And where are the hurricanes ? I dont even remember there being one. Seasons over in a month. Ohio July is one of the coldest ones on record....wheres the heat. Oh yea, forgot, global warming causes it to be cold too........
Im hoping an earthquake swallows up Gores mansion.....lol. Id even drive down to laugh in his face.
It's getting harder and harder to warmists to get away with their blanket statements that a "scientific consensus" on global warming exists. Now, an organization that bills itself as "the world's largest scientific society" is facing a grassroots rebellion form its scientist members. Marc Morano of Climate Depot has the exclusive story:
An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming "the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established."
The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers." The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the "world's largest scientific society."
The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that "deniers" are attempting to "derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change."
Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.
The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word "deniers" because of the terms "association with Holocaust deniers." In addition, the scientists called Baum's editorial: "disgusting"; "a disgrace"; "filled with misinformation"; "unworthy of a scientific periodical" and "pap."
This incident may impress itself on other warmist scientists. No editor (or writer) wants to be upbraided in public this way, so casual claims of consensus are probably going to be coming our way less frequently in the future. Once the emperor is seen to have no clothes, pretending otherwise in public becomes difficult.
And where are the hurricanes ? I dont even remember there being one. Seasons over in a month. Ohio July is one of the coldest ones on record....wheres the heat. Oh yea, forgot, global warming causes it to be cold too........
Im hoping an earthquake swallows up Gores mansion.....lol. Id even drive down to laugh in his face.
Yeah, this was supposed to be a record hurricane season. Well, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, but it sure ain't lookin' like a record to me.
Warmist doctrine has it that the Northwest passage (through Arctic waters to reach the North Pacific from the North Atlantic) should be clear sailing anytime now. In fact, according to the Ottawa Citizen:
... the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center is predicting another near-record meltdown by the end of this year's summer thaw.
Unfortunately for them, reality is not cooperating. The Ottawa Citizen report also tells us:
In both the wider, deep-water northern corridor and the narrower, shallower southern branches of the passage, the Canadian Ice Service says pockets of more extensive winter freezing and concentrations of thicker, older ice at several key "choke points" are complicating ship travel.
Maybe this is a just temporary anomaly. I am not certain about the downside of a clearing of the Northwest Passage. This is something to worry about?
In any event, warmists need to be held accountable when their predictions of doom fail to materialize.
Yep, the War on Terrorism is over and now the US Military will begin to wage the War on Global Warming!! From "Every Marine a Rifleman" to "Every Marine is Issued a Thermometer".
"The Few--The Boughed--The TreeHuggers"
I can see em now, planting pine trees on Mt Suribachi.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-09-2009).]
Yup, they're getting desperate. Even though temperatures are NOT currently going up, sea level is rising LESS, and arctic ice is NORMAL, they still need a scary scenario. So why not scare people with potential military conflict?
Here is the key to this:
"This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House.
Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the legislation.
The Department of Defense’s assessment of the security issue came about after prodding by Congress to include climate issues in its strategic plans — specifically, in 2008 budget authorizations by Hillary Rodham Clinton and John W. Warner, then senators. The department’s climate modeling is based on sophisticated Navy and Air Force weather programs and other government climate research programs at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."
In other words, this is being instigated by self-interested Congresspersons, not the military or intelligence.
Lol, even the old oxymoron "military intelligence" is starting to look positively brilliant, when compared to the quantities of poultry ova mysteriously beginning to appear on the visages of Gore & Company...
5 points i will make on climate change and global warming, 1) Co2 is plant food so we can grow trees better today if we try. 2) The Ice caps are melting but they are also the thickest they have been in 30 years so of course they are melting they will till they get to the thinnest. 3) If you live by the coast and your backyard is disappearing the sea isnt rising that is just your land eroding. 4) Every fossle ever dug up was in a desert but fossles are only created thru sediment meaningnthey were once underwater. Of course the world will change. 5) Religion is failing people are losing their faith and and climate change is the needed new religion we all may not believe in superstitous gods but we all want to save the world right. Well it has it's similarities it is a con job for your money if you give or pay taxes for the enviroment dont feel good feel ripped off. Your enslaved by the wage and expected to pay for natural causes now.
EXCLUSIVE: Lies Revealed — Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggerationby Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.” Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.
Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.
Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.
The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.” Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.
Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.
Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.
“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”
(You can watch the full BBC interview with Leipold here, and to learn more about Greenpeace-style global warming hysteria and its potential toll on the American dream, go to www.noteviljustwrong.com, the Web site for the forthcoming documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong,” by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney.)
Well I see first hurricane of season here a week or so before season ends.....
Latest research by Virginia State University shows current global warming (if you even believe it at all) is due to ancient farmers burning off forests to grow crops, LMAO. And you thought it was all from those Cadillac Escalades........
Well I see first hurricane of season here a week or so before season ends.....
Latest research by Virginia State University shows current global warming (if you even believe it at all) is due to ancient farmers burning off forests to grow crops, LMAO. And you thought it was all from those Cadillac Escalades........
I guess they have to explain why the upward trend it temperature goes back before the start of the industrial revolution? Hahahaha. Dumbasses just won't give it up.
Remember how Barack Obama claimed that he would create five million 'green-collar' jobs if elected? He was promoting the conceit as recently as a few days ago in Indiana.
