient truth about Nobel Laureate Al Gore.

Check out the video:


05-13-2008, 08:10 PM
Horses abandoned in West as feed prices rise

SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) - In the classic Hollywood western, a cowboy portrayed by John Wayne gallops across the sagebrush steppe and rocky ridges of the American West with only his horse for a companion.

What the films don't show is the cowboy buying and hauling hay for his horse, or what happens to the horse when it is too aged, infirm or irascible to ride.

Those more mundane details are at the heart of a debate about growing cases of mistreatment of horses in the United States, at a time when hay and grain prices are skyrocketing and when options for disposing of unwanted horses are dwindling.

Just a year ago, the sale of an average horse suitable for recreation -- one with neither prized bloodlines nor a performance record to heighten its status -- would have fetched several thousand dollars.

Today, prices in some cases have dropped to just hundreds of dollars, largely because of higher costs for their maintenance and transport.

The situation for marginal horses -- horses whose poor physical condition or disposition makes them targets for slaughter -- is even worse, after a court ruling sought by animal-rights groups effectively shut down the U.S. horse slaughter industry last year.

The result is that a growing number of unwanted horses are being starved or turned loose to fend for themselves in the U.S. West, according to animal welfare advocates.

"What concerns me is a fate worse than slaughter," said Temple Grandin, professor of animal science at Colorado State University and an authority on the handling of livestock such as horses. "We've got people turning horses loose in fields, dropping horses off in the night -- my worst nightmares are coming true."

Such images have strong resonance in the West, the land of the rider on the range immortalized in art by Frederic Remington and in popular culture by actors such as the late President Ronald Reagan.

Far from Kentucky, where thoroughbreds race the Churchill Downs, owning a horse in the West is a middle-class occupation. The average horse owner rides for recreation and keeps their horse on their own land or land rented for the purpose, rather than at a commercially run barn.

Horses eat hay made from either grass or alfalfa, or a mix of both, and a modest amount of grain. Prices fluctuate, but in east central Idaho, hay prices have risen to $145 from $120 per ton a year ago, a jump of 21 percent. In northern Idaho it costs $220 per ton and as much as $300 per ton in parts of California. Feeding a horse can cost $2,000 a year or more.


The West is also the region where the historic practice of releasing domesticated horses into the wild -- first by Spanish explorers and last by ranchers -- gave rise to the herds of Mustangs, or feral horses, that still inhabit the vast public lands of Western states.

But the romantic concept of freeing a tamed horse to roam the West's wide open spaces bears no resemblance to the reality, said Kirk Miller, livestock investigator in Idaho and Montana for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"They have no survival instinct in the wild, no clue as to what's dangerous to eat, no knowledge of how to grub for food under the snow," he said.

Miller and Colorado State's Grandin are among animal experts who say the campaign led by the Humane Society of the United States to end domestic horse slaughter was well-intentioned but misguided.

Now the tens of thousands of American horses marked for slaughter are shipped to Canada and Mexico, where long, stressful journeys end in what some horse advocates say can be unduly painful deaths.

Most horses are slaughtered for human consumption, with Europe and Asia providing markets for their meat.

Some horse associations are siding with the Humane Society in its fight to end export of horses for slaughter altogether. But others are seeking to re-establish processing in the United States to broaden the outlet for unwanted horses and to ensure the animals are killed by a mechanical method approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Keith Dane, director of equine protection for the Humane Society, said for Americans to have their horses killed for their meat would be akin to sending their pet dogs to slaughter for human consumption.

But unlike its canine counterpart, a horse weighs an average of 1,000 pounds and disposal of its carcass after Humane Society-recommended euthanasia has become burdensome. Where permitted by law and where able, owners can bury carcasses on their own land or pay several hundred dollars in assorted fees to deposit the remains at a local landfill.

Those complications may be behind what state livestock officials and federal land managers in the West say is a spike in the number of horses shot dead and dumped on public lands.

Scot Dutcher, animal protection chief with the Colorado Department of Agriculture, said the abandoned horse cases officials are addressing now is a ripple compared to the wave that may come.

"If it becomes illegal to export horses for slaughter, we'll be dealing with an equine tsunami," he said.

Meanwhile, officials at some sale barns in Montana are asking owners of especially old or underweight horses to pay the auction house if the animals do not bring a sufficient price.

And horse rescues, nonprofit groups that rehabilitate and place unwanted and often abused horses, are reporting a rise in the number of calls they are fielding and the number of horses they turn away for lack of resources.

"I could have 500 horses here tomorrow," said Brent Glover, head of Orphan Acres, an Idaho rescue operation that can maintain a maximum of 130 horses.

(Reporting by Laura Zuckerman; Editing by Eddie Evans)


05-16-2008, 05:01 AM
Senators Warn Bill Could Spike Gas $1.50 to $5 a Gallon

Worried about gas prices hitting $4 a gallon and beyond? Imagine if they were $6, $7 or even $8 a gallon. Those levels are a certain possibility should Congress pass cap-and-trade legislation, which could face a vote in early June.

Oil is trading at record levels, in excess of $120 a barrel. Leading Republican Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) both told the Business & Media Institute (BMI) energy prices would drastically increase if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) is signed into law.

“The studies show it would be directly affected, would be a $1.50 a gallon, in addition to what it is today,” Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said to (BMI).

Inhofe spoke at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on May 15 to introduce the “We Get It!” campaign – a program founded by evangelical Christians that question the merits of global warming alarmism. According to Inhofe, the bill will make it to the floor of the Senate on June 2.

“So now I think we need to concentrate on what it will cost the American people,” he said during the press conference. “To try to put it in a perspective people understand, if we had ratified, according to the Wharton School of Economics, the Kyoto Treaty, back five years ago, it would have cost about – between $300 and $330 billion – that was the range they had. This bill that’s up today is $471 billion – far more than that. And the question is, what do you get for it?”

Sessions, a member of the Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, went a step further. He cited sources that suggest the increase could be as much as $5 a gallon.

“[L]et me tell you what’s heading down the tracks,” Sessions said to BMI on May 14. “In a few weeks, we expect that the cap-and-trade legislation that’s been voted out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) Environment and Public Works Committee will be on the floor and according to the Environmental Protection Agency it will increase gas prices by $1.50. The National Association of Manufacturers says it will increase it as much as $5 per gallon.”

Sessions proposed that money should be spent on energy investment versus a regulatory bureaucracy to enforce the provisions of the Lieberman-Warner bill.

“So instead of actually coming forward with any idea about what to do about rising prices, we’ll soon be voting on a bill that has already passed committee, has some Republican support, that would surge the price of energy, create a bureaucracy – and I just don’t think is the right thing to do,” Sessions said. “I’d rather spend our money in investing in the new the technologies, helping get nuclear power online, improving batteries, researching cellulosic ethanol. Let’s spend our money on that without creating cap-and-trade bureaucracies that have not worked in Europe.”

According to the Energy Information Administration, the average price of a gallon of gas in Europe ranges from $8 to $9 a gallon.

Gas prices have been one of the most reported news stories of the past several years. Reporters have repeatedly warned of prices approaching the levels Inhofe and Sessions warned about. However, journalists have consistently complained about oil company profits, not taxes, making gas prices higher.

On NBC’s May 15 “Today,” host Matt Lauer interviewed ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson. Lauer quizzed Tillerson on oil companies’ profit margins and higher gas prices, but Lauer didn’t ask Tillerson about the potential impact Lieberman-Warner would have on the price of gasoline.

“Well, the problem we have right now, and fortunately we have several months before the election, to make sure the American people know that this is a supply problem that is causing the gas prices to go up,” Inhofe said to BMI. “You know the Democrats, right down party lines – they do not want to drill in ANWR, they do not want to drill offshore. They don’t want the tar sands. They don’t want more energy. And they don’t want refinery capacity.”

The Senate defeated a measure to drill in ANWR on May 13. The vote, an amendment to another bill, was killed by a vote of 42-56, largely along party lines. Only one Democrat voted for the amendment, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and five Republicans voting against it.

Inhofe blamed Democratic policies going as far back as the Clinton administration.

“The Democrats are the reason we have high prices at the pumps, and we’re not going to be able to alleviate that until we start producing again in America,” Inhofe added. “And I knew this was happening way back, well 10 years ago, when President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have allowed us to drill in ANWR. I said on the Senate floor that day 10 years ago that in 10 years we would regret this. It’s now 10 years later.”

Don't let this happen - start calling today!

05-20-2008, 05:50 AM
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

By Bob Unruh
ÃâÅÚà 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than 31,000 scientists across the United States, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields including atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "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."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

WND submitted a request to Al Gore's office for comment, but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.'

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher."

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.


05-28-2008, 03:32 AM
Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate change

Washington - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."

Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday.

"My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity," he said.

Gore a former US vice president who has become a leading international voice in the cause against global warming, was co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Gore's effort was highlighted by his Oscar winning documentary film An Inconvienent Truth.

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.

"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.

Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he oppposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change.

"It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda," he said.

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.

"It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.


06-06-2008, 06:32 PM
Global Whining vs. the Truth

"105ÃâÅÚà tomorrow? We'll be sending you out live," the television producer informed me.

Like most TV Meteorologists, I loathed the heat wave live-remotes. I would much rather work in a controlled environment, complete with air conditioning and a green Chroma-key screen. And during extreme weather events, the studio lent itself to professionalism rather than playing on emotion.

"Let me guess, the bank in Walnut Creek?" I said sarcastically. I had been through this drill many times.

"Perfect location. Plus, a lot of viewers with ratings meters out there."

Walnut Creek is an upscale town 30 miles east of San Francisco. It is sheltered from the cooling influences of the coast and the Bay by a modest mountain range. As a result, in the summer that region can bake. The bank not only referenced the name o
f the town, but had a thermometer that was several degrees off, thanks to the heat absorbing black asphalt on the adjacent multi-lane street and the pavement of the nearby parking lot. The producer knew 105ÃâÅÚà would easily read 110ÃâÅÚÃ. On air, I always quickly explained the reason for the soaring temperature reading for our audience, but it was not enough. The misleading visual message was absolutely clear: 110ÃâÅÚà in Walnut Creek-another sign of climate doom! No doubt about it, the climate was under assault. It had to be global warming.

No, it's global whining.

Even without the bogus bank thermometer, a heat wave-or even a hot year-does not indicate global warming. More important, such weather does not point to any warming created by mankind's utilization of fossil fuels. But telling that to the stooges on Capital Hill who are debating energy policies like Cap and Trade is like trying to tell the TV producer not to mislead the audience by sending the weatherguy to the bank thermometer in
Walnut Creek.

The world's most thorough historical temperature record is found amongst the 1,221 official, government-sanctioned weather monitoring stations that have been recognized as a part of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). Most of the stations within this network have records that date back to the 1800s. The beauty of this system is that in so many cases the environs where the thermometer is housed has changed little over the decades, providing critical data to determine major long-term trends.

In some instances thermometers within the Network have been encroached upon by urban sprawl and their readings notably have trended upward. However, for the locations that have remained relatively stable, the temperature record hardly reeks of global warming.

A perfect illustration is found when comparing the USHCN temperature records from Central Park in New York City to those taken a mere 55 miles away at West Point.

Readings in Central
Park have been regularly measured since 1835 when the city's population had just surpassed 200,000. Today, surrounded by a metropolis of eight million people filled with some of the world's tallest buildings, a massive underground subway system, an extensive sewer system, power generation facilities, and millions of cars, buses, and taxis, the Central Park temperatures have been greatly altered by urbanization. And, as one might expect, the Central Park historical temperature plot illustrates an incredible warming increase of nearly 4ÃâÅÚÃF.

The West Point readings have also been meticulously maintained since 1835, but the environment surrounding the thermometer shelter has experienced significantly less manmade interference then the one in Central Park. The West Point readings illustrate a significantly lower warming increase of only about 0.6ÃâÅÚÃF over the same 170-year period. This is remarkable given that the year 1835 is considered to be the last gasp of the Little Ice Age -- a significant period
of global cooling that stretched back several hundred years.

Cries of out of control global warming become more dubious when one looks at the hottest decade in modern history, the 1930s.

The summer of 1930 marked the beginning of the longest drought of the 20th Century. From June 1 to August 3, Washington, D.C. experienced twenty-one days of high temperatures of at least 100ÃâÅÚÃ. During that record-shattering heat wave, there were maximum temperatures set on nine different days that remain unbroken more than three-quarters-of-a-century later. In 1934, bone dry regions stretched from New York, across the Great Plains, and into the Southwest. A "dust bowl" covered about 50 million acres in the south-central plains during the winter of 1935-1936. In some areas, the drought never broke until 1938.

According to the National Climatic Data Center, 1936 experienced the hottest overall summer on record in the continental United States. In fact, out of 50 states, 22 recorded their a
ll-time high temperature during the 1930s, including:

110ÃâÅÚà Millsboro, Delaware, July 21, 1930

100ÃâÅÚà Pahala, Hawaii, April 27, 1931

109ÃâÅÚà Monticello, Florida, June 29, 1931

118ÃâÅÚà Keokuk, Iowa, July 20, 1934

111ÃâÅÚà Phoenixsville, Pennsylvania, July 10, 1936

120ÃâÅÚà Seymour, Texas, August 12, 1936

121ÃâÅÚà Steele, North Dakota, July 6, 1936

117ÃâÅÚà Medicine Lake, Montana, July 5, 1937.

