I totally get that's what you and many others believe, and you may in fact be right. I guess my point has always been that pollution is bad for the environment and the will to switch to greener technologies is a good thing for the environment, be it locally or globally.
That sounds good in theory, but it doesn't always pan out in practice. Take CFL bulbs, for example. Less power, longer lasting - they're green, so they're good for the environment. Except how is making them more polluting than incandescent bulbs? Mercury content? Extra cost, which isn't always recouped in savings since a lot of cheaper CFLs don't last as long as the incandescents they're replacing.
Or Hybrid cars. Great, less fuel. Runs on electricity. Now, how are those batteries made? How are they disposed of?
Hydrogen fuel cells! Perfect! No pollution! No crude oil! Oh, wait. How do we get the Hydrogen? Oh yeah, from petroleum.
When you do something like keep your tires inflated, alter your driving style or cut down on non-essential driving, that's a savings all the way around. There's no hidden down side. But a lot of this new "green" technology isn't necessarily better for the overall environment than the old tech.
I'm not saying we shouldn't explore green alternatives. I'm just pointing out that just because it's called "green" doesn't mean it's better. It might be, but you have to do your homework.
One thing that I think about. Think of this as an X-Y graph. Y being average temperature in °F, X being time in years. We have a few data points on a graph that stretches millions of years, how can we (based on those few points) extrapolate the graph and assume that global warming is real? What if it's like a sin wave (for those geometry people, Y=sin X, graph varies from +/-1 on Y axis) and it goes up and down +/- X°C over the years. If we extrapolate from a point on a postiive slope (a place on the graph we may be right now), we would assume the temperature is going to go up and up and up, but in reality, it's just in its natural cycle and will go back down eventually.
I think the concept of global warming has the potential to make many people rich, that's for sure.
We know the earth's temperature is a sin function because there is evidence of past ice ages with warm periods in between. Don't look at it over 10 years, or 100, or even 1000. Look at the evidence over the entire life of the planet and the cycles become evident. Whether or not we have any impact on those cycles has yet to be shown.
We know the earth's temperature is a sin function because there is evidence of past ice ages with warm periods in between. Don't look at it over 10 years, or 100, or even 1000. Look at the evidence over the entire life of the planet and the cycles become evident. Whether or not we have any impact on those cycles has yet to be shown.
Yes. The million dollar question.
Have we impacted it? I don't believe there is enough evidence to make that conclusion. Of course, those who stand to make money off it have already made their own conclusions.
[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 03-09-2010).]
I expect all you climate change "contrarians" are going to try to kick my a** for posting this ...
I wouldn't believe a word of anything posted at "realclimate.org". Those are the "believers". Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Amann, Steig, Bradley...they're either in the middle of climategate, or have been proven crooked and their so called science debunked already. And realclimate is a product of Environmental Media Services, which is associated with Fenton Communications, who are connected with moveon.org and Greenpeace.
Here's a good article full of debunks of realclimate's claims:
One thing that I think about. Think of this as an X-Y graph. Y being average temperature in °F, X being time in years. We have a few data points on a graph that stretches millions of years, how can we (based on those few points) extrapolate the graph and assume that global warming is real? What if it's like a sin wave (for those geometry people, Y=sin X, graph varies from +/-1 on Y axis) and it goes up and down +/- X°C over the years. If we extrapolate from a point on a postiive slope (a place on the graph we may be right now), we would assume the temperature is going to go up and up and up, but in reality, it's just in its natural cycle and will go back down eventually.
I think the concept of global warming has the potential to make many people rich, that's for sure.
The first question that must be answered...WHAT IS the *average* temperature? I've never gotten a good answer to that question.
I totally get that's what you and many others believe, and you may in fact be right. I guess my point has always been that pollution is bad for the environment and the will to switch to greener technologies is a good thing for the environment, be it locally or globally.
*Pollution* is bad, yes. CO2 isn't pollution.
quote
Just as an aside, how many people here believe that climate change is in fact happening, no matter what the cause?
Over time, climate *does* change. That's not in dispute. That mankind's CO2 emissions are changing it, that's another story.
Americans are increasingly less likely to believe that the effects of global warming are already occurring — a shift most evident among conservatives, a new Gallup poll reveals.
Overall, 50 percent of Americans think the effects already are occurring, compared with 61 percent two years ago.
Among conservatives, just 30 percent feel that way, compared with 50 percent in 2008. But 74 percent of liberals say the effects of global warming are occurring now, up from 72 percent two years ago, and 60 percent of moderates agree.
Asked whether the media exaggerates the seriousness of global warming, 67 percent of conservatives said yes, up from 54 percent in 2008. And the percentage of liberals who agree has doubled in two years, from 13 percent to 26 percent.