You'd think that the good folks in the Hoosier state would recognize the odor of bull when they smelled it, although Indiana went for Obama last year anyway. The green jobs claim was peddled hook, line and eco-friendly sinker by the Big Media wing of the Democrat Party during the election, but now that it's time to put the pedal to the recyclable metal, the party line is changing.
Obama's porkulus bill included $60 billion -- not including interest on the debt incurred -- to create a green-topia, conveniently making billions of dollars available to his propaganda machine at GE in the process. (This is not hyperbole on the author's part. GE actually issued a news release officially urging passage of porkulus "to support record growth of the wind industry." GE is the nation's largest manufacturer of wind turbines.)
Without admitting it in so many words, the New York Times Thursday reported that skeptics of Obama's grandiose claims were right: Shockingly, it seems, those promised Now Hiring signs may not be appearing after all.
"Jenny Chase, a lead solar analyst for the London-based research firm New Energy Finance, says it's unrealistic for the United States to count on long-term manufacturing jobs in the solar industry, at least, where a global oversupply is pressing solar-panel prices through the floor.
'Setting up a plant in an oversupplied market is just not a very sensible thing to do.' "
Leading even the Times to ask, "Does it make sense for the country to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars? Or will renewable-energy manufacturing -- mirroring the electronics, semiconductor and car industries -- only end up migrating to China and other countries?"
Newsweek is also helping their comrades-in-harm to backpedal on the issue, trying to redefine what could be considered a 'green' job. "Several environmental advocates polled by NEWSWEEK defined green jobs the way Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously defined obscenity: I'll know it when I see it."
And, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics is being tasked with tracking those supposed jobs, even Newsweek--whose editor infamously said Barack Obama is 'sort of God' -- admitted (albeit parenthetically) that "Critics, in response, quickly suspected that the BLS, an agency supposed to measure objective data, could soon help carry water for an administration eager to show the stimulus is working."
Even so, Obama's green jobs commissar, Van Jones, was forced to admit that any reports of green job creation so far is strictly hypothetical. "Yes, we have a lot of anecdotal evidence because the concrete numbers aren't ready... It's not a numbers problem, it's all angle."
"It's all angle"?
Thus, just about anything short of a position burying toxic waste in the backyard of Barack Obama's south Chicago mansion will soon be considered a 'green' job.
In other words, if you're waiting for one of those five million green-collar jobs Obama promised? Your check's in the mail.
The Global Warming Movement (AGW) has taken on the worrisome attributes of a pseudo-religious cult, which operates far more on the basis of an apocalyptic "belief" system than on objective climate science.
Since this worldwide Movement and its strident policies of Less Energy at Higher Prices (in order to achieve reductions in everyone's "carbon footprint") are at the heart of America's enormous energy shortfall, it poses a national security threat of major proportions.
And in this context, the AGW Crusade should be understood in a "Know Thy Enemy" frame of reference -- perhaps not in terms of a fully conscious or intentional enemy of the American people at a time of war and economic crisis but as a deadly threat to our economic stability and national security, nonetheless.
Kingdom of the Cults
Here, therefore, in far more detail than any routine allegation of "cultism" conveys, are no fewer than ten of this AGW ideology's very specific characteristics, many of whose roots and lock-step influences can be found in Walter Martin's and Ravi Zacharias' definitive, award-winning 2003 book, "Kingdom of the Cults:"
1. Leadership by a self-glorifying, manipulative New Age Prophet -- in this case, former Vice-President Al Gore, though he is rapidly being supplanted by President Barack Obama.
2. Assertion of an apocalyptic threat to all mankind.
3. An absolutist definition of both the threat and the proposed solution(s).
4. Promise of a salvation from this pending apocalypse.
5. Devotion to an inspired text which (arguendo) embodies all the answers -- in this case, Prophet Gore's pseudo-scientific book "Earth in the Balance" and his more recent "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary.
6. A specific list of "truths" (see the Ten Commandments listed below) which must be embraced and proselytized by all Cult members..
7. An absolute intolerance of any deviation from any of these truths by any Cult member.
8. A strident intolerance of any outside criticism of the Cult's definition of the problem or of its proposed solutions.
9. A "Heaven-on-Earth" vision of the results of the mission's success and/or a "Hell-on-Earth" result if the cultic mission should fail.
10. An inordinate fear (and an outright rejection of the possibility) of being proven wrong in either the apocalyptic vision or the proposed salvation.
Prophet Gore's (and now Prophet Obama's) Ten Commandments
With this half of the AGW Cult's self-definition now clearly established, here is the other half -- its Ten Commandments of "Thou-Shalt" and "Thou-Shalt-Not" absolutes -- designed for keeping its devoted cultists in lockstep support and its intimidated detractors in retreat:
o Thou shalt have but one Mother Earth (Gaia) Goddess before you
o Thou shalt not worship false Prophets -- especially sun cycles, ocean cycles, volcanic influences and "Objective Science" in general
o Thou shalt never doubt catastrophic depletion of the so-called "Ozone Layer"
o Thou shalt not doubt man-made "Greenhouse Gasses" as the primary cause of GW
o Thou shalt condemn such doubters as "Extremists" and "Criminals Against Humanity"
o Thou shalt minimize, ignore and deny any and all environmental good news
o Thou shalt avoid benefit-cost evaluations of AGW solutions and never admit error or falsehood about anything
o Thou shalt continue opposing all Nuclear and new Hydro power, despite their non-GW attributes
o Thou shalt promote "zero-carbon-footprint" policies of Less Energy at Higher Prices, except for heavily subsidized ethanol
o Thou shalt engage forever in "Eeeekology" and "Eeeekonomics" (scare-tactics ecology and economics) and never, ever vote Republican
Finally, since this AGW juggernaut seems to have brainwashed a majority of Americans, most of the media and academia, a majority of the Congress and even many churches into a mind-set of support for its pseudo-religious scam, a recent Wall Street Journal's recent conclusion that this represents a "Mass Neurosis" of a cultic nature seems alarmingly accurate.