One might make the argument that the incredible rise in temperatures in the 1930s coincided with the first notable increase in CO2, thus, the gas can be linked to global warming -- but not honestly. While levels of carbon dioxide continued to increase during the following three decades, temperatures actually decreased.

According to NASA, the average temperature on the planet between 1940 and 1970 dropped .6ÃâÅÚÃF. By the mid-Seventies the media was abuzz with notions of the next Ice Age. In its June 24, 1974 edition, Time magazine warned,

logical Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age"

But those warning of global cooling soon became disappointed, as from 1970 to 1998 there was a slight increase in temperature (.34ÃâÅÚÃF), noted in both USGCN record and verified by satellite observations (which only became available in the Seventies).

Since 1998 there has been no additional warming and indeed, a global dip in temperature began in 2007 and has continued into this year.

All this said, when examining the data from the most trusted sites within the Historical Network beginning in 1930 to present, there has actually been a net-decrease in temperature. This decrease is noted in all quarters of the continental United States.

Thus, the biggest chunk of global warming that has supposedly coincided with the Industrial Revolution and the increase in evil carbon dioxide, mostly occurred after the Little Ice Age and prior to

And Congress needs to understand this: carbon dioxide is not our foe. It is a fertilizer that is essential for life on planet earth; it is no more a poison or pollutant than oxygen or water.

CO2 is also the byproduct of progress. The cars that allow us to drive to important places like work, worship, our kids' sporting events, the beach or the mountains, run on a very efficient portable form of energy known as gasoline, derived from petroleum. Our homes are heated, cooled, and lighted more often than not from natural gas. Companies that make the products essential to our lives also rely on these two forms of energy to create and deliver their wares. The carbon dioxide produced from these forms of energy is identical to the gas that is gently being emitted from your lungs as you read right now.

You are not expelling pollution: you are contributing to our planet's carbon cycle. And the earth has a variety of built in mechanisms to recycle your CO2.

Carbon di
oxide accounts for only slightly more than 3/10000ths of our planet's atmosphere. And what percentage of the miniscule amount of gas is produced by the activities of man, including the utilization of fossil fuels? According to a thorough analysis by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a research wing of the U.S. Department of Energy, only 3.207% -- well within historical norms. And how much has CO2 increased in the atmosphere over the past 150 years? Approximately 35%.

In his must-read eco-thriller, State of Fear, Michael Crichton creates a brilliant visual to assist us in wrapping our minds around the components of Earth's atmosphere. On page 387, he likens the atmosphere to a football field. The goal line to the 78 yard-line contains nothing but nitrogen. Oxygen fills the next 21 yards to the 99 yard-line. The final yard, except for four inches, is argon, a wonderfully mysterious inert gas useful for putting out electronic fires. Three of the remaining four inches is cram
med with a variety of minor, but essential, gases like neon, helium, hydrogen and methane. And the last inch? Carbon dioxide. One inch out of a hundred-yard field! At this point I like to add, if you were in the stands looking down on the action, you would need binoculars to see the width of that line. And the most important point-how much of that last inch is contributed by man-made activities? Envision a line about as thin as a dime standing on edge.

Are you still worried about the dangers of CO2?

Me, neither.

And historically, CO2 has been significantly higher than today. In data primarily gathered from ice cores, we see carbon dioxide levels were 500 times higher during the Cretaceous period, some 160 million years ago. Many theorize that the dinosaurs were able to grow to such sizes because of the indescribable abundance of carbon fed foliage and overall atmospheric conditions present during that era. Certainly the SUV could not be blamed for those high levels
of CO2. Dinosaur flatulence, perhaps?

Despite the cries of Congress, the Earth does not have a fever and carbon dioxide is no more dangerous than the breath of life. During the fall elections we need to cap the rhetoric from some of these political whiners by trading them in for people who know a good thermometer when they see it.

Back to you in the studio...


06-16-2008, 03:39 AM
China Drilling off the Coast of Florida - why cant we?

China Drilling off the Coast of Florida - why cant we?
June 12, 2008 ÃâÅÚà 5 Comments
This post is updated June 13, 2008 9:09 AM MST, AZ

The Washington Times reported yesterday that China is not drilling, but that Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off Florida - these are off shore blocks. Whether it be China drilling or exploring or Cuba the impact is the same. We will not drill this water for environmental or other reasons, but Cuba may very well do so. There will still be oil platforms drilling off the coast of Florida that are of a foreign power. Why are we not touching this oil field again? You can modify the question below to replace The Peoples Republic of China" with Cuba" and replace drill" with exploration for drilling".

Washington Times Article

ow the post as it originally appeared:

It started when I came upon an article in a newspaper about China drilling off Florida. I have learned that the NY Times reported on the start of drilling in May 2006. I have seen a detailed diagram of the drilling area in a report by CNN Money. I have read where Senator Mel Martinez, when asked about this drilling, in a Palm Beach newspaper said it is not happening. Recently The Washington Times had an article on the drilling.

I have decided that where there is smoke there is fire and that drilling (I stand corrected - exploration for drilling) is taking place. I have even read where domestic companies were asked to bid on the drilling and could not because they are prohibited. It seems that in the 80s Congress passed legislation declaring the continental shelf off Florida and California off limits for drilling due to environmental reasons. Does it make sense that the Chinese foreign oil companies partnering with Cuba can drill explore for drilling into
the same continental shelf and the same oil our domestic companies cannot touch by law? Does it make sense that when China Cuba started drilling exploration for drilling, we did not allow our companies to start drilling exploration for drilling?

I called My Congresswomans (AZ CD8 - Democrat, Gabrielle Giffords) office in Washington yesterday and asked this simple question. Why is The Peoples Republic of China able to drill into the continental shelf off the coast of Florida for oil and our domestic companies are not permitted? The party I spoke with said he did not know and would have to check. When he came back to the phone, he advised that they would have to have someone call me back with an answer. I did not get a call back, so today I called again. Again, I was told that someone would have to call me back.

If you are interested in why this country has been energy dependent on foreign oil and why we have sent trillions to foreign governments making them richer and more dangerous, then you
might ask this question of your Congressional Representatives. Why is The Peoples Republic of China able to drill into the continental shelf off the coast of Florida for oil and our domestic companies are not permitted?

If you dont know how to reach your representatives - try the Contacting the Congress" web site.

Want to read the CNN Money article? click on China Oil Article.

Want to read the New York Times article? click on Times China Article.

Today at 12:30Pm AZ Mountain Time, I received the following response or non-response to my question via email:

June 12, 2008

Dear Mr. Moyes,

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Department of the Interiors (DOI) announcement to expand drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, coast of Virginia and Alaska.

The DOI decision to boost oil and natural gas production within the United States is an attempt to curb our ever increasing dependency on foreign oil. The plan, specifically known as the
Five Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, proposes 21 lease sales between 2007 and 2012 in the above mentioned locations.

This attempt to increase our focus on domestic fossil fuels, however, is a short-sighted approach to our dependence on foreign oil, and can make only marginal impact on our overall importation of oil. Rather, we must focus our efforts and resources on developing alternative fuels that can provide clean, renewable energy and a long-term solution.

To take America toward energy independence, the 110th Congress voted in the first four months to roll back $14 billion dollars in taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies-already enjoying record profits. Instead, that money will be reinvested here at home in clean, alternative fuels, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Congress has also launched a carbon-neutral Greening the Capitol initiative to set an example here in Washington and created a Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence.

Ending Americas addiction to foreign oil, investing in renewable energy, especially solar, and achieving energy independence is the Apollo mission of our generation. I believe we can make Southern Arizona the Solar-con Valley" of the nation."

I always appreciate hearing from constituents, like you, who are informed and interested about issues of importance to Arizona and the nation. My job as your representative is to help you connect with federal agencies, access services and get your questions answered thoroughly. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future if you require assistance and sign-up for e-news updates on my website at www.giffords.house.gov.


Gabrielle Giffords

Member of Congress

Update: June 12, 2008 11:55 PM MST - Arizona

The Washington Times reports that China has not started drilling, but is exploring.

Added June 12, 2008: Whether they are actually drilling as yet or just doing exp
loration right now does not change the paradigm. If a foreign sovereign power is capable of drilling in waters where we will not allow our companies to drill the effect is the same.


06-20-2008, 08:08 PM
Greenland ice core analysis shows drastic climate change near end of last ice age

Temperatures spiked 22 degrees F in just 50 years, researchers say

Information gleaned from a Greenland ice core by an international science team shows that two huge Northern Hemisphere temperature spikes prior to the close of the last ice age some 11,500 years ago were tied to fundamental shifts in atmospheric circulation.

The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago. Startlingly, the Greenland ice core evidence showed that a massive "reorganization" of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere coincided with each temperature s
purt, with each reorganization taking just one or two years, said the study authors.

The new findings are expected to help scientists improve existing computer models for predicting future climate change as increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere drive up Earth's temperatures globally.

The team used changes in dust levels and stable water isotopes in the annual ice layers of the two-mile-long Greenland ice core, which was hauled from the massive ice sheet between 1998 to 2004, to chart past temperature and precipitation swings. Their paper was published in the June 19 issue of Science Express, the online version of Science.

The ice cores -- analyzed with powerful microscopes -- were drilled as part of the North Greenland Ice Core Project led by project leader Dorthe Dahl-Jensen of the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Neils Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen. The study included 17 co-investigators from Europe, one from Japan and two from the United Stat
es -- Jim White and Trevor Popp from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

"We have analyzed the transition from the last glacial period until our present warm interglacial period, and the climate shifts are happening suddenly, as if someone had pushed a button," said Dahl-Jenson.

According to the researchers, the first abrupt warming period beginning at 14,700 years ago lasted until about 12,900 years ago, when deep-freeze conditions returned for about 1,200 years before the onset of the second sharp warming event. The two events indicate a speed in the natural climate change process never before seen in ice cores, said White, director of CU-Boulder's Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research.

"We are beginning to tease apart the sequence of abrupt climate change," said White, whose work was funded by the National Science Foundation's Office of Polar Programs. "Since such rapid climate change would challenge even the most modern societies to successfully adapt, knowing how these mass
ive events start and evolve is one of the most pressing climate questions we need to answer."

Both dramatic warming events were preceded by decreasing Greenland dust deposition, indicating higher tropical temperatures and significantly more rain falling on the deserts of Asia at the time, said White. The team believes the ancient tropical warming caused large, rapid atmospheric changes at the equator, the intensification of the Pacific monsoon, sea-ice loss in the north Atlantic Ocean and more atmospheric heat and moisture over Greenland and much of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere.

"Here we propose a series of events beginning in the lower latitudes and leading to changes in the ocean and atmosphere that reveal for the first time the anatomy of abrupt climate change," the authors wrote. White likened the abrupt shift in the Northern Hemisphere circulation pattern to shifts in the North American jet stream as it steers storms around the continent.

"We know such events are in Earth's f
uture, but we don't know when," said White. "One question is whether we can see the symptoms before big problems occur. Until we answer these questions, we are speeding blindly down a narrow road, hoping there are no curves ahead."

Each yearly record of ice can reveal past temperatures and precipitation levels, the content of ancient atmospheres and even evidence for the timing and magnitude of distant storms, fires and volcanic eruptions, said White. The cores from the site -- located roughly in the middle of Greenland at an elevation of about 9,850 feet -- are four-inch-diameter cylinders brought to the surface in 11.5-foot lengths, said White.



07-04-2008, 06:49 AM
Are the ice caps melting?
Climate science's bipolar disorder

The headlines last week brought us terrifying news: The North Pole will be ice-free this summer "for the first time in human history," wrote Steve Connor in The Independent. Or so the experts at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado predict. This sounds very frightening, so let's look at the facts about polar sea ice.

As usual, there are a couple of huge problems with the reports.

Firstly, the story is neither alarming nor unique.

In the August 29, 2000 edition of the New York Times, the same NSIDC expert, Mark Serreze, said:

"There's nothing to be necessarily alarmed about. There's been open water at the pole before. We have no clear evidence at this point that this is related to global climate change."

During the summer of 2000 there was
"a large body of ice-free water about 10 miles long and 3 miles wide near the pole". Also in 2000, Dr Claire Parkinson at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center was quoted as saying: "The fact of having no ice at the pole is not so stunning."

Secondly, the likelihood of the North Pole being ice free this summer is actually quite slim. There are only a few weeks left where the sun is high enough to melt ice at the North Pole. The sun is less than 23 degrees above the horizon, and by mid-August will be less than 15 degrees above it. Temperatures in Greenland have been cold this summer, and winds are not favorable for a repeat. Currently, there is about one million km2 more ice than there was on this date last summer.

So what is really going on at the poles?
The Tipping Point that wouldn't tip

Satellite records have been kept for polar sea ice over the last thirty years by the University Of Illinois. In 2007 2008, two very different records were set. The Arctic broke the previous record fo
r the least sea ice area ever recorded, while the Antarctic broke the record for the most sea ice area ever recorded. Summed up over the entire earth, polar ice has remained constant.