“There has been a significant shift in Americans’ views on global warming in the past two years to a position of lessened concern,” Gallup observed.
“Given that conservatives outnumber liberals in the U.S. population by roughly 2 to 1, any significant change in the former group’s attitudes toward global warming is enough to move the needle on global warming attitudes among all Americans.”
Other findings of the poll:
Republicans (31 percent) are less than half as likely as Democrats (66 percent) to say the effects of global warming already are occurring. 25 percent of Democrats now agree that global warming is exaggerated in the news, up from 18 percent two years ago; 66 percent of Republicans feel that way. The percentage of respondents who said the effects are occurring now has dropped among all age groups except those 18 to 29. Women (56 percent) are more likely than men (42 percent) to believe that the effects of global warming are taking place. Men (57 percent) are more likely than women (40 percent) to say the media are exaggerating the seriousness of global warming. Among Americans who say they understand the issue of global warming “very well,” 41 percent believe the effects of global warming are occurring now, down from 60 percent two years ago, and 60 percent say the seriousness is exaggerated in the news.
As a few dozen dot com billionaires gathered in a Palo Alto living room one evening in early 2007, then-Senator Obama rallied potential new donors over the speakerphone. After the call, the host John Roos, a prominent lawyer, emphasized what most of his guests already knew. The clean-energy revolution was gaining momentum. The election in 2008 would be the critical moment. The ethics-based green revolution could be passed into law and Obama was their guy. Roos raised much money and opened many doors for Obama that evening. In May 2009, despite initial criticism from Japan, Roos was given the plum appointment of U.S. Ambassador.
Roos, who had handpicked his guest list carefully, was a kingmaker in the progressive, green, and Bay Area billionaires club. The polls showing America's rising concerns about ocean levels reflected the hard work of Silicon Valley hedge fund managers and venture capitalists.
The Obama Exploratory team had formed and the candidacy announcement was scheduled for early February. But Jude Barry, a political strategist and software programmer, wasn't one to hedge his bets. In late December of 2006 he quietly filed paperwork and created Obama for America Draft Committee (FEC ID #C00431130).
Jude Barry is one of many Howard Dean loyalists who helped Obama win the White House. Once labeled as a "self-styled Machiavellian apparatchik" by the San Jose political press, Barry helped develop Dean's net roots campaign that unraveled with a scream in Iowa. Still, the political landscape had been changed forever by Barry and fellow Deaniacs including Christopher Edley, UC Berkeley Law School Dean, Patrick Gaspard, Obama's political director, Jeremy Ben Ami, former Clinton staffer and founder of the anti-Israel J Street, and assistant attorney general Ron Weich.
Co-founder of Catapult Strategies with Dean Campaign manager Joe Trippi, Barry became well known in Silicon Valley political circles where he grew up and attended Catholic school with another assistant attorney general: Tony West. West is the Bay Area lawyer recently revealed as defense attorney for American Taliban John Walker Lindh.
Barry collected six $5000 donations from 12/28/06 and 12/30/06, including one from eBay millionaire Tom Adams III. At the same time Steven Churchwell, a partner at DLA Piper LLC's Government Affairs Group in Sacramento, listed himself as PAC Treasurer. Churchwell's bio states he "assists clients through the challenging waters of California government and politics." Areas of concentration include Ballot measures, Internal Investigations, and PAC regulations.
Obama's courtship with the high-tech crowd had begun back in early 2005. Within weeks of his swearing-in, the new United States Senator launched his Hopefund Pac then flew west to mingle. At the time, Jude Barry was managing Obama-backer Steve Westley's gubernatorial primary against Phil Angelides, the national chair of the Apollo Alliance. Other Apollo Board members include Dan Reicher, Google's Director of Climate Change, Robert Redford, and Van Jones, Obama's ex-Green Czar. Jones worked on Arianna Huffington's brief run for governor.
Obama scored big. Eileen Chamberlain-Donahue, wife of eBay CEO John Donahue took a liking to Obama. She went on to become Chairwoman of the National Women for Obama Finance Committee, and won an invitation to watch his Denver speech from a luxury suite with Penny Pritzker and Oprah.
By November 2006 Hopefund had raised $2.5 million. Some of Obama's early donors include the Warren Buffetts, co-founder of Espirit clothing company Susie Buell, Steven Spielberg, Attorney General Eric Holder, FCC Chair Julius Genachowski, Christina Romer, the Chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, Craig's List CEO Craig Newmark, David Geffen, as well as Jon Gruber, the MIT economist criticized recently for failing to disclose HHS consultancy contracts.
Edward Robinson's piece on fundraising scene in the wealthy Bay Area points out:
Venture capitalists ... are struggling with an investing climate that's the gloomiest since the bust of 2000 and '01. In the first half of 2008, only five venture-backed companies went public ... the poorest showing in five years. ``Almost everybody who's been in the Valley for any period of time is pursuing cleantech now,'' says Dixon Doll. .