Truths to be Ignored or Denied
On the more climatically correct side, all that is needed to begin the collapse of this house-of-cards scam is yet another list of certifiable facts and truths -- one which will disprove much of the Cult's mission, tactics and alleged "solutions" -- namely,
(a) the fact that while Arctic ice may (or may not, of late) be receding, Antarctic ice has been increasing for about 40 years
(b) the fact that global temperatures have been on a slightly decreasing trend since 1998,
(c) the fact that Mars (which features no man-made factor at all) is experiencing "global warming," as well,
(d) the fact that Antarctic "ice shelves" which occasionally break off, float away and melt at sea, do not raise ocean levels at all,
(e) the fact that several of the "hottest years" on record were in the 1930s and 1940s, when CO2 levels were much lower than today's,
(f) the fact that ever more scientists assert convincingly that atmospheric CO2 is a lagging consequence, rather than a triggering cause, of alleged global warming,
(g) the fact that all earlier glacial and inter-glacial periods were clearly caused not by man but by solar, ocean and volcanic cycles and "natural" fluctuations,
(h) the fact that di-hydrogen oxide (H2O) molecules -- water vapor -- and methane molecules are 20-30 times more heat-retentive than CO2 molecules are,
(i) the fact that termites worldwide expel about as much "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere as does all the burning of fossil fuels by human beings,
(j) the fact that even if all Kyoto-type limits on CO2 were obeyed by all nations, the estimated net impact by 2050 would be less than half a degree F -- with a ruinous cost-to-benefit ratio of thousands to one, when the standard requirement is no more than one to one.
Conclusion: Since every such Prophet-led, scare-mongering, pseudo-religious conspiracy needs a properly descriptive name, and since this one's primary concerns over alleged depletion of the so-called "ozone layer" over Antarctica have shifted to a panic over CO2, instead, a fitting name for this cultic gaggle might be the "Branch Carbonian Cult" --
o "Branch" because it is a radical offshoot from the main body of science-based environmentalism;
o "Carbonian" because of its professed fear of carbon dioxide as a primary cause of AGW; and
o "Cult" because of its self-evident structure and practices -- which are in full accord with most elements of the typical religious cult, Branch Davidian or otherwise.
Some posts overthink (OK, maybe I underthink). The question is "did man cause the current climate change we are experiencing?"
Ice ages, warmer, tropical, cooler, ice age, warmer, ice age, warmer, tropical, cooler. That about covers the last 50,000 years, with short term extremes and local anomolies averaged in.
Modern humans had not reached europe before the earlier ice ages and the neandertals had moved in some 200,000 years earlier and never got past throwing meat on hot coals before the fluctuating climate wore them down.
Trying to put blame on modern humans for any part of this is really a stretch.
The earth changes, it always has, it always will. Not complicated, only one rule. And all evidence collected anywhere agrees one hundred percent, things change.
I spent my working life as a computer engineer and entrepreneur. I have a long history of tilting at windmills having been involved in numerous causes and crusades during my life. So when my retirement started it was natural for me to look for something to get involved with. I picked global warming. Since I had completed the course work for a Ph.D. in physics I felt that I could deal with the technical side of global warming theory. As a computer expert I though that I would have insight to the giant computer models of the earth's climate that are central to global warming science.
I smelled a rat right from the beginning. As a 20-something activist I had a job as the Director of Operations for Zero Population Growth, Inc. ZPG was a 70's environmental organization that at one time had 25,000 members. I knew that professional environmentalism has an ethics problem. Exaggeration promotes contributions.
In my quest to investigate and understand global warming I joined the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. At scientific meetings, like an anthropologist, I cultivated native informants.
I learned that most scientists don't have a good grasp of the big picture because they are narrowly specialized and don't think about much outside of their immediate interests. The scientists that do have a grasp of the big picture can be divided into global warming advocates, skeptics and the majority of passive observers who play it safe by not taking a position. The global warming advocates have the upper hand and the most power. The skeptics, including quite a few excellent scientists, are marginalized and frankly persecuted. They are whistle blowers. A lot of skeptics are retired. The warmers can't cancel pensions, at least not yet. The most famous promoter of global warming, James Hansen, wants to put his opponents on trial for crimes against humanity.
Global warming scare stories are good for global warming science because the scare stories promote research funding. If it weren't for the scary predictions these scientists would be toiling in a poorly funded and obscure branch of academic science. As the distinguished climate scientist Richard Lindzen noted in an article, fear is more effective than gratitude for inducing financial support.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC is a branch of the United Nations and is very much under the control of climate doomsters. If climate doom were not impending the IPCC would not be necessary, thus it is a bureaucratic imperative that the IPCC predicts climate doom. The IPCC and Al Gore were jointly given the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The peace prize is given by politicians for political reasons and the 2007 recipients have shown themselves to be accomplished politicians. The history of the Nobel Peace Prize does not inspire confidence. Some of the recipients have been crackpots (Linus Pauling) and others fraudsters (Rigoberta Menchu). Gore seems to me to be a combination of both.