Last week, Dr James Hansen from NASA spoke about how CO2 is affecting the polar ice caps.

"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes... The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would," he said.

Well, not exactly.

Hansen is only telling half the story. In the 1980s the same Dr Hansen wrote a paper titled Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases, in which he explained how CO2 causes "polar amplification." He predicted nearly symmetrical warming at both poles. As shown in Figure 2-2 from the article, Hansen calculated that both the Arctic and Antarctic would warm by 5-6 degrees Centigrade. His predictions were largely incorrect, as most of Antarctica has cooled and sea ice has rapidly expanded. The evidence does not support the theory.

continued at link


07-10-2008, 04:13 AM
Doomed to a fatal delusion over climate change

PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion" - and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.

Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".

"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."

(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)

"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exh
austion of water supplies."

But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.

Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: "If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands."

And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd's guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: "Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . ."

Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd's next campaign slogan?

Of course, we can laugh at this -- and must -- but the price for such folly may soon be your j
ob, or at least your cash.

Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide -- the gas they think is heating the world to hell.

The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they're even planning to tax farting cows, so there's no end to the ways you can be stung.

Rudd hopes this pain will make you switch to expensive but less gassy alternatives, and -- hey presto -- the world's temperature will then fall, just like it's actually done since the day Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth.

But you'll have spotted already the big flaw in Rudd's mad plan -- one that confirms he and Garnaut really do have delusions.

The truth is Australia on its
own emits less than 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide. Any savings we make will make no real difference, given that China (now the biggest emitter) and India (the fourth) are booming so fast that they alone will pump out 42 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases by 2030.

Indeed, so fast are the world's emissions growing -- by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants -- that the 20 per cent cuts Rudd demands of Australians by 2020 would be swallowed up in just 28 days. That's how little our multi-billions of dollars in sacrifices will matter.

And that's why Rudd's claim that we'll be ruined if we don't cut Australia's gases is a lie. To be blunt.

Ask Rudd's guru. Garnaut on Friday admitted any cuts we make will be useless unless they inspire other countries to do the same -- especially China and India: "Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels."

So almost everything depends on C
hina and India copying us. But the chances of that? A big, round zero.

A year ago China released its own global warming strategy -- its own Garnaut report -- which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions.

Said Ma Kai, head of China's powerful State Council: "China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments . . . our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth."

In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: "It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China's energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high."

Last month, India likewise issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and also rejected Rudd-style cuts.

The plan's authors, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases.

"It is obvious that India needs to substantially increas
e its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people."

The plan's only real promise was in fact a threat: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries."

Gee, thanks. That, of course, means India won't stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). Given it has one billion people, that's a promise to gas the world like it's never been gassed before.

So is this our death warrant? Should this news have you seeing apocalyptic visions, too?

Well, no. What makes the Indian report so interesting is that unlike our Ross Garnaut, who just accepted the word of those scientists wailing we faced doom, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why.

Their conclusion? They couldn't actually find anything bad in India that was caus
ed by man-made warming: "No firm link between the documented (climate) changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established."

In fact, they couldn't find much change in the climate at all.

Yes, India's surface temperature over a century had inched up by 0.4 degrees, but there had been no change in trends for large-scale droughts and floods, or rain: "The observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend . . ."

It even dismissed the panic Al Gore helped to whip up about melting Himalayan glaciers: "While recession of some glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses."

Nor was that the only sign that India's Council on Climate Change had kept its cool while our Rudd and Garnaut lost theirs.

For example, the Indians rightly insisted nuclear power had to be part of any real plan to cut emissions. Rudd and Garnaut won't even discuss it.

The Indians also pointed out that no feasible technology to trap and bury the gasses of coal-fired power stations had yet been developed "and there are serious questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories".

Rudd and Garnaut, however, keep offering this dream to make us think our power stations can survive their emissions trading scheme, when state governments warn they may not.

In every case the Indians are pragmatic where Rudd and Garnaut are having delusions -- delusions about an apocalypse, about cutting gases without going nuclear, about saving power stations they'll instead drive broke.

And there's that delusion on which their whole plan is built -- that India and China will follow our sacrifice by cutting their throats, too.

So psychiatrists are treating a 17-year-old tipped
over the edge by global warming fearmongers?

Pray that their next patients will be two men whose own delusions threaten to drive our whole economy over the edge as well.


07-20-2008, 03:06 AM
Will MSM Report on 2008 Arctic Ice Increase?


Good news! Despite the recent global warming alarmism in the media that Arctic ice might melt away completely from the North Pole this summer, the latest scientific observations show that Arctic ice has actually increased by nearly a half million square miles over this time last year. This is in stark contrast to the Chicken Little hysteria that was being promoted less than a month ago on the CBS Early Show as reported by Kyle Drennen on June 27 here in NewsBusters:

On Fridays CBS "Early Show," co-host Maggie Rodriguez teased an upcoming interview with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair about global warming: "Also ahead this morning, we'll talk about a disturbing new report from some scientists in Colorado who say th
at there is the very real possibility that for the first time we will see the ice in the North Pole melt away completely during the summer."

Well, the latest information on Arctic ice conditions is just in from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and Maggie Rodriguez can breath easy (emphasis mine):

Arctic sea ice extent on July 16 stood at 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 square miles). While extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average of 9.91 square kilometers (3.83 million square miles), it was 1.05 million square kilometers (0.41 million square miles) above the value for July 16, 2007...

So why the increase in the ice shelf over last year despite the MSM hysteria on this topic? An explanation is given:

How is this different from what we saw in the record-breaking year 2007? In early July 2007, an atmospheric pattern developed that featured high pressure over the Beaufort Sea. This pattern promoted especially strong sea ice loss. The pattern that has dominated the
summer of 2008, so far, seems less favorable for ice loss...

So won't Maggie Rodriquez and other global warming alarmists be excited over this news about increased ice in the Arctic this summer? Don't hold your breath. Rodriguez and others in the MSM will probably just let their original dire global warming predictions stand without any later corrections when the scientific facts prove them wrong. So let us sign off on this latest example of global warming alarmism predictions gone wrong with a June 27 quote on this topic from Steve Connor, "science editor" of the Independent (U.K.):

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic and worrying examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north ma
y well have melted away by the summer.

Sorry, Steve, but just the opposite has happened. So can we also expect you to correct yourself with the latest data showing an increase in Arctic ice over last year? Your humble correspondent is not holding his breath waiting for such a correction from you, Maggie Rodriquez, nor any other member of the MSM that hyped an ice free North Pole for 2008.


07-20-2008, 03:13 AM
Will Media Report Gore's Stake in Electricity Conversion?


As my fellow NewsBuster Amy Ridenour accurately reported, global warming obsessed media are predictably gushing over Nobel Laureate Al Gore's call for America to completely convert all of its electricity production to solar, wind, and other renewable sources by 2018 (photo courtesy AFP).

As they gush, fawn, and genuflect, will press members dare to point out that Gore is heavily invested in companies which manufacture that which he's recommending America convert to?

After all, as NewsBusters reported on April 11, Gore admitted his financial stake in such things to an audience in Monterey, California, back in March (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00):

There are a lot of great
investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so Ill have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.

As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).

B]Now, seven months later, he's proposing:[/B]

Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the Earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.

The quickest, cheapest, most efficient, and best way to start using all of this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power, and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.

Check. Invested in all that!

We could further increase the value and efficiency of a unified national grid by helping our struggling auto companies switch to the manufacture of plug-
in electric cars and save those auto jobs and renew our auto companies.

Check. Invested in that, too!

Will media members EVER make this connection and report it? Or, is that too much like journalism?



08-11-2008, 07:45 AM
SF Chronicle Writer Warns of Global Warming Shellfish Invasion

The shellfish are coming! The shellfish are coming!
In our previous episode of Global Warming Alarmist Theater, All Creatures Slithering and Slimy, we saw alarmist forecasts about how giant snakes would take over America. In the current episode, All Creatures Creepy and Crawly, written by San Francisco Chronicle "science" writer David Perlman, he relays a prediction of a Pacific Ocean shellfish invasion of the North Atlantic:

Pacific Ocean shellfish - the mussels and snails, the clams and cockles - are heading for a mass invasion into the North Atlantic that could alter the entire ecology of both oceans as sea ice vanishes from the warming high Arctic, two California scientists predict.

It has happened at least once before, the scientists say - [SIZE="4"]about 3.5 million [/SI
ZE]years ago, when a relatively brief period of natural global warming kept the Bering Strait open and hundreds of species of marine life migrated from the Pacific through the ice-free Arctic Ocean to colonize the Atlantic. The genes of many animals - both shelled and finned - formed hybrid species after that long-ago invasion during the Pliocene epoch.

Geerat J. Vermeij of UC Davis and Peter D. Roopnarine of the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco describe what they call "the coming Arctic invasion" in the current issue of the journal Science.

According to climate models of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which monitors global warming and its effects, the Arctic Ocean will become virtually ice-free by 2050 as global warming continues. And many climate experts and scientists, including Vermeij and Roopnarine, calculate that it's likely to be under way in little more than 20 years.

So the Arctic Ocean will become virtually ice-free by 2050? Wha
t happened to the global warming alarmist predictions of just a few months ago that the North Pole would become ice-free this summer? Oops! Never mind. It turned out that the Arctic ice shelf actually increased this summer by nearly a half million square miles over last year. Fortunately for Perlman and other global warming alarmists, most of us won't be around in 2050 to check on the latest ice-free Arctic prediction.

So I guess we can look forward to an Arctic seabed covered with shellfish. Mussels, and clams, and cockles! Oh my! Don't miss the next episode of Global Warming Alarmist Theater, All Creatures Creepy and Crabby, in which the Arctic seabed is overrun by Alaskan King and Snow crabs.


UPDATE: Should you think that your humble correspondent exaggerated a bit with the titles of the Global Warming Alarmist Theater episodes, then check out this title actually used by Scientific American in their report on the same story---Invasion of the crustacean snatchers.


08-18-2008, 03:50 AM
Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's
Thursday, March 01, 2007
By Randy Hall, Staff Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) - George Bush may be a nemesis of the global green movement and Al Gore its hero, but the president's home is arguably far more environmentally-friendly than the home of the man he defeated in the 2000 election.

Bush's "Western White House" in Crawford, Texas, has been praised as "an eco-friendly haven" while the former vice-president's home in Nashville, Tennessee was criticized this week for heavy power consumption.

"In politics, people don't always practice what they preach," Marlo Lewis, Jr., a senior fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday.

Bush has been criticized harshly by environmentalists for his opposition to the Kyoto Prot
ocol and its mandatory cuts on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.

By contrast, Gore on Sunday won an Academy Award for his documentary focusing on the impact of climate change. He recently announced a series of music concerts on seven continents in July to drew further attention to the cause.

"It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations," said Lewis, referring to the purchase of offsets for carbon emissions attributed to the high power use in Gore's 20-room mansion.

An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."

"Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground -- one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen si
nk and toilets," it said. "The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater."

In addition, "the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume."

As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) charged on Monday that Gore's mansion in Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said TCPR President Drew Johnson.

David Roberts, staff writer for the online environmental magazine Grist, Wednesday criticized the analysis by the TCPR, which he described as an "attack group from Tennessee."

The center's report had been "thrown together purely for the purpose of attack
ing Al Gore after the Oscars," Roberts told Cybercast News Service.

It was unfair, he said, to compare Gore's electrical consumption to the national average, which "includes apartments and trailer homes and is an average across all climatic zones, some of which are quite temperate."

Gore and his wife, Tipper, "both work out of their house" and "have special security measures for an ex-vice president, all of which naturally increases the electricity use in the home," Roberts added.

Moreover, Gore "pays almost a 50 percent premium to buy the 'green power' offered from his electrical company," which generates its voltage from hydroelectric and nuclear power rather than coal, he said.

"If every national leader did as much as Al Gore does to ameliorate their impact on the climate, the world would be a much better place."

Nevertheless, Roberts conceded that the energy efficiency of the president's home in Crawford is "fantastic."

"I wish that George Bush would back publ
ic policy that is in line with what he does on his ranch," he said.


Johnson of the TCPR defended his group's report against criticism from Gore's supporters.

He acknowledged that the information was obtained from the National Electric Service the day after Gore won his Oscar, but argued that "it is fair to compare Gore's [energy] use to what most Americans are used to."

"All of the niceties he may have and all the extra people he may have running in and out of his house still shouldn't mean that the person leading this environmental charge should have 20 times the electrical consumption of the average American," Johnson charged.

The CEI's Lewis said the disparity between Gore's message on global warming and his power consumption reflected an "elitist mentality."

"The average soccer mom can't afford to plant trees in the rainforest in order to remain carbon neutral," he said.

"All these jet-setters' lives con
sist of going to conferences in other countries by burning jet fuel and staying in posh hotels where they keep the lights on all day and so on in order to tut-tut about how wasteful the rest of us are in our use of energy," he stated.

"They always make an exception for themselves because what they're doing is so important."


The Bobster
08-26-2008, 10:22 AM

Predictions of ice free" summer for first time in history completely debunked
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Alarmist scientists who predicted that the North Pole could be ice free" this summer as a result of global warming have been embarrassed after it was revealed that Arctic ice has actually grown by around 30 per cent in the year since August 2007.

Back in June, numerous prominent voices in the scientific community expressed fears of a mass melting of the polar ice caps, including David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, who told National Geographic Magazine, Were actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]."

This summers forecastand unusual early
melting events all around the Arcticserve as a dire warning of how quickly the polar regions are being affected by climate change," adds the article.

In February, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, told Xinhua, If Norways average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions."

As per usual, the reality has failed to match the hype of the climate doomsayers.

According to collated data from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the University of Illinois, Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. This is a conservative estimate based on the map projection.

Blue pixels represent increased ice coverage over the North Pole in the year since August 2007.

But what of the Antarctic
down south? Figures tell us that ice coverage in the year since August 2007 has grown by nearly one million square kilometers.

As The Register article notes, The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didnt even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss."

A general cooling trend across the planet is now clearly apparent as sunspot activity, the main driver of climate change, dwindles to almost nothing.

As we reported last week, A top observatory that has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next two decades as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.

While the mass media, Al Gore and politicized bodies like the
IPCC scaremonger about the perils of global warming and demand the poor and middle class pay CO2 taxes, both hard scientific data and circumstantial evidence points to a clear cooling trend.

How man-made global warming advocates will spin this one remains to be seen - maybe they will just continue to adopt their current tactic by claiming that any geological or weather event whatsoever, be it hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts or floods, temperature increase or decrease, and even a 30 per cent growth of the polar ice cap - is a result of that evil life-giving gas that we exhale - CO2.

08-29-2008, 08:44 AM
Great find, Bobster!

The Bobster
09-02-2008, 10:32 AM
Thank you. The media bury the truth when it doesn't suit their agenda. Meanwhile they cherry pick the rare climate events that do.

09-02-2008, 04:25 PM
Excellent post Bobster--if you don't mind, I'm sending a copy over to Climate Hoax - Canada (http://climatehoax.ca/forum/index.php) where we have a thread going on the Northwest Passage myth:

Summer Solstice Doomsday Predictions (http://climatehoax.ca/forum/index.php?topic=87.0)

White Boy
09-02-2008, 11:24 PM

Tuesday, September 02, 2008
No Sun Spots Means Bigger Problem: Global Cooling, NOT Global Warming

Another nail in the globaloney coffin!

What could be worse than Al Gore's apocalyptic scaremongering on global warming? A new ice age brought on not by man's emission of CO2 but the Sun taking a holiday.

It's a definite possibility especially with this latest news:

No spots means no warming and might mean rapid cooling.

Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century (http://www.dailytech.com/Sun%2BMakes%2BHistory%2BFirst%2BSpotless%2BMonth%2 Bin%2Ba%2BCentury/article12823.htm)
By Michael Asher
Daily Tech
September 1, 2008

Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth.

The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.

According to data from Mount Wilson Observatory, UCLA, more than an entire month has passed without a spot. The last time such an event occurred was June of 1913. Sunspot data has been collected since 1749.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop to near-zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins.

But this year -- which corresponds to the start of Solar Cycle 24 -- has been extraordinarily long and quiet, with the first seven months averaging a sunspot number of only 3. August followed with none at all. The astonishing rapid drop of the past year has defied predictions, and caught nearly all astronomers by surprise.

In the past 1000 years, three previous such events -- the Dalton, Maunder, and Sporer Minimums, have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called a "mini ice age". For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.

And lest you think a new ice age would be better than global warming, think again. Famine, disease, death and political chaos worldwide would likely be the result.

09-05-2008, 06:10 PM
Wilson row over green 'alarmists'

The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a "hysterical psuedo-religion".

In an article in the News Letter, Mr Wilson said he believed it occurred naturally and was not man-made.

"Resources should be used to adapt to the consequences of climate change, rather than King Canute-style vainly trying to stop it," said the minister.

Peter Doran of the Green Party said it was a "deeply irresponsible message."

Mr Wilson said he refused to "blindly accept" the need to make significant changes to the economy to stop climate change.

"The tactic used by the "green gang" is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact," he said.

The minister said he accepted climate change can occur, but does not believe the cause has been identified.

"Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists."

John Woods of Friends of the Earth said Mr Wilson was "like a cigarette salesman denying that smoking causes cancer".

"Ironically, if we listen to him Northern Ireland will suffer economically as we are left behind by smarter regions who are embracing the low carbon economy of the future."

It is the latest clash between Mr Wilson and green groups since his appointment as environment minister in June.


09-13-2008, 04:54 AM
Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than 35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and could encourage further direct action.

Kingsnorth was the centre for mass protests by climate camp activists last month. Last year, three protesters managed to paint Gordon Brown's name on the plant's chimney. Their handi-work cost 35,000 to remove.

The plan to build a successor to the power station is likely to be the first of a new generation of coal-fired plants. As coal produces more of the carbon emissions causing climate change than any other fuel, campaigners claim that a new station would be a disastrous setback in the battle against global warming, and send out a negative signal to the rest of the world about how serious Britain really is about tackling the climate threat.

But the proposals, from the energy giant E.ON, are firmly backed by the Business Secretary, John Hutton, and the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks. Some members of the Cabinet are thought to be unhappy about them, including the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn. Mr Brown is likely to have the final say on the matter later this year.

During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa, who had flown from American to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to "take a leadership role" in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.

Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.

He was one of several leading public figures who gave evidence for the defence, including Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park and director of the Ecologist magazine, who similarly told the jury that in his opinion, direct action could be justified in the minds of many people if it was intended to prevent larger crimes being committed.

The acquittal was the second time in a decade that the "lawful excuse" defence has been successfully used by Greenpeace activists. In 1999, 28 Greenpeace campaigners led Lord Melchett, who was director at the time, were cleared of criminal damage after trashing an experimental field of GM crops in Norfolk. In each case the damage was not disputed the point at issue was the motive.

The defendants who scaled the 630ft chimney at Kingsnorth, near Hoo, last year were Huw Williams, 41, from Nottingham; Ben Stewart, 34, from Lyminge, Kent; Kevin Drake, 44, from Westbury, Wiltshire; Will Rose, 29, from London; and Emily Hall, 34, from New Zealand. Tim Hewke, 48, from Ulcombe, Kent, helped organise the protest.

The court heard how, dressed in orange boiler suits and white hard hats bearing the Greenpeace logo, the six-strong group arrived at the site at 6.30am on 8 October. Armed with bags containing abseiling gear, five of them scaled the chimney while Mr Hewke waited below to liaise between the climbers and police.

The climbers had planned to paint "Gordon, bin it" in huge letters on the side of the chimney, but although they succeeded in temporarily shutting the station, they only got as far as painting the word "Gordon" on the chimney before they descended, having been threatened with a High Court injunction. Removing the graffiti cost E.ON 35,000, the court heard.

During the trial the defendants said they had acted lawfully, owing to an honestly held belief that their attempt to stop emissions from Kingsnorth would prevent further damage to properties worldwide caused by global warming. Their aim, they said, was to rein back CO2 emissions and bring urgent pressure to bear on the Government and E.ON to changes policies. They insisted their action had caused the minimum amount of damage necessary to close the plant down and constituted a "proportionate response" to the increasing environmental threat.

Speaking outside court after being cleared yesterday, Mr Stewart said: "This is a huge blow for ministers and their plans for new coal-fired power stations. It wasn't only us in the dock, it was the coal-fired generation as well. After this verdict, the only people left in Britain who think new coal is a good idea are John Hutton and Malcolm Wicks. It's time the Prime Minister stepped in, showed some leadership and embraced the clean energy future for Britain."

He added: "This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement. When a jury of normal people say it is legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, then where does that leave Government energy policy? We have the clean technologies at hand to power our economy. It's time we turned to them instead of coal."

Ms Hall said: "The jury heard from the most distinguished climate scientist in the world. How could they ignore his warnings and reject his leading scientific arguments?"

Interesting? Click here to explore further


09-21-2008, 08:37 AM
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh

Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.

If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.

For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.


The Bobster
09-21-2008, 10:27 AM
During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa, who had flown from American to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to "take a leadership role" in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.

Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.

Why hasn't this clown been fired? He takes millions in payoffs from the global warming kooks like George Soros and travels all over the world to promote this crap. Yet NASA still keeps hm on their payroll?

09-24-2008, 06:18 PM

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.The former U.S. vice president, whose climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that "the world has lost ground to the climate crisis."

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.

"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."

The government says about 28 coal plants are under construction in the United States. Another 20 projects have permits or are near the start of construction.

Scientists say carbon gases from burning fossil fuel for power and transport are a key factor in global warming.

Carbon capture and storage could give coal power an extended lease on life by keeping power plants' greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere and easing climate change.

But no commercial-scale project exists anywhere to demonstrate the technology, partly because it is expected to increase up-front capital costs by an additional 50 percent.

So-called geo-sequestration of carbon sees carbon dioxide liquefied and pumped into underground rock layers for long term storage.


09-28-2008, 10:21 AM
BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was biased 'one-sided polemic'

The BBC is being investigated by television watchdogs after a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views were deliberately misrepresented.
Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, says he was made to look like a potty peer on a TV programme that was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming.
Earth: The Climate Wars, which was broadcast on BBC 2, was billed as a definitive guide to the history of global warming, including arguments for and against.
During the series, Dr Iain Stewart, a geologist, interviewed leading climate change sceptics, including Lord Monckton. But the peer complained to Ofcom that the broadcast had been unfairly edited.
I very much hope Ofcom will do something about this, he said yesterday.
The BBC very gravely misrepresented me and several others, as well as the science behind our argument. It is a breach of its code of conduct.
I was interviewed for 90 minutes and all my views were backed up by sound scientific data, but this was all omitted. They made it sound as if these were just my personal views, as if I was some potty peer. It was caddish of them.
Ofcom confirmed it was looking into a fairness complaint about the documentary.
A BBC spokesman said: We stand by the programme.
Lord Monckton, 56, a former journalist and Cambridge graduate, says scientific data shows the world is cooler today than in the Middle Ages.
He appeared alongside other sceptics including distinguished Florida-based meteorologist Professor Fred Singer, John Christy, a climate change expert and adviser to the U.S. government and the climatologist Dr Patrick Michaels, of the University of Virginia.
All their interviews, he claims, were heavily cut so that they appeared as personal views.
We do not dispute that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but we do dispute its effects, he said. The data shows that 2008 is the same temperature as 1980 and that the effects of these changes in the atmosphere are not negative but more likely to be beneficial.
Lord Monckton played a key role in a legal challenge heard in the High Court in October 2007 in an effort to prevent Al Gores film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, from being shown in English schools.


10-19-2008, 12:54 PM
On Global Warming, McCain and Obama Agree: Urgent Action Is Needed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/us/politics/19climate.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin)

Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama part company on many issues, but they agree that the Bush administrations policies on global warming were far too weak.

Both candidates say that human-caused climate change is real and urgent, and that they would sharply diverge from President Bushs course by proposing legislation requiring sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury.

Such rare agreement has both industry and environmental groups expecting a big shift, no matter who is elected, on three fronts where the United States has been largely static for eight years: climate legislation, expansion of nonpolluting energy sources and leadership in global talks on fashioning a new climate treaty.

10-20-2008, 04:36 PM
Blow to image of green reusable nappy

A government report that found old-fashioned reusable nappies damage the environment more than disposables has been hushed up because ministers are embarrassed by its findings.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has instructed civil servants not to publicise the conclusions of the 50,000 nappy research project and to adopt a defensive stance towards its conclusions.

The report found that using washable nappies, hailed by councils throughout Britain as a key way of saving the planet, have a higher carbon footprint than their disposable equivalents unless parents adopt an extreme approach to laundering them.

To reduce the impact of cloth nappies on climate change parents would have to hang wet nappies out to dry all year round, keep them for years for use on younger children, and make sure the water in their washing machines does not exceed 60C.

The conclusions will upset proponents of real nappies who have claimed they can help save the planet.

Restricted Whitehall documents, seen by The Sunday Times, show that the government is so concerned by the negative laundry options outlined in the report, it has told its media managers not to give its conclusions any publicity.

The report found that while disposable nappies used over 2 years would have a global warming , impact of 550kg of CO2 reusable nappies produced 570kg of CO2 on average. But if parents used tumble dryers and washed the reusable nappies at 90C, the impact could spiral to . 993kg of CO2 A Defra spokesman said the government was shelving plans for future research on nappies.


11-06-2008, 05:36 AM

FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.

A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.

Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.

His crime? Bellamy says he doesnt believe in man-made global warming.

Here he reveals why and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

"When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didnt believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be.

I am a scientist and I have to *follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my *opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

The sad fact is that since I said I didnt believe human beings caused global warming Ive not been allowed to make a TV programme.

My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?

It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock.

The truth is, I didnt think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy so I said so. Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasnt doing that.

At that point I was still making loads of television programmes and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they werent getting taken up. Ive asked around about why Ive been ignored but I found that people didnt get back to me.