The increase in temperature predicted by the global warming computer models is about 3 degrees Celsius. This isn't very scary, so the promoters of global warming alarmism come up with additional scare stories. For example, there will be more hurricanes, the ice caps will melt, the polar bears will die, the oceans will become acid and kill the coral, and weather will become more extreme. These stories have much less scientific support than the warming theories, and each has been rebutted[i]. Scare stories attract attention and it is much more difficult to refute scare stories than it is to create them. By the time one scare story becomes discredited a new scare story is spread.
A red flag in the global warming debate is the left-right split. Generally people on the left tend to believe in global warming and those on the right tend to be skeptics. The New York Times thinks global warming is settled science while the Wall Street Journal thinks it is greatly exaggerated. If global warming is a science question, why should this be so? The answer is that both the right and the left recognize that global warming has political consequences. The left recognizes that global warming presents an opportunity to increase government revenue via carbon taxes and to justify the taxes as sin taxes. The right recognizes the same thing.
Organized science has relinquished its traditional role as an objective advisor to policy makers and has instead become a lobbyist for its own interests. The interests of big science happen to coincide with the ideological goals of the green movement. The resulting coalition has impressive political power.
The global warming advocates have a campaign of slander against the global warming skeptics. Al Gore calls them people who think the earth is flat and that the moon landing was staged. The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declares that skeptics are committing treason against the planet.
The science behind the IPCC predictions and the scary claims is incredibly weak, really bordering on fantasy. As I began to understand what the IPCC and the computer climate modelers were doing it dawned on me that the entire enterprise is highly speculative and inconsistent. Certainly great progress has been made in understanding how the climate works in the last 40 years. But that understanding has not reached the point where we can have any faith in future predictions of the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Since vast efforts and billions of dollars have been invested in huge computer climate models the scientific organizations are forced to defend the usefulness of the models. The way in which the IPCC has utilized climate models to make predictions is really quite comical, although it takes a lot of study and wading through a molasses-like report to get to the point where it starts to seem funny. I have a 40 page article on my website if you would like to know the details.
Kevin Trenberth, no global warming skeptic, is one of the most prominent climate scientists in the world. He is a senior scientist and the Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). He said this about climate models.
... None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. ...
He is confessing that climate models leave a lot to be desired.
Clouds are very important, but it is generally accepted that the treatment of clouds by the computer models is very poor. This is neatly summarized by a few lines from the Judy Collins song Both Sides Now.
I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud's illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all
The 20 or so climate models used by the IPCC don't agree with each other as to how much warming would take place due to doubling CO2. The range is 2 to 4-1/2 degrees Celsius. There are perfectly plausible theories, based on observations, not models, that the warming would be far less, from scientists such as Richard Lindzen, Stephen Schwartz and Roy Spencer.
A 3 C degree increase in global temperature is the difference between Chicago and St. Louis. Further the models, if you believe them, predict that the change in temperature mostly will take place at night or in the winter when it is often too cold anyway. Between International Falls, Minnesota and Key West, Florida the difference in annual average temperature is 23 degrees Celsius, 7 times greater than the IPCC's 3 degree predicted change for doubling CO2.
The climate of the 20th century is inconsistent with the climate models and in fact can't be explained within the IPCC framework. The climate of the 20th century is characterized by warming from 1910 to 1940 followed by cooling between 1940 and 1970 and then more warming from 1970 with an apparent cessation of the warming during the last decade. This is illustrated by the graph below.
The attempts to make the 20th century climate consistent with the computer models simply don't work. Explanations that the warming is inhibited by aerosols or heat being diverted to the ocean are very improbable.
Controlling our own carbon dioxide emissions accomplishes practically nothing if the Chinese and Indians don't control theirs. They play along as long as it seems profitable. The Chinese and Indians are like the natives who happily attend church services as long as the missionaries are giving out free dinners.
Green electric power from windmills and solar energy is impracticable. Its expensive and due to the erratic nature of sunshine and wind, solar and wind power must be backed up by duplicate power plants or by energy storage systems that are as expensive as duplicate power plants. It sometimes seems that the advocates of solar power don't realize that the sun does not shine at night. The much acclaimed Kyoto Treaty for the reduction of CO2 illogically does not give CO2 reduction credit for CO2-free nuclear power plants, something put in the treaty in response to green lobbying.
The global warming skeptics should to be given some respect and a chance to make their case. An appropriate solution would the establishment of a B team financed by the government and allowed to present the other side of the argument. If such a B team were established and given respect, in my opinion, the global warming movement would collapse because its foundations would be exposed as being weak and corrupt.
The author has provided a long technical article on IPCC use of climate models to fit the 20th century: Worse Than the Hockey Stick.
[i] Rebutting these scare stories in detail is beyond the scope of this article. Briefly: At the current measured rate it would take 15,000 years or more for the Greenland ice cap to melt and the current melting is probably transitory with greater melting during the early century. Hurricane trends are difficult to measure and the evidence is weak, even according to the IPCC. The website http://www.co2science.org/ has prepared a rebuttal to the acid ocean theory. There are far more polar bears now than early in the century and an ice-free summer arctic ocean probably happened 6,000 years ago and the bears are still here. The weather being more extreme is refuted (according to Lindzen) by basic physics because according to the models the poles are supposed to warm more than the tropics reducing the fundamental temperature gradient that drives weather.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 08-27-2009).]