At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic, and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now weve seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly and theyve not grown for a long time.

Ive seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies carbon dioxide is not the driver.

The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, its a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer.

If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago wed be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldnt be here otherwise.

People such as former American Vice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if youve got no proof.

And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The *science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, its not even science any more, its anti-science.

Theres no proof, its just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs.

To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle and theres nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesnt actually exist.

And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But thats not global warming. Theyre drying up for the very *simple reason that most of them have dams around them.

So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and veget*ables for the supermarkets of Europe.

One of Al Gores biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming. Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every ton of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water.

The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. Im still an environmentalist, Im still a Green and Im still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming problem that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.

Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are much bigger problems at stake.
I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues. For example, we must stop the dest*ruc*tion of trop*ical rainforests, something Ive been saying for 35 years.

Mother nature will balance things out but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas.
That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.


11-13-2008, 07:06 AM
Global warning: We are actually heading towards a new Ice Age, claim scientists (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1085359/Global-warning-We-actually-heading-new-Ice-Age-claim-scientists.html)

It has plagued scientists and politicians for decades, but scientists now say global warming is not the problem.

We are actually heading for the next Ice Age, they claim.

British and Canadian experts warned the big freeze could bury the east of Britain in 6,000ft of ice.

Most of Scotland, Northern Ireland and England could be covered in 3,000ft-thick ice fields.

The expanses could reach 6,000ft from Aberdeen to Kent towering above Ben Nevis, Britains tallest mountain.

And what's more, the experts blame the global change on falling - rather than climbing - levels of greenhouse gases.

Lead author Thomas Crowley from the University of Edinburgh and Canadian colleague William Hyde say that currently vilified greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide could actually be the key to averting the chill.

The warning, published in the authoritative journal Nature, is based on records of tiny marine fossils and the earths shifting orbit.

The Earth has seen dramatic climate fluctuations veering between cold and warm extremes - over the past three million years, the researchers say.

And changes in the Earths orbit and slowly falling levels of carbon dioxide are the cause.

The team says we are approaching a turning point, in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years, which will lead to the new ice sheets smothering much of Europe, Asia and South America.

The theory, which is based on computer models, suggests ice sheets will also slash sea levels by up to 300m, so Russia and Alaska will be connected by land.

The North Sea will become part of a huge glacier stretching from Holland and Scandinavia to the Russian Far East.

11-18-2008, 02:28 PM
Obama's Global Warming Message

12-12-2008, 11:10 AM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/12/12/article-1094190-02B1CDEA000005DC-233_468x286.jpg (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094190/Britain-shivers-coldest-start-winter-30-years-bookies-slash-odds-white-Christmas.html)
A herd of deer make their way through the snow near Ripon, northern England earlier this month, as Britain endured its coldest start to winter in 30 years

Britain shivers through coldest start to winter for 30 years as bookies slash odds on white Christmas (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094190/Britain-shivers-coldest-start-winter-30-years-bookies-slash-odds-white-Christmas.html)

Britain is shivering through the coldest start to winter for more than 30 years, the Met Office has revealed.

The average temperature for the first third of December was a chilly 1.7C (35.1F)- compared to the long term average of 5.2C (41.4F), according to official figures.

Bookies have slashed their odds on a white Christmas to 4/1 in London and just 2/1 in Aberdeen.

They have even seen a flurry of bets on the Thames freezing over thanks to the freezing weather.

The news will come as no surprise to the millions of Britons who have spent the last few weeks braving early morning ice and scraping frost from their windscreens.

Heavy snow and ice blanketed much of the country as thermometers struggled to rise above freezing during the first ten days of the month.

Ironically, the cold start to winter was announced on the day that ministers were meeting in Brussels to set new global warming targets and at the end of the first week of major UN climate change talks in Poland.

The frosts and wintery showers of the last few weeks - which saw night-time temperatures plunge to minus 12.7C (9.1F) - are in stark contrast to the recent run of mild winters which have seen lawnmowers in action in December, and roses blooming in January.

The last time Britain had such as cold start to December was in 1976 - only a few months after the scorching drought summer.

Then the average temperature was a chilly 0.8C (33.4F).

Climate scientists say 2008 will be the coldest year globally this decade.

The first snow of winter fell in England in October this year. London and the South East saw snow showers on October 29.

The Bobster
12-14-2008, 05:28 PM
I've never seen a bigger pile of lies.


Obongo left with little time to curb global warming

WASHINGTON When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.

Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.

"The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," he said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. "We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."

But there are powerful political and economic realities that must be quickly overcome for Obama to succeed. Despite the urgency he expresses, it's not at all clear that he and Congress will agree on an approach during a worldwide financial crisis in time to meet some of the more crucial deadlines.

Obama is pushing changes in the way Americans use energy, and produce greenhouse gases, as part of what will be a massive economic stimulus. He called it an opportunity "to re-power America."

After years of inaction on global warming, 2009 might be different. Obama replaces a president who opposed mandatory cuts of greenhouse gas pollution and it appears he will have a willing Congress. Also, next year, diplomats will try to agree on a major new international treaty to curb the gases that promote global warming.

"We need to start in January making significant changes," Gore said in a recent telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This year coming up is the most important opportunity the world has ever had to make progress in really solving the climate crisis."

Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding "tipping points."

"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."

U.S. emissions have increased by 20 percent since 1992. China has more than doubled its carbon dioxide pollution in that time. World carbon dioxide emissions have grown faster than scientists' worst-case scenarios. Methane, the next most potent greenhouse gas, suddenly is on the rise again and scientists fear that vast amounts of the trapped gas will escape from thawing Arctic permafrost.

The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has already pushed past what some scientists say is the safe level.

In the early 1990s, many scientists figured that the world was about a century away from a truly dangerous amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Mike MacCracken, who was a top climate scientist in the Clinton administration. But as they studied the greenhouse effect further, scientists realized that harmful changes kick in at far lower levels of carbon dioxide than they thought. Now some scientists, but not all, say the safe carbon dioxide level for Earth is about 10 percent below what it is now.

Gore called the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."

Scientists fear that what's happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago. (They said it would be ice-free this year, but there was 35% MORE ice!)

In December 2009, diplomats are charged with forging a new treaty replacing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set limits on greenhouse gases, and which the United States didn't ratify. This time European officials have high expectations for the U.S. to take the lead. But many experts don't see Congress passing a climate bill in time because of pressing economic and war issues.

"The reality is, it may take more than the first year to get it all done," Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said recently.

Complicating everything is the worldwide financial meltdown. Frank Maisano, a Washington energy specialist and spokesman who represents coal-fired utilities and refineries, sees the poor economy as "a huge factor" that could stop everything. That's because global warming efforts are aimed at restricting coal power, which is cheap. That would likely mean higher utility bills and more damage to ailing economies that depend on coal production, he said.

Obama is stacking his Cabinet and inner circle with advocates who have pushed for deep mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas pollution and even with government officials who have achieved results at the local level.

The President-elect has said that one of the first things he will do when he gets to Washington is grant California and other states permission to control car tailpipe emissions, something the Bush administration denied.

And though congressional action may take time, the incoming Congress will be more inclined to act on global warming. In the House, liberal California Democrat Henry Waxman's unseating of Michigan Rep. John Dingell a staunch defender of Detroit automakers as head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was a sign that global warming will be on the fast track.

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., vowed to push two global warming bills starting in January: one to promote energy efficiency as an economic stimulus and the other to create a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from utilities. "The time is now," she wrote in a Dec. 8 letter to Obama.

Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government's machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

The average global temperature in 2008 is likely to wind up slightly under 57.9 degrees Fahrenheit, about a tenth of a degree cooler than last year. (When it dropped almost a full degree!!) When Clinton was inaugurated, 57.9 easily would have been the warmest year on record. Now, that temperature would qualify as the ninth warmest year.

12-28-2008, 07:19 AM
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.
The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".
Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.
First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.
Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).
Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.
Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.
Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess. As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis now fast approaching from the fact that unless we get on very soon with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile displacement activity, it is high time our politicians along with those of the EU and President Obama's US were brought back with a mighty jolt into contact with the real world.


12-31-2008, 08:50 AM
Environment minister Sammy Wilson: I still think man-made climate change is a con
Wednesday, 31 December 2008

Spending billions on trying to reduce carbon emissions is one giant con that is depriving third world countries of vital funds to tackle famine, HIV and other diseases, Sammy Wilson said.

The DUP minister has been heavily criticised by environmentalists for claiming that ongoing climatic shifts are down to nature and not mankind.

But while acknowledging his views on global warming may not be popular, the East Antrim MP said he was not prepared to be bullied by eco fundamentalists.

Ill not be stopped saying what I believe needs to be said about climate change," he said.

"Most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about it

I think in 20 years time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all. Because there is now a degree of hysteria about it, fairly unformed hysteria Ive got to say as well.

I mean I get it in the Assembly all the time and most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change, not read one book about climate change, if you asked them to explain how they believe theres a connection between CO2 emission and the effects which they claim theres going to be, if you ask them to explain the thought process or the modelling that is required and the assumptions behind that and how tenuous all the connections are, they wouldnt have a clue.

They simply get letters about it from all these lobby groups, its popular and therefore they go along with the flow and that would be ok if there were no implications for it, but the implications are immense."

He said while people in the western world were facing spiralling fuel bills as a result of efforts to cut CO2, the implications in poorer countries were graver.

What are the problems that face us either locally and internationally. Are those not the things we should be concentrating on?" he asked.

HIV, lack of clean water, which kills millions of people in third world countries, lack of education.

A fraction of the money we are currently spending on climate change could actually eradicate those three problems alone, a fraction of it.

I think as a society we sometimes need to get some of these things in perspective and when I listen to some of the rubbish that is spoken by some of my colleagues in the Assembly it amuses me at times and other times it angers me."

Despite his views on CO2, Mr Wilson said he does not intend to backtrack on commitments made by his predecessor at the Department of the Environment, Arlene Foster, to make the Stormont estate carbon neutral.

He said while he wasnt worried about reducing CO2 output, he said the policy would help to cut fuels bills.

I dont couch those actions in terms of reducing Co2 emissions," he said. I dont care about Co2 emissions to be quite truthful because I dont think its all that important but what I do believe is, and perhaps this is where there can be some convergence, as far as using fuel more efficiently that is good for our economy; that makes us more competitive. If we can save in schools hundreds of thousands on fuel thats more money being put for books or classroom assistants.

So yes there are things we can do. If you want to express it terms of carbon neutral, I just express it terms of making the place more efficient, less wasteful and hopefully that will release money to do the proper things that we should be doing."


White Boy
01-01-2009, 06:42 PM

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Michael Asher (Blog) - January 1, 2009 11:31 AM

Thirty years of sea ice data. The record begins at 1979, the year satellite observations began (Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois) Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center
, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was d
ue in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.

01-06-2009, 04:37 AM
At -10C Britain's colder than the Antarctic.. and experts say it will get even COLDER (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1105053/At-10C-Britains-colder-Antarctic--experts-say-COLDER.html)

The big chill today tightened its grip on London and the South-East with temperatures hitting as low as -10C making it colder than parts of Greenland and the Antarctic.

The Met Office issued a severe weather warning for the capital as emergency cold weather payments for 600,000 people were triggered for the first time in a decade and only the second time ever.

Ice formed on the Serpentine and Grand Union canal and fountains in Trafalgar Square froze up.

The coldest temperature in England early today was -10C recorded at Farnborough in Hampshire, while several other towns recorded -7C.

The Met Office said it expected temperatures to be another degree lower tonight in many
areas of the South as an unusually large high pressure system continues to dominate.

The plunge in temperatures is 10C below the norm for this time of year and compares with -4C in the Greenland be on their way by tomorrow.

Experts also predicted parts of southern England and South Wales will register the lowest temperatures in the UK tonight and tomorrow morning.

01-07-2009, 09:25 AM
The fountains in Trafalgar Square froze over because of the bitter cold in London

The day the sea froze: Temperatures plunge to MINUS 12C and forecasters say it won't warm up until Sunday (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1107986/The-day-sea-froze-Temperatures-plunge-MINUS-12C-forecasters-say-wont-warm-Sunday.html)

Temperatures plunged so low today that the sea actually began to freeze as Arctic conditions continued to grip the UK.

In the exclusive enclave of Sandbanks in Poole, Dorset, a half-mile stretch along the shoreline reaching about 20 yards out to sea is covered in ice.

The enclosed area and lack of movement caused by light tides would make the sea here more susceptible to this occurring, said Tony Conlan, a forecaster with the Met

The sea freezing is a relatively rare occurrence and the last time the sea in the South froze was in February 1991. It was in 1963 that the seas iced over more widely.

In southern England, normally immune to the worst of the cold weather in winter, temperatures fell as low as -12C and the chill will go on for several days according to forecasters.

01-07-2009, 02:41 PM
This is just to satisfy my own curiosity. Here are the lowest temperatures recorded for UK and the US. Did you know, with the exception of Alaska and Montana, my own fair Kingdom of Deseret has the lowest recorded temperature in the US. No kidding, –69 F or –56 C (see chart below).