Not sure if these have been posted before (in this thread):
The Great Gloabal Warming Swindle, Part 1 of 9
The Great Gloabal Warming Swindle, Part 2 of 9
The Great Gloabal Warming Swindle, Part 3 of 9
The Great Gloabal Warming Swindle, Part 4 of 9
The Great Gloabal Warming Swindle, Part 5 of 9
The Great Gloabal Warming Swindle, Part 6 of 9
The Great Gloabal Warming Swindle, Part 7 of 9
The Great Gloabal Warming Swindle, Part 8 of 9
The Great Gloabal Warming Swindle, Part 9 of 9
But, for good measure:
My personal opinion? Are we causing global warming? Don't know. Don't care. Why? Because we ourselves will be the only ones negatively affected by it - not the planet nor anything else living on it. The planet will survive and will probably even benefit from it. In the Cretaceous period, CO2 levels were 5 times higher than they are today and that wasn't exactly a "bad" time in earth's history.
Thanks for re-posting those links in one convenient place Cliff.
That film is one of the most revealing pieces I have ever seen. And, when you go to some sources to check out the claims made, they all hold water.
The fact that the Sun controls our weather to the major extent is seemingly lost on the Global Warming Cultists. How they can even pretend to believe that mankind can overcome the influence of the Sun is realy beyond me. Our earth is so small in relation to the Sun that we really can't comprehend it. We see this fire ball in the sky and it doesn't look all that big, but, it is actually humongous in relation to us. Try laying out in the Sun to sun tan for, let's say, 10 hours. Now there is the potential for total catastrophe if you have any experience with sunburn. And, that same radiation constantly bombards the earth 24/7.
I also have no use for the blatant lies told by the Global Warming Cultists about drowning polar bears, and the disappearing Antarctica, and on and on.
The videos are well worth taking the time to watch.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Thanks for re-posting those links in one convenient place Cliff.
Yes, very cool. Thanks, Cliff.
quote
The fact that the Sun controls our weather to the major extent is seemingly lost on the Global Warming Cultists. How they can even pretend to believe that mankind can overcome the influence of the Sun is realy beyond me. Arn
There are two primary things at work...
1. There is a LOT of money in this for certain people. Namely, scientific studies and companies who stand to benefit from a green energy mandate. Look up how much GE is invested in wind power turbine manufacturing. Look how much money is going into PRO-warming research. Notice that virtually NOONE is getting paid on the skeptic side, despite all the bullshit about "oil companies buying scientists".
2. A belief for people who want, who NEED a belief and a cause. Notice how the enviros jumped into this with both feet, and preach it like an "end of the world" religious cult? Notice which end of the political spectrum tends to believe it the most?
Not to turn this into a religious thread, but.....
the GW's are a cult by any definition. They also believe or espouse the notion that mankind somehow can influence his universe.
This is the antithesis of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All of these religions, (not to be exclusive other others) believe that God or a higher being controls the earth and the universe. The notion that mankind can control his own universe is essentially a heathen belief. It has been around since the dawn of the known history of man and manifests itself in all sorts of ways.
I believe that the majority of "deniers" are people who have a religous belief or have been brought up to believe in that higher being who we call God or Alha or Jehovah.
The person who promotes the notion of GW is basing his or her belief on Godlessness. Please forgive my narrow minded, indoctrinated and back woods belief.
Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. This is the last hearing on climate change before the August recess, so I think it's appropriate to take stock of what we've learned.
Madame Chairman, since you assumed the gavel, this committee has held over thirty hearings on climate change. With testimony from numerous experts and officials from all over the country, these hearings explored various issues associated with cap-and-trade-and I'm sure my colleagues learned a great deal from them.
But over the last two years, it was not from these, at times, arcane and abstract policy discussions that we got to the essence of cap-and-trade. No, it was the Democrats who cut right to the chase; it was the Democrats over the last two years who exposed what cap-and-trade really means for the American public.
We learned, for example, from President Obama that under his cap-and-trade plan, "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket."
We learned from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) that cap-and-trade is "a tax, and a great big one."
We learned from Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) that "a cap-and-trade system is prone to market manipulation and speculation without any guarantee of meaningful GHG emission reductions. A cap-and-trade has been operating in Europe for three years and is largely a failure."
We learned from Sen. Dorgan (D-N.D.) that with cap-and-trade "the Wall Street crowd can't wait to sink their teeth into a new trillion-dollar trading market in which hedge funds and investment banks would trade and speculate on carbon credits and securities. In no time they'll create derivatives, swaps and more in that new market. In fact, most of the investment banks have already created carbon trading departments. They are ready to go. I'm not."
We learned from Sen. Cantwell (D-Wash.) that "a cap-and-trade program might allow Wall Street to distort a carbon market for its own profits."
We learned from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that unilateral U.S. action to address climate change through cap-and-trade would be futile. She said in response to a question from me that "U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels."
We learned from Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) that "there is no way the United States of America acting alone can solve this problem. So we have to have China; we have to have India."
We learned from Sen. McCaskill (D-Mo.) that if "we go too far with this," that is, cap-and-trade, then "all we're going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they've been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes."