What is the temperature of the coldest day in england? (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_temperature_of_the_coldest_day_in_engl and)

-27.2 degrees C, is the coldest recorded temperature in the UK. It was recorded in Scotland. 11 February 1895 and 10 January 1982 Braemar (Aberdeenshire) also 30 December 1995 Altnaharra (Highland).

The coldest recorded temperature in England was -26.1 degrees C, 10 January 1982 in Shawbury Shropshire. The man who took the temperature was Mr Bill Burrell from Edgmond
, near Newport in Shropshire.

Record Lowest Temperatures by State (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0113527.html) (US)

01-28-2009, 09:24 AM
I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/)

The retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a sceptic.

Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009, and excerpts were published by skeptic Senator Inhofe's office last night.

"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field cente
rs, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," Theon wrote. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made."ÂÂÃÂ

Theon takes aim at the models, and implicitly criticises Hansen for revising to the data set:

My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.

"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to det
ermine public policy."ÂÂÃÂ

Hansen is in charge of the GISS data set, derived from readings published by NOAA. The GISS adjustment have received criticism (a potted summary here) for revising the historic record in an upward direction - and making undocumented and unexplained revisions.

Theon also takes issue with Hansen's claim that he was suppressed by NASA officialdom, and states that the science didn't support Hansen's increasingly apocalyptic warnings of an imminent thermageddon.

Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress."

Hansen has called for energy industry executives to be jailed for dissenting from the man-made warming hypothesis.

02-16-2009, 11:04 AM
Former astronaut speaks out on global warming

SANTA FE, N.M. - Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.

"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.

"They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.

Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.

Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."

Williams said Heartland is skeptical about the crisis that people are proclaiming in global warming.

"Not that the planet hasn’t warmed. We know it has or we’d all still be in the Ice Age," he said. "But it has not reached a crisis proportion and, even among us skeptics, there’s disagreement about how much man has been responsible for that warming."

Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degr
ee per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.

Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level have been going on for thousands of years. He said smaller changes are related to changes in the elevation of land masses — for example, the Great Lakes are rising because the earth’s crust is rebounding from being depressed by glaciers.

Schmitt, who grew up in Silver City and now lives in Albuquerque, has a science degree from the California Institute of Technology. He also studied geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964.

In 1972, he was one of the last men to walk on the moon as part of the Apollo 17 mission.

Schmitt said he’s heartened that the upcoming conference is made up of scientists who haven’t been manipulated by politics.

Of the global warming debate, he said: "It’s one of the few times you’
;ve seen a sizable portion of scientists who ought to be objective take a political position and it’s coloring their objectivity."

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_w arming/srvc=home&position=recent

02-26-2009, 05:09 AM
Global warming isn't man-made (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/)

Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is aston
ishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you'll find some of the key findings - but first, a summary.


Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.

Kanya Kusano is Program
Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:

"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:

"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "

fu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.

"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."

continued at link (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/page2.html)

The Bobster
03-12-2009, 04:32 PM

Networks Stick to Warming Theme Despite Avalanche of Chilling News
Alarmists get snowed in for Washington, D.C. rally; networks mostly ignore signs of cooling temps, 'record' cold.

March 4, 2009
By Julia A. Seymour - Business & Media Institute

Global warming alarmists repeatedly link weather phenomena like tornadoes, hurricanes, ice melt, droughts and wildfires with global warming and the media embrace the stories. Yet, when cities or regions are buried in snow like the city of Chenzhou, China was in February 2008 there wasn't a word about climate change in the cooling direction.

"It is being called China's Hurricane Katrina," NBC anchor Brian Williams said on Feb. 4, 2008. "... the
month of blizzards that have brought it [China] to a virtual standstill. Millions have been stranded. Hundreds of thousands of people are homeless." Williams didn't chalk up the devastation to global cooling, of course. That doesn't fit the media's warming narrative.

James Hansen, a leading global warming alarmist, promoted a "civil disobedience" protest at a Washington, D.C. coal power plant March 2. The protestors claim that coal - and its carbon emissions are a cause of global warming. Hansen and his friends were greeted with 8 inches of snow, "strong" winds and below freezing temperatures.

The same day, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Chairman Edward Markey, D-Mass., both had to cancel appearances at another global warming event on Capitol Hill because of the snowy weather.

Those protests did not make the evening news programs on March 2. They may have been crowded out by coverage of the "epic" winter storm
on all three networks - still there wasn't a single mention of a cooling cycle.

ABC, CBS and NBC haven't used the phrase "global cooling" at all since Jan. 1, 2008, despite many instances of "record cold," "record snow" and reports from scientists that the world has been cooling off slightly since 2000 or 2001, according to a Nexis search.

The term, "cooling trend," when used on the networks only referred to global climate twice. In both cases the phrase was used by Gov. Sarah Palin. A search for "cooling" and "climate" turned up 10 mentions, but only one example of the media reporting cooler temperatures.

Compare those figures to a Nexis search for "global warming" that yielded 336 hits between Jan. 1, 2008 and March 2, 2009. A search for "global warming" or "climate change" nabbed 571 hits during the same time.

Even in the midst of a major cold spell, ABC returned to the global warming stories. On March 3, 2009, the network continued to hype the idea that the North Pole wi
ll soon be ice-free, but ignored the fact that as of fall 2008 arctic ice caps had grown by 150,000 square miles.

Lows Can't Get Us Down

Even record low temperatures, record snowfalls and snow in odd places didn't stop the network media from worrying about the threat of global warming.

On Feb. 12, 2008, "Good Morning America" said that 32 states were experiencing record lows or nearly record lows. Las Vegas and Texas both had snow in December 2008, and in November 2008 North Carolina and Georgia were facing January temperatures.

Still, the networks remained virtually silent on the possibility of global cooling, and even kept up the drumbeat of global warming stories.

ABC's weather editor Sam Champion was the only person on three networks who mentioned a NASA report which said 2008 was the coldest year since 2000. But he was cautious:

"It feels like the coldest winter in years. And a report from NASA climate scientists says 2008 was the coolest year sin
ce 2000," Champion told "Good Morning America" viewers on Jan. 15. "But they caution this was caused in part by a cooling La Nina in the Pacific and warn global warming is still playing an important part in our changing climate."

On Inauguration Day 2009, as Washington, D.C. collectively shivered from the 28 degree temperature, plus a wind chill that made it feel like 18 degrees outside, NBC historian Michael Beschloss brought up the specter of "global warming."

Beschloss was discussing the inaugural parade and as the camera turned to President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama and their two children walking to the reviewing box, he described the scene: "And this wooden path that they're walking down actually dates to many previous inaugurations because a lot of them had snow. It may just be that because of global warming the last few have not." (Emphasis added)

Cool It

The fact is a number of studies and scientists have warned that the Earth might be in a cooling
phase - despite the networks silence on the matter.

Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the executive director of International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), recently "quibbled" with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) data since 1880 which shows a spike in mean temperature.

D'Aleo told CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, "[I]f you look at the satellite data, which is the most reliable data, the best coverage of the globe - 2008 was the 14th coldest in 30 years. That doesn't jibe with the tenth warmest in 159 years in the Hadley data set or 113 or 114 years in the NOAA set."

Discovery News announced on March 2 that a new study from Geophysical Research Letters suggests "global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades."

Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee thinks the cooling trend could last up to 30 years, but cautioned that it would be a "hiccup" in the warming of the Earth according to Dis
covery News. "When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming."

Atmospheric scientist William Gray has also said temperatures are dropping. Gray cited a "weak cooling trend since 2001," according to the Feb. 16 Barron's, and he predicted a "modest naturally driven global cooling over the next 15-20 years," similar to the 1940s to ‘70s.

Back in February 2008, Fox News anchor Brit Hume reported that "all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year."

"California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree," Hume continued. "That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded - up or down."

Clamming up for Cap-and-Trade

e the findings of scientists like D'Aleo, Swanson, Gray and Watts, the media ignore the possibility of a cooling trend just as government is poised to implement a green agenda.

Politicians in Washington stand ready to solve the "global warming" crisis by hiking energy prices with a cap-and-trade plan and further damaging a battered economy. President Obama himself called for a cap-and-trade program in his not-quite a State of the Union address Feb. 25.

Obama said, "To truly transform our economy, to protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. That's what we need."

The president's budget plan released Feb. 26 even counted on the implementation of cap-and-trade to pay for his "Making Work Pay" tax credit, accordin
g to the Washington Post.

A cap-and-trade proposal like Obama's would come with tremendous costs and not only to taxpayers. Duke Energy Corp.'s CEO James Rogers told Bloomberg.com that Obama's plan would "increase electricity bills by as much as 40 percent in some U.S. states." Rogers is actually a proponent of cap-and-trade, but cited flaws in the president's plan which he termed "cap and tax" instead of "cap and trade."

The Wall Street Journal's eco-blog, "Environmental Capital," said that a previous cap-and-trade plan - Lieberman-Warner - could cost between "0.5% of GDP and about 2% of GDP by 2030." Obama's plan would also have a huge cost. According to U.S. News & World Report's James Pethokoukis Obama's plan would be a "de facto business tax" of roughly 20 percent on top of corporate tax rates - which are already the second highest in the world.

Iain Murray, Director of Projects and Analysis and a Senior Fellow for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote about the cons
equences of global warming alarmism on CEI's Open Market blog March 2.

Murray mentioned a Johns Hopkins study that found "replacing Úà of coal-based energy with higher priced energy would lead to 150,000 extra premature deaths annually in the US alone." He also cited a Congressional Budget Office report that found a cap-and-trade system would harm the poorest 20 percent of Americans while benefiting the wealthiest, and a Penn State study that found replacing coal power would cost 3-4 million jobs.

A Climate of Media Bias on Warming

It's no surprise that network journalists gave cooling claims the cold shoulder in 2008 and into 2009. After all, these are the same networks that continually shut out debate on the global warming.

In 2007, the Business & Media Institute looked at news media coverage of climate change and found alarmism stretching back 100 years. BMI's Special Report: Fire & Ice exposed the media's warnings about impending climate doom during four differen
t times in the last century switching from worries over global cooling to warming to cooling to warming again.

Atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer does not think cooling or warming cycles are something to worry about. In a 2000 PBS interview Singer said, "Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat, because, obviously, in the past human beings have adapted to all kinds of climate changes."

In 2007, Singer directly addressed global warming, saying, "The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals."

BMI examined the climate change issue again in 2008 with its Special Report, Global Warming Censored, and found that the three networks had silenced the debate over global warming by favoring experts on one side of the issue.
Global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions by 13-to-1. On CBS the radio was an abysmal 38-to-1.

Many of the scientists shut out by the network media will gather in New York City March 8-10, 2009 for the second International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute.

The conference Web site describes the event as the "world's largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics" with about "800 scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives" expected.

Some of the headlining speakers will be Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and the European Union; astronaut and geologist Dr. Jack Schmitt; William Gray, famed hurricane forecaster and atmospheric scientist; Richard Lindzen, meteorology expert from MIT; Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; and Roy Spencer, a NASA research scientist.

Justin Igger
03-13-2009, 04:12 AM
Just remember, if the scientists debunk Al Gore lunacy, there won't be a carbon tax the Libertards want!

The Bobster
03-18-2009, 10:55 AM

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
March 16, 2009 Update:
Marc Morano
EPW Blog

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report

Washington DC: Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists - a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority repor
t since the initial release 13 Úà weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week.

This updated report - which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist - represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report's release in December 2007.
The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.

The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabat
ed in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article in the Australian revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC.

Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that "there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report." [Also See: The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Nor
way in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here -More analyses of recent developments see report's introduction here. ]

"I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues," noted Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros on March 3, 2009. Cuadros is of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers.

Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences lamented the current fears over global warming.

"Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science...It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know b
etter have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best," Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009.

‘Could turn the climate change world upside down'

The rise in skeptical scientists are responding not only to an increase in dire "predictions" of climate change, but also a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and inconvenient developments have further cast doubts on the claims of man-made global warming fear activists. The latest peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters is being touted as a development that "could turn the climate change world upside down." The study finds that the "Earth is undergoing natural climate shift." The March 15, 2009 article in WISN.com details the research of Dr. Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. "We realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer we
re all natural," Tsonis said. "I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing," he added.

Tsonis further added: "The temperature has flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift towards cooler temperatures that will last for probably about three decades." [ See also: Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds - Discovery.com - March 2, 2009 ]

Climate ‘primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms'

Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, also declared natural factors are dominating climate, not CO2. "The recent ‘panic' to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being drive
n by natural forcing mechanisms," Douglas, who is releasing a major new paper she authored that will be presented at a UNESCO conference in Ghent, Belgium on March 20, 2009, told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 10, 2009.

Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and author of more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers, also now points to natural causes of recent climate changes. "The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities," Vaughan told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on February 6, 2009.

Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d'Annunzio in Italy, the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists also agrees that nature,
not mankind is ruling the climate. "I think that climatic changes have natural causes according to geological data...I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate's report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming," Crescenti told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.

UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions, challenged the IPCC's climate claims.

"Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!" Japar told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 7, 2009.