In sum, after a slew of hearings and three unsuccessful votes on the Senate floor, the Democrats taught us that cap-and-trade is a great big tax that will raise electricity prices on consumers, enrich Wall Street traders, and send jobs to China and India-all without any impact on global temperature.
So off we go into the August recess, secure in the knowledge that cap-and-trade is riddled with flaws, and that Democrats are seriously divided over one of President Obama's top domestic policy priorities.
And we also know that, according to recent polling, the American public is increasingly unwilling to pay anything to fight global warming.
But all of this does not mean cap-and-trade is dead and gone. It is very much alive, as Democratic leaders, as they did in the House, are eager to distribute pork on unprecedented scales to secure the necessary votes to pass cap-and-trade into law.
So be assured of this: We will markup legislation in this committee, pass it, and then it will be combined with other bills from other committees. And we will have a debate on the Senate floor.
Throughout the debate on cap-and-trade, we will be there to say that:
According to the American Farm Bureau, the vast majority of agriculture groups oppose it;
According to GAO, it will send our jobs to China and India;
According to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, it will destroy over 2 million jobs;
According to EPA and EIA, it will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil;
According to EPA, it will do nothing to reduce global temperature;
And when all is said and done, the American people will reject it and we will defeat it.
Saving the planet has grabbed the imagination of the naïve in the same grip as the old worker's paradise promised by the Bolsheviks.
These two manifestos share the common elements of absurdity, dogmatic conviction and the predictable dimension that the more their doctrines are proved false, the more their advocates defend them. In the case of Bolshevism, people's courts, midnight executions and propaganda were the instruments of coercion; in the case of man-made global warming, it's the Internet, politicized scientists and a mentally disabled mainstream media.
Disciples of world communism actually believed the workers of the world would unite and rule the planet with wisdom and generosity. Even in the wake of 100 million deaths in the name of communism, most left-leaning devotees supported the principles of the USSR until the regime fell in a rubble from within. The rise and fall of Bolshevism took just over seven deadly decades. If the man-made global warming movement takes that long, more than 100 million could die before it's over, mostly from starvation caused by the end of free market capitalism -- this time on the chopping block for raping Mother Earth and exploiting the proletariat.
While we wait for the end of times, look for other similarities. For example, the Communists were great liars. Forgery and treachery were woven into the fabric of their every act on earth, from informing their own people they lived in a worker's paradise, breaking treaties with abandon and concocting fake news stories about America and the West. The KGB's Department X-1 specialized in whoppers designed to undermine Western political stability, many of which have refused to die. Some have been elevated to gospel truth in the common culture. For example, the "fact" that FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and his assistant Clyde Tolson dressed in women's clothing is a nefarious fabrication straight from Moscow Center.
The story was planted in an English-speaking news service in India controlled by the KGB. Compliant media and news services -- as usual -- picked it up and ran, never asking the source or verifying the facts.
This is just one of dozens of other examples of making up the big lie and using the media to disseminate fake news worldwide, including the 1990s concoction that the US created the AIDS virus and introduced it into the black and gay community to decimate their ranks. The CIA director at the time actually jumped up from pressing business and flew to Los Angeles to field questions ginned up by the media that the agency was responsible for alleged genocide.
The environmental loonies aren't as organized as the KGB -- yet. But their strategies are similar and the mass media, instead of becoming more diligent after the revelations of murder and mayhem beeping from the black box buried in the massive wreck of the Soviet Union, are right there to carry the message without checking the facts or questioning sources. The greenies have only to make up a huge lie and sit back as the useful idiots in the press pass it along faster than swine flu.
These fabrications usually concern another shocking result of the evil of mankind against Mother Earth and her animal inhabitants --- polar bears drifting off on icebergs detached by warming seas; dead fish washing up on sunny shores; predictions of the extinction of species after species; dire statements the ozone is poisoned; reports of the coming disappearance of entire nations from coastal flooding; estimates of drought and starvation just around the bend -- and on like that until people start to believe it, spawning outrageous expenditures to fund loony schemes such as wind farms, tidal power, chicken dropping plants and any scheme that promises an alternative to the use of fossil fuels and the curtailment of capitalist production.
There are so many nutty public and private initiatives based on false premises floating around that it's hard to keep count. One example ranks right up there with X-1 antics, reported as usual by the media as truth: the belief the earth is losing 40,000 species a year, to them a shocking result of mankind's predatory rape of the earth. A little research divulged this "fact" emanated from a British ecologist who "estimated" there are several hundred thousand species we have yet to discover. He figured we must be losing a percentage of these phantom species regularly -- and the scientific community and media actually fell for it.
The origins of the modern green movement can be dated to another loony scientist, Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb published in 1968 that predicted the world would collapse into starvation and poverty by the year 2000 due to overpopulation. Ehrlich was wrong about everything he predicted, yet he is canonized as the spiritual leader of the environmental religion and serves as a darling of the ever-enfeebled media. Worse, nations that fell for his theories and reduced their birth rates are on the edge of ethnic extinction, frantically seeking "guest workers" to immigrate to boost population levels to keep their economies going.
Not only are the green movement and its predictions grounded in sketchy science, their insistence on action now jeopardizes human safety and the world's economy. Already Americans are in danger of attacks by species rescued from alleged extinction. Reports arrive daily of fox, bear, moose, alligator, coyote and wild bird assaults crowded up against human habitats due to the insistence of environmentalists to save them for reasons that make no sense. Very soon energy police may monitor your use of gas and electricity and enforce a carbon tax, already floated in UK and France. And note that the hare-brained policies coming down on humans are couched in macro-speak, the refuge of unrepentant Marxists: "if only everyone in the world would take one less automobile or airplane trip; or eat meat once a week; not eat fresh fruit in winter to eliminate the danger to the atmosphere of delivery by jets and trucks and trains that expand the human-generated carbon footprint - then we would save the earth."
Like the Bolsheviks, they couch their inanities in global terms, and work to create world-wide decision-making entities to replace local government where sanity has a chance to breathe. As those who were herded into gulags or shot in the back of the neck under the communists would tell you, beware grandiose utopian schemes and international agencies that enforce impossible outcomes. If they decide you are in the way of the collective good, you are likely to be removed or eliminated.
Deep environmentalists, like the communists, brook no dissent. In the Soviet Union, truth-tellers were walked through show trials before being liquidated or pressed into gulags. In today's more civilized green tribunals, the accused is pilloried and stained in public and sent before a kangaroo court of his peers to be tried and punished by banishment and character assassination.
The case of Bjorn Lomborg is instructive. The Danish green scientist visited California in the 1990s to study the archival records of the heroes of modern environmentalism in situ where the movement began. Lomborg was startled to discover that what passed for science in the field of ecology was unscientific and often simply invented out of thin air for political purposes. He returned to Denmark and continued his study and published the Skeptical Environmentalist, the book that turned the movement on its ear -- but only briefly.
True to form, Lomborg's academic peers accused him of being a traitor to the green cause, forcing the installation of a tribunal to investigate his research -- and of course to ruin his reputation for daring to contradict the principles they held so dear. The inquisition went on for months, reported daily across Europe until finally the verdict was announced: Not guilty. In other words, Lomborg proved that the basic theses of environmentalism were suspect and unsupportable. Now he is a footnote, ignored by the greenies and the media, although he has written other books and added sanity to the insanity of the environmental manifestoes popping up like whack-a-moles across the globe.
The righteous green activists are dedicated to continuing the war against capitalism by other means by promoting one-world government; subsuming the self-esteem of human beings to the vague collective good; and calling on enforcement of their policies by international fiat that trumps national interests -- just like their Bolshevik forbears.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Administration officials say Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is moving ahead with plans to sign an executive order establishing the most aggressive renewable energy standard in the nation.
The governor plans to sign the order Tuesday. It would require utilities to generate one-third of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar or geothermal plants by 2020.
His office says the governor will veto a similar bill passed by lawmakers last week.
Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the state Air Resources Board, says that bill actually could hurt California's efforts to increase the use of green energy because it limits how much renewable power could be imported from other states.
Sen. Joe Simitian, who authored the Democratic bill, says the governor's order will lack the force and effect of his bill had it been signed into law.
Interesting. Further investigation seems to indicate that Arnold's order is to do an end run around a much more restrictive bill being pushed by our greenie weenie liberal legistature...
An order expected this week would require a third of energy to come from renewable resources -- possibly with no limit on importing such power from other states. He may seek to include nuclear power.
Reporting from Sacramento - After vowing to veto this year's biggest environmental bill, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to issue an executive order by midweek that would require all electric utilities to generate a third of their power from renewable resources, such as wind and solar power, by 2020.
The order presumably would set no limit on how much of the green power could be imported from other states.
Environmentalists who have been told about the governor's still-evolving plans said Schwarzenegger also was considering directing the California Air Resources Board to look at broadening the state's definition of renewable energy sources to include large hydroelectric dams and nuclear energy plants.
Critics questioned whether Schwarzenegger's order would be binding once he leaves office at the end of 2010. The validity of the order would be subject to a variety of potential legal challenges, they predicted.
"I don't think it will have nearly the effect that the bill would have, and I'm not quite sure it is legal," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento).
A spokesman for the governor confirmed that he would sign the executive order sometime this week but declined to provide details.
On Saturday, hours after the end of the 2009 legislative session, Matt David, the governor's communications director, said the governor would veto a pair of bills passed by the Legislature that would order electric utilities to get at least 33% of their power from renewable sources by 2020 -- and with limits on how much could be imported from outside the state.
State law currently calls for generating 20% by 2010, a deadline that the utilities are unlikely to hit before 2013.
"The poorly drafted, overly complex bills passed by the Legislature are protectionist schemes that will kill the solar industry in California and drive prices up like the failed energy deregulation of the late 1990s," David said.
The bills, SB 14 by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) and AB 64 by Assemblyman Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank), were introduced this year to respond to a call from Schwarzenegger for legislative action to increase production of renewable energy in California.
The legislation was supported by environmental groups, consumer advocates, labor unions and some major utilities, including Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Sempra Energy and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Raising the renewable energy requirement, they argued, would send a strong message to industry that California is serious about combating global warming, improving air quality and reducing reliance on foreign fossil fuels.
Unions and consumer groups also backed a provision in the bills that would require at least two-thirds of renewable energy be generated in-state to ensure that high-paying green jobs are created for California workers.
Among the opponents were the California Manufacturers & Technology Assn., the Independent Energy Producers Assn., the California Farm Bureau Federation and other business and trade organizations.
They feared that limiting California utilities' use of energy credits in buying renewable energy from out-of-state generators would restrict electricity supplies and drive up prices.
Schwarzenegger, in a letter to lawmakers in May, said he opposed any limitations on imports of green power.