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, says the international promotion of man-made global warming fears are nearing their end. (Note: Bellamy was in the original 2007 U.S. Senate report.] "The *science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it's not even science any more, it's anti-science," Bellamy, who used to believe in man-made warming, declared on November 5, 2008.

‘Journalistic malpractice'

Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics such as methane, squarely blames the media for promoting unfounded climate fears. "The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice...the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical," Chapman
wrote on January 13, 2009.

Highlights of the Updated 2009 Senate Minority Report of 700 plus scientists featuring the 59 additional scientists:

Full Text of the 59 additional scientists' remarks begins on page 70 of report:

The new scientific report "directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC Summary that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous and unprecedented warming." - Quantitative Economist Kenneth A. Haapala, the past president of the prestigious Philosophical Society of Washington, the oldest scientific society in Washington (founded 1871), has reviewed hundreds of reports based on quantitative techniques. Haapala co-authored the report "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate"

"I think that climatic changes have a natural causes according many geological data...I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate's report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming." - Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d'Annu
nzio in Italy is the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists.

"I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science...There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere." - Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the EPA's Science Advisory Board, served on a committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies.

"The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice...the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical." - Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics such as methane.

"Once again we have misleading climate
change pronouncements being based on data errors, data errors detected by non-UN, non-IPCC, non-peer-reviewed external observers...This is exactly what happens when you base your arguments on ‘consensus science' and not scientific fact." - Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, a mathematician, computer programmer, and engineer, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics simulations. Hoffman co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth, described as "bringing a dose of skeptical reality to climate science and the global warming debate."

"The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science." - Computer Modeler and Engineer Allen Simmons, who worked 12 years with NASA's top climate scientists and wrote computer systems software for the world's first weather satellites and aided in the development of computer systems for polar orbiting satellites. Simmons co-authored the new skeptical book The Resilien
t Earth.

Belief in climate models compared to "ancient astrology"... "I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate." - Award-winning Japanese Physicist Dr. Kanya Kusano, program director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology who's research "focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change." compared climate models to "ancient astrology."

"The recent ‘panic' to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms." - Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, specialized in the reconstruction of a variety of proxy data and has wo
rked for the Department of Energy and conducted research for the Arizona State Office of Climatology to investigate the Little Ice Age.

"Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!"- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

"The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities." - Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA's Marshall Space F
light Center and author more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers.

"Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science...It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best." - Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is the current Chair of the U.S. Liaison Committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Austin, who won the 2005 Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society

"If global cooling will come soon -- scientists will lose trust ." - Award-winning Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, was decorate
d with the Medal of Honor with Purple Ribbon for a major contribution in the field of geology, specializes in the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change.

"Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it." - Materials and Research Physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, a former Department of Navy research physicist who has published more than 25 scientific papers specializes in spectroscopy, microscopy, thermal analysis, mass spectroscopy, and surface chemistry.

"The data which is used to date for making the conclusions and predictions on global warming are so rough and primitive, compared to what's needed, and so unreliable that they are not even worth mentioning by respectful scientists." - Award-winning Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer Dr. Gregory W. Moore, who has authored or co-authored more than 75 publications, book chapters, and reports, and authored the 2001 Version of
the NASA Space Science Technology Plan which included a comprehensive approach to studying the Sun-Earth connection aspect of space-based research.

"I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made...Hansen embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming." - Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, a former supervisor of NASA's James Hansen, and the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch.

"I am pleased to be considered a ‘denier' in this cause if this puts me in the class with those who defied prevailing ‘scientific consensus' that the earth was flat and that the earth was the not the center of the universe." - Retired U.S. Air Force (USAF) Meteorologist William "Bill" Lyons, of the USAF's Global Weather Central at Strategic Air Command.

"I do not find the supposed scientific cons
ensus among my colleagues... Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight explanation." - Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers

"It is amazing to me, as a professional geologist, how many otherwise intelligent people have, as some may say, ‘drunk the Al Gore Kool-Aid' concerning global climate change." - Professional Geologist Earl F. Titcomb Jr. has co-authored analyses of geological and seismological hazards.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.'" - Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnic
h, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society and specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

"Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output." - Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

"Whether the ice caps melt, or expa
nd --- whatever happens --- the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology." - Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University has authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books.

"My dear colleague [NASA's James] Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end... The global warming ‘time bomb,' ‘disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.' These are the words of an apocalyptic prophet, not a rational scientist." - Chemist Dr. Nicholas Drapela of the faculty of Oregon State University Chemistry Department

"There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the IPCC...The IPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one...Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community." - Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous scientific publicati
ons who was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee.

3 Ks
03-19-2009, 01:10 AM

Fool-Hardy Fag "Explorers" On Global Warming Expedition Stranded in North Pole by Cold Weather
March 18, 2009

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Three global warming researchers stranded in the North Pole by cold weather were holding out hope Wednesday as a fourth plane set off in an attempt deliver them supplies.

The flight took off during a break in bad weather after “brutal” conditions halted three previous attempts to reach the British explorers who said they were nearly out of food, the Agence France-Presse reported.

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the l
ap of the weather gods.”


Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels began an 85-day hike to the North Pole on February 28 to measure sea ice thickness, the AFP reported.

With bad weather hampering supply flights, the team was down to half-rations, battling desperate sub-zero temperatures and unable to proceed, the AFP reported.

Sooooo, 2 weeks into an 85 day hike, and the faggots have depleted all of their supplies.......real good!:rolleyes:

"It'll be a relief to get our new supplies," Hadow said in a statement Wednesday. "Until (the plane) does arrive, we need to conserve energy and can't really move on."

The expedition now expects to arrive at the North Pole in late May.

The Bobster
03-19-2009, 06:47 AM
They're waiting for global warming - otherwise known as Spring - to save them.

Justin Igger
03-19-2009, 07:44 PM
Lets see of all places to go hiking, the poles aren't mine. Gees... for one, you can, will die! DUH I prefer the carolinas in spring! These clueless morons!!! Gees!!! Wes hungry and cold. Oh Really!!!!! Gees!!!!!! I wonder why? You dumbazz ****s. Pleez stop the stupidity!!!! Anybody!

The Bobster
03-27-2009, 02:53 PM

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy
Friday, March 27, 2009
By George Russell

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes all under the supervision of the world body.

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations "information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhag
en Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.

The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.

In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the "Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol." Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.

Getting that deal done has become the United Nations' highest priority, and the Bonn meeting is seen as a critical step along the path to what the U.N. calls a
n "ambitious and effective international response to climate change," which is intended to culminate at the later gathering in Copenhagen.

Just how ambitious the U.N.'s goals are can be seen, but only dimly, in the note obtained by FOX News, which offers in sparse detail both positive and negative consequences of the tools that industrial nations will most likely use to enforce the greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The paper makes no effort to calculate the magnitude of the costs and disruption involved, but despite the discreet presentation, makes clear that they will reverberate across the entire global economic system.

Among the tools that are considered are the cap-and-trade system for controlling carbon emissions that has been espoused by the Obama administration; "carbon taxes" on imported fuels and energy-intensive goods and industries, including airline transportation; and lower subsidies for those same goods, as well as new or higher subsidies for goods that are considered "envi
ronmentally sound."

Other tools are referred to only vaguely, including "energy policy reform," which the report indicates could affect "large-scale transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail and airports." When it comes to the results of such reform, the note says only that it could have "positive consequences for alternative transportation providers and producers of alternative fuels."

In the same bland manner, the note informs negotiators without going into details that cap-and-trade schemes "may induce some industrial relocation" to "less regulated host countries." Cap-and-trade functions by creating decreasing numbers of pollution-emission permits to be traded by industrial users, and thus pay more for each unit of carbon-based pollution, a market-driven system that aims to drive manufacturers toward less polluting technologies.

The note adds only that industrial relocation "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment
." But at the same time it "would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries."

There are also entirely new kinds of tariffs and trade protectionist barriers such as those termed in the note as "border carbon adjustment" which, the note says, can impose "a levy on imported goods equal to that which would have been imposed had they been produced domestically" under more strict environmental regimes.

Another form of "adjustment" would require exporters to "buy [carbon] offsets at the border equal to that which the producer would have been forced to purchase had the good been produced domestically."

The impact of both schemes, the note says, "would be functionally equivalent to an increased tariff: decreased market share for covered foreign producers." (There is no definition in the report of who, exactly, is "foreign.") The note adds that "If they were implemented fairly, such schemes would leave trade and investment patterns unchanged."
Nothing is said about the consequences if such fairness was not achieved.

Indeed, only rarely does the "information note" attempt to inform readers in dollar terms of the impact of "spillover effects" from the potential policy changes it discusses. In a brief mention of consumer subsidies for fossil fuels, the note remarks that such subsidies in advanced economies exceed $60 billion a year, while they exceed $90 billion a year in developing economies."

But calculations of the impact of tariffs, offsets, or other subsidies is rare. In a reference to the impact of declining oil exports, the report says that Saudi Arabia has determined the loss to its economy at between $100 billion and $200 billion by 2030, but said nothing about other oil exporters.

One reason for the lack of detail, the note indicates, is that impact would vary widely depending on the nature and scope of the policies adopted (and, although the note does not mention it, on the severity of the greenhouse reduction targets).

But even when it does hazard a guess at specific impacts, the report seems curiously hazy. A "climate change levy on aviation" for example, is described as having undetermined "negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce," as well as "tourism services." But no mention is made in the note of the impact on the aerospace industry, an industry that had revenues in 2008 of $208 billion in the U.S. alone, or the losses the levy would impose on airlines for ordinary passenger transportation. (Global commercial airline revenues in 2008 were about $530 billion, and were already forecast to drop to an estimated $467 billion this year.)

In other cases, as when discussing the "increased costs of traditional exports" under a new environmental regime, the report confines itself to terse description. Changes in standards and labeling for exported goods, for example, "may demand costly changes to the production process." If subsidies and
tariffs affect exports, the note says, the "economic and social consequences of dampening their viability may, for some countries and sectors, be significant."

Much depends, of course, on the extent to which harsher or more lenient greenhouse gas reduction targets demand more or less drastic policies for their achievement.

And, precisely because the Bonn meeting is a stage for negotiating those targets, the note is silent. Instead it suggests that more bureaucratic work is needed "to deepen the understanding of the full nature and scale of such impacts."

But outside the Bonn process, other experts have been much more blunt about the draconian nature of the measures they deem necessary to make "effective" greenhouse gas reductions.

In an influential but highly controversial paper called "Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change," British economist Nicholas Lord Stern, formerly a high British Treasury official, has declared that industrial economies would need to cut their pe
r capita carbon dioxide emissions by "at least 80% by 2050," while the biggest economies, like the U.S.'s, would have to make cuts of 90 percent.

Stern also calls for "immediate and binding" reduction targets for developed nations of 20 percent to 40 percent by 2020.

To meet Stern's 2050 goals, he says, among other things, "most of the world's electricity production will need to have been decarbonized."

By way of comparison, according to the U.S. Department Of Energy, roughly 72 percent of U.S. electrical power generation in 2007 was derived from burning fossil fuels, with just 6 percent coming from hydro-power and less than 3 percent from non-nuclear renewable and "other" sources. And even then, those "other" non-fossil sources included wood and biomass which, when burned, are major emitters of carbon.

The Bobster
04-08-2009, 07:12 PM

Obama looking at cooling air to fight warming
By Seth Borenstein, AP Pseudo-Science Writer

WASHINGTON Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming -- a radical idea once dismissed out of hand -- is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, the president's new science adviser said Wednesday.

That's because global warming is happening so rapidly, John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month.

The concept of using technology to purposely cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.

Using suc
h an experimental measure is only being thought of as a last resort, Holdren said.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table."

His concern is that the United States and other nations won't slow global warming fast enough and that several "tipping points" could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said. (Errr, the Artic ice is the thickest it's been in 30 years.)

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

He and many experts believe that warming of a few degrees more would lead to disastrous drought conditions and food shortages in some regions, rising seas and more powerful coastal storms in others.

At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the cli
mate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.

"We're talking about all these issues in the White House," Holdren said. "There's a very vigorous process going on of discussing all the options for addressing the energy climate challenge."

Holdren said discussions include Cabinet officials and heads of sub-Cabinet level agencies, such as NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The 65-year-old physicist is far from alone in taking geoengineering seriously. The National Academy of Sciences is making it the subject of the first workshop in its new climate challenges program for policymakers, scientists and the public. The British Parliament has also discussed the idea. At an international meeting of climate scientists last month in Copenhagen, 15 talks dealt with different aspects of geoengineering.

The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's
potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."

Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.

Holdren, a 1981 winner of a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant, outlined these possible geoengineering options:

_ Shooting sulfur particles (like those produced by power plants and volcanoes, for example) into the upper atmosphere, an idea that gained steam when it was proposed by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen in 2006. It would be "basically mimicking the effect of volcanoes in screening out the incoming sunlight," Holdren said.

_ Creating artificial "trees" -- giant towers that suck carbon dioxide out of the air and store it.

The first approach would "try to produce a cooling effect to offset the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases," Holdren said.

But he said there could be grave side effects. Studies suggest that might i
nclude eating away a large chunk of the ozone layer above the poles and causing the Mediterranean and the Mideast to be much drier.