The governor's order, which could be buttressed by a future bill, has sufficient legal teeth to get the Air Resources Board to write tough renewable standards under the authority of AB 32, California's landmark law to curb global warming, said Jan Smutny-Jones, executive director of the Independent Energy Producers Assn.
"My sense is that a future governor most likely will support moving forward with this," he said.
Well they're at it again. The sky is falling the sky is falling
The news is reporting global warming has once again struck the Polar Ice Cap. They are reporting that the summer ice cap levels are the 3rd lowest since 1979.
Well, just look at the graph. Yep, you're right. For the second year in a row, the ice cap is GROWING. Yep, it isn't quite up to the 2005 level yet, but it is well on its way.
Good to know, the polar bears still have a little bit of ice field left to romp on (1.97 million square miles)
Just in case you folks didn't know, the real reason behind the climate change myth is global socialist redistribution of wealth. Obama gave a clue in his speech to the UN...
"Tuesday's U.N. summit and the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh later this week seek to put added pressure on rich nations to commit to greenhouse gas cuts and to pay for poorer nations to burn less coal and preserve their forests."
Dumbass liberals. California is run by liberals. They push liberal bullshit like this, and then wonder why the state is losing HUGE numbers of jobs...
Schwarzenegger stands by AB32, but Whitman would shelve it
Published Friday, September 25, 2009, by the San Francisco Chronicle
Schwarzenegger backs strong state climate bill
By Kelly Zito Chronicle Staff Writer
Despite calls to suspend California's aggressive plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Thursday insisted that the state's work to combat climate change must soldier on.
"No single issue threatens the health and prosperity of our nation (more) than climate change," Schwarzenegger said during an appearance at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club.
While a "stalemate goes on" in Washington, Schwarzenegger said California must "push forward to finish the job."
Since enacting the nation's first plan to curb emissions from cars, ships, landfills, power plants and other sources, state policy makers have already adopted programs that are expected to erase about 70 million tons of carbon dioxide and other gases by 2020. That equals 40 percent of the goal set out by AB32, the governor said Thursday.
Under the law, known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the state must trim greenhouse gases by a total of 174 million tons over the next 11 years, essentially rolling emissions back to 1990 levels.
The remaining emissions controls are expected to include a cap-and-trade system, which sets an emissions limit and requires companies to buy credits that would allow them to pollute above the limit. The credits would pay for such carbon offsets as renewable energy and tree planting.
Schwarzenegger said the success of the economy and environment relies heavily on AB32.
"One hundred and fifty years ago, the Industrial Revolution ushered in a new era," he said. "Today, green technology will do the same."
Amid bruising budget cuts and legislative deadlock over an overhaul of California's water system, AB32 is also seen as a rare bright spot on the governor's recent track record. Next week, Schwarzenegger is co-hosting the second "Governors' Global Climate Summit" in Los Angeles -- a lead-up to December's international climate talks in Copenhagen.
Even while the governor celebrated the third anniversary of California's climate bill, some took shots at the measure. Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman said Wednesday that if elected, she would immediately shelve AB32. Whitman, the former chief executive at Silicon Valley's eBay, joined other conservatives who say the law is having a chilling effect on the state's economy.
"We have too many overreaching environmental regulations that have left us at an economic disadvantage to our neighboring states and AB32 is a prime example," Whitman said.
Schwarzenegger, whose term ends in 2010, dismissed such remarks as "rhetoric."
"I'm sure she doesn't want to be counted as one of those Republicans who wants to move us back to the Stone Age," he said.
l be the 1st one to say it. i have not been following this thread but me and a friend of mine tonight on the way home from a haunted house were talking about this. This summer in pa has been one of the coldest summers in years. we just got a new drop top for this summer and at night its so damn cold here we cant even put the top down. for god sakes im still using a comferter ar night with a bunch of sheets under it. This global warming is bullshit, this summer proved it. and from what i have been hearing this winter is going to be brutal.
Increased low clouds is an affect, not a cause. The cooler weather means more rain in many places, including my home town. Cooler and wetter summer, due to... wait.. its coming........ reduced Sun emission. Yes we are back to the Sunspot cycle. But hey, what do I know?
Increased low clouds is an affect, not a cause. The cooler weather means more rain in many places, including my home town. Cooler and wetter summer, due to... wait.. its coming........ reduced Sun emission. Yes we are back to the Sunspot cycle. But hey, what do I know?
Arn
Dr. Roy Spencer, a climate scientist, believes that clouds could be a cause. The IPCC et al believe that clouds are an affect and a result of positive feedbacks. Dr. Spencer has evidence that feedbacks could be *negative* instead of positive. If water vapor feedbacks are negative or even NOT positive, catastrophic affects of anthropogenic CO2 fall apart.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 09-28-2009).]
Kerry last week sought to change the vernacular surrounding the climate bill and sell its concepts more broadly, insisting it is not a "cap and trade" proposal but a "pollution reduction" bill. "I don't know what 'cap and trade' means. I don't think the average American does," Kerry said. "This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it's a pollution reduction bill" (E&E Daily, Sept. 25).
But a leading GOP opponent to the Senate climate effort quickly pushed back on the Democrat's strategy.
"No matter the semantic games employed, or the extent to which Democrats wish to hide the truth from the American people, cap and trade will mean more job losses, more pain at the pump, and higher food and electricity prices for consumers," said EPW Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.)."
(1.97 million square miles)