And those are just the predicted problems. Scientists say they worry about side effects that they don't anticipate.

While the idea could strike some people as too risky, the Obama administration could get unusual support on the idea from groups that have often denied the harm of global warming in the past.

The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute has its own geoengineering project, saying it could be "feasible and cost-effective." And Cato Institute scholar Jerry Taylor said Wednesday: "Very few people would rule out geoengineering on its face."

Holdren didn't spell out under what circumstances such extreme measures might ever be called for. And he emphasized they are not something to rely on.

"It would be preferable by far," he said, "to solve this problem by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases."

Yet there is alread
y significant opposition building to the House Democratic leaders' bill aimed at achieving President Barack Obama's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.

Holdren said temperatures should be kept from rising more than 3.6 degrees. To get there, he said the U.S. and other industrial nations have to begin permanent dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide pollution by 2015, with developing countries following suit within a decade.

Those efforts are racing against three tipping points he cited: Earth could be as close as six years away from the loss of Arctic summer sea ice, he said, and that has the potential of altering the climate in unforeseen ways. Other elements that could dramatically speed up climate change include the release of frozen methane from thawing permafrost in Siberia, and more and bigger wildfires worldwide.

The trouble is that no one knows when these things are coming, he said.

Holdren also addressed other topics during the in

_ The U.S. anti-ballistic missile program is not ready to work and shouldn't be used unless it is 100 percent effective. The system, which would be used to shoot down missiles from countries like North Korea or Iran "needs to be essentially perfect ... that's going to be hard to achieve."

_ Holdren said NASA needs some changes. He said the Bush administration's plan to return astronauts to the moon was underfunded so money was taken from science and aeronautics. Those areas, including climate change research, were "decimated," he said.

The administration will "rebalance NASA's programs so that we have in space exploration, a suitable mix of manned activities and robotic activities," Holdren said. Doing that "will only get under way in earnest when a new administrator is in place."

Holdren, who advises the president on such decisions, said he hopes Obama will pick a new NASA boss soon.

06-11-2009, 04:23 AM
It's all about control, The Bobster. :mad:

06-11-2009, 04:26 AM
Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists

You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.
So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.

Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.

These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.

Environmental e
ngineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.

In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.

"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.

"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."

The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.

By comparison, San
Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure -- railways, airport terminals, roads and so on -- nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.

These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.

In fact, they add 63 percent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 percent to those of a train.

And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.

A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.

policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.

So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.

For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.

The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.

The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.

It used 2005 models of the Toyota Camry saloon, Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV and Ford F-150 to calibrate automobile performance; the light transit systems in the San F
rancisco Bay Area and Boston as the models for the metro and commuter lines; and the Embraer 145, Boeing 737 and Boeing 747 as the benchmarks for short-, medium- and long-haul aircraft.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.243153c6a091a3b942a75077729e8c9 2.c51&show_article=1

06-11-2009, 04:30 AM

'Global warming is baloney' signs put the heat on Burger King

A row between the fast food giant Burger King and one of its major franchise owners has erupted over roadside signs proclaiming "global warming is baloney".

The franchisee, a Memphis-based company called the Mirabile Investment Corporation (MIC) that owns more than 40 Burger Kings across Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi, has described Burger King as acting "kinda like cockroaches" over the controversy. MIC says it does not believe Burger King has the authority to make it take the signs down.

The dispute began to sizzle last week, when a local newspaper reporter in Memphis, Tennessee, noticed the signs outside two restaurants in the city and contacte
d the corporation to establish if the message represented its official viewpoint. Burger King's headquarters in Miami said it did not, adding that it had ordered MIC to take the signs down.

But a few days later readers of the Memphis paper said they had seen about a dozen Burger King restaurants across the state displaying the signs and that some had yet to be taken down. Media attempts to contact MIC to establish why it was taking an apparently defiant stance were rebuffed, but the Guardian managed to grill MIC's marketing president, John McNelis.

"I would think would run from any form of controversy kinda like cockroaches when the lights get turned on," said Mr McNelis. "I'm not aware of any direction that they gave the franchisee and I don't think they have the authority to do it."

McNelis added: "The [restaurant] management team can put the message up there if they want to. It is private property and here in the US we do have some rights. Notwithstanding a franchise
agreement, I could load a Brinks vehicle with [rights] I've got so many of them. By the time the Burger King lawyers work out how to make that stick we'd be in the year 2020."

[B]He continued: "Burger King can bluster all they want about what they can tell the franchisee to do, but we have free-speech rights in this country so I don't think there's any concerns."

The Guardian sent a transcript of the interview to Susan Robison, Burger King's vice-president of corporate communications.

She responded: "The statement that was posted on several restaurants' reader boards in the Memphis area, and the view expressed by the franchisee on this issue does not reflect Burger King Corp's opinion Ãâ BKC has guidelines for signage used by franchisees [which] were not followed. We have asked the franchisee to remove the signage and have been told that the franchisee will comply."

Ãâà Read the full transcript and comment here


06-11-2009, 04:34 AM
Global warming? Not so fast, skeptics say at meeting

U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was in a froth, and his audience loved it.

The California Republican was talking about global warming and could barely contain his disgust.

"Al Gore has been wrong all along!" Rohrabacher yelled into the microphone. "This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!"

Welcome to the third annual International Conference on Climate Change, a daylong session of speeches and scientific presentations that took place Tuesday just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Almost no media covered the event.

Organized by The Heartland Institute and other conservative think tanks and groups, the conference drew about 250 guests, most of them researchers and policy analysts, some from as far away as Japan
and Australia.

There was plenty of wry laughter during the day, especially when former Vice President Gore and his award-winning movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," were brought up, which was often.

The conference hall also was filled with a tangible air of frustrated defeat, like the brainy kid in math class who thinks he knows all the answers, raises his hand time and again, but is never called upon.

"We are seldom heard in the policy debate," said Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. "If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you're likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else."

Bast labeled as "popular delusion" the current conventional wisdom on the issue - that man-made emissions, notably carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating up the planet, causing sea levels to rise and is increasing the ferocity of storms and drought.

As such, the conference represents a lingering - and still powerful - sentiment that
global warming is not such a big deal after all.

Instead, attendees argued, the slow and slight increase in air, water and atmospheric temperatures during much of the 20th century is part of a natural cycle of the Earth's unpredictable, roller-coaster weather patterns.

Carbon dioxide, they debated, is not a pollutant that should be regulated, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Supreme Court now hold; it is an attribute that helps plant and sea life.

Bast acknowledged that the conference was hurriedly organized, and moved from New York City to Washington, to counteract proposals from President Barack Obama for a "cap-and-trade" program aimed at fighting global warming by drastically limiting carbon emissions.

Bast and others described the proposed programs as a complete waste of money, with potentially crippling consequences for the economy, and without any attainable goals.

"How do you control the weather?" asked Bob Carter, an Australian scholar from Jame
s Cook University. "For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd."

Others saw darker motives in the climate debate.

These skeptics, including Rohrabacher, contended that global warming is a liberal-inspired hoax, intended to wrest control of world energy policy and wealth from Western countries so the United Nations can have its way.

To them, liberty, capitalism and the U.S. economy are at stake.

"I have to wonder what has happened to the sovereignty of the United States," said U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the keynote speaker at the conference and the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which debates climate policy.

Skeptics, or "realists," as they call themselves, focus much of their scorn on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Gore in 2007.

The IPCC consists of hundreds of scientists fro
m across the globe who, for two decades, have tracked climate research and temperature trends, and attempted to interpret what they mean for policymakers.

Its most famous pronouncement, in 2007, was that a marked increase in greenhouse gases from mostly man-made sources is "very likely" causing climate change.

"Very likely," the IPCC wrote, means a 90 percent certainty that human activity, not natural variability, is the driving force.

The IPCC also noted that many geographical areas seem especially susceptible to climate change, including low-lying coastal areas, such as southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.

But scientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC, especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts.

One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground tempera

When there are few clouds in the sky, temperatures typically are warmer, Spencer said, and when it is cloudy outside, conditions typically are cooler.

Is it possible then, Spencer asked, that decreasing clouds in recent decades caused the warmings recorded on Earth?

Spencer said he asked the IPCC about this and was surprised to learn that the organization had not researched this point and had assumed that cloud cover does not change over time but is fairly consistent.

The two revelations sparked more wry laughter from the audience.

"If a 1 percent change in cloudiness could trigger global warming, or global cooling, wouldn't you think that'd be a pretty important thing to nail down?" Spencer asked. "They have never gone there."

Skepticism over climate science is hardly new. Indeed, skepticism has always been a part of scientific discourse and has been around global warming since the 1970s, when the theory first gained credence.

William "Skip" Stiles, a
Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science.

"I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them," Stiles said. "But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC - we're talking 25 years! - you have to think we've reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it."

Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts.

"One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers," Hershner said. He described the IPCC as "an extremely conservative group" that "constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly."

In his keynote address Tuesday, Sen. Inhofe p
redicted that cap-and-trade will pass the House of Representatives - "Nancy Pelosi has the votes," he said - but will stall in the Senate, where previous climate-change programs have similarly died.

Last year, without any action coming from Washington, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine appointed a Climate Change Commission to suggest ways Virginia can reduce carbon emissions and lessen its role in accelerating warming.

The theory that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and not man-made, was not part of commission deliberations.

"The fact that global climate change is happening and is largely human-caused is now widely accepted," reads the commission's final report, published in December.

At the bottom of the page, however, is a footnote: "While we have concluded that the overwhelming evidence supports these points, we have heard testimony providing contrary information during public comment periods at our meetings."

State Sen. Frank Wagner, a Republican from Virginia Beach, was a
member of the climate commission. He also has attended one of the skeptics' conferences in New York City.

"I've tried to keep an open mind," Wagner said. "There are so many theories out there, and so much detail, you're kind of overwhelmed.

"I mean, even the scientists themselves are debating with each other at these meetings. You're left wondering what the truth really is."

Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com


The Bobster
06-11-2009, 06:23 AM
Notice how Scott Harper sneaks his liberal biases into the article?

The Bobster
06-25-2009, 02:40 PM

EPA's own research expert 'shut up' on climate change
Government analyst silenced after he critiques CO2 findings

Posted: June 24, 2009
11:05 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
Úà 2009 WorldNetDaily

Environmental Protection Agency officials have silenced one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee issued an internal critique of the EPA's climate change position.

Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, or NCEE, submitted his research on the agency's greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA's approach to combating CO2 emissions. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research would have
"a very negative impact on our office."

His study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject.

CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, "His boss basically told him, 'No, I'm not going to send your study further up. It's going to stay within this bureau.'"

A March 12 e-mail to Carlin warned him not to have "any direct communication with anyone outside NCEE on endangerment."

Carlin, a researcher who earned his doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in physics from California Institute of Technology, informed officials that two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and defended his inclusion of new research on the topic.

"It is also my view that the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to ob
servable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature," he wrote. "I believe my comments are valid, significant and contain references to significant new research Ãâ They are significant because they present information critical to justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed [greenhouse gas] endangerment finding."

After nearly one week of discussion, NCEE Director Al McGartland informed Carlin on March 17 that he would not include the research in the internal EPA discussion.

"Alan, I decided not to forward your comments," he wrote. "Ãâ The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. Ãâ I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

In yet another e-mail sent only minutes following the previous one, McGartland wrote, "With the endangerment findings nearly final, you
need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate."

CEI charges that suppression of Carlin's study denied public access to important agency information, as court rulings have indicated that both "the evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded" must be included in the rulemaking record.

"They could come up with reasons to reject it, as I'm sure they're going to come up with reasons to reject the scientific objections that are coming in now from outside parties in the general public and from skeptical scientists," Kazman told WND. "But I'd say the real issue here is that this critique is coming from a career EPA insider, so it can't be dismissed as the work of someone in the pay of the coal-burning fossil-fuel industry. The fact that someone within the EPA was taking this approach is something that would be naturally e
mbarrassing to the agency."

CEI also said the incident violated the EPA's commitment to transparency and scientific honesty.

Prior to taking office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared, "As Administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

Likewise, CEI reminds the EPA of President Obama's April 27 speech to the National Academy of Sciences in which he stated, "[U]nder my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over."

In a memo to the EPA, Kazman wrote, "Because of ideology, however, it was this back seat to which Mr. Carlin's study was relegated; more precisely, it was booted out of the car entirely."

"The irony of the president and Administrator Jackson talking about EPA's new transparency and commitment to scientific integrity, that's really incredible,
" Kazman said.

CEI is asking the agency to make Carlin's study public, extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to his research and publicly declare that there will be no reprisals against Carlin for his research.

Kazman said the issue is "coming to a head" because the EPA's internal commentary period just closed, and the 1,200-page Waxman-Markey climate bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions is scheduled to come to a vote Friday on the House floor.

He believes Carlin's study could have implications on how lawmakers feel about the allegedly solid research behind the climate bill especially if objecting analysts within the agency are being silenced.

"Any right-minded administrator would have said, 'Fine, put it in and we'll give our reasons for why we reject his contentions," Kazman said. "But instead, they shut the guy up."