That's where VCs see Obama coming in. In his policy proposal, the senator pledged to invest $150 billion over 10 years to develop solar farms in the Sunbelt, plug-in hybrid cars that get 150 miles per gallon (64 kilometers per liter) and clean coal that doesn't spew carbon.
Obama knew he needed California to win and green billionaires knew they needed Obama. A new loophole, the Unauthorized Independent Expenditure (IE), could make it happen. IEs can spend and raise unlimited money as long as there is no coordination with the candidate. An IE at its most brazen is SEIU's Committee on Political Education (SEIU COPE), formed in order to raise $26,009,685.53 in support of Obama, and $3,163,276.29 to oppose McCain.
The 2008 report "Independent Expenditures: The Giant Gorilla in Campaign Finance," reveals million dollar contributions and multi-million dollar expenditures are common. Californians for a Better Government (CPG), the highly controversial IE formed for the Angelides' campaign collected $10,015,643 with $8.7 million coming from one pocket: Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulous and his daughter Eleni Tsakopolous-Kournalakis. Married to the President Emeritus of The Washington Monthly, Ms Tsakopolous-Kournalakis now serves as Ambassador to Hungary.
CPG hired Steve Churchwell as Treasurer just as Obama for America Draft Committee would a few months later. Churchwell landed at the center of a probe involving incorporation irregularities. The Barry/Churchwell team continues making news. Along with a cryptography and electronic signature expert, they recently unveiled Verafirma Inc, then filed suit requiring San Mateo Superior Court to accept electronic signatures on an initiative petition.
Although Angelides lost to Schwarzenegger, he received a campaign donation from Paul Pelosi (Nancy's husband). In January 2009 Angelides delivered billions in stimulus money for Apollo's big, "new" green revolution initiative. First unveiled at a 2006 Conference co- sponsored with Bob Borosage, Angelides' friend from Jesse Jackson's campaign, Apollo's green revolution themed conference featured Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Obama and others vowing to take the party back from the centrist DLC.
In May 2009, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid selected Angelides to chair their Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) tasked with investigating the cause of the 2007-2010 financial crisis. The Angelides pick prompted complaints of conflicts-of-interest mainly around issues like pension funds. Strangely, his seat on the Board of the Climate Prosperity Alliance (CPA) went unmentioned.
CPA describes itself as a "global network of financiers, businesses, economic development authorities, scientists and NGO's." Marc Weiss, CPA Chair, served as Special Assistant to Andrew Cuomo and Henry Cisneros under Bill Clinton. CPA endorses the expansive policies of the U.N. General Assembly's 2009 'Global Green New Deal.' CPA also advocates $1 trillion of green investments per year in order to "re-deploy assets" and solve worldwide financial instability."
Weeks before falsified documents surfaced confirming global warming as little more than another far-left power grab, a CPA report celebrated $1,248,740,645,930.00 invested since 2007. The monies came from finance institutes and corporations in North America, Europe, China, India, Japan and Brazil.
Welcome to the ethics-based global revolution. The tangle of corrupt, hypocritical liars is made far worse by the growing realization of just how badly America was duped.
While I totally appreciate the delineation of the big money Dem's who backed Obama, and the linkage to silicon valley and the investment of those Dem's in industry which backed the Obama movement's stated objectives, I kind of disagree with your premise.
The issue isn't about who backed Obama and what money they raised from who and what money they spent. The issue is more who stands to gain money with Obama's agenda and who engineered that agenda with the hopes of financial gain.
To be entirely fair, every major American politician relies on corporate backers. They all have their pet preferences and causes.
The issue around Global Warming in my view, is the international plot to take the money from hard working folks in America, Canada, and Europe, and give it to Third World Countries, not out of caring, but out of deception and greed. Also the opportunity to skim a good chunk of it too.
Of course there are people like Al Gore who stand to make personal fortunes in the process, (he is heavily invested in his cause celeb and stands to lose big time) but that is true also of arms manufacturers, oil companies, and insurance companies which try to steer national policy for their own benefit.
It is true that many Barry followers were hoodwinked by the GW conspirators, and many have invested millions of dollars in the belief that it was real and would afford them the opportunity to make big bucks. I don't believe that recruiting funds for the Dem's is any different than any other major campaign though.
What I am waiting to see is whether some of these same Dem's come up in the Wall Street Journal as either bankrupt or otherwise in financial distress because they believed in something that does not exist. Namely, Anthropologically caused Global Warming.
Another claim by global warming alarmists has been discredited — this time assertions about the role livestock play in producing greenhouse gases.
In 2006, a United Nations report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” claimed that “the livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a higher share than transport.”
This led to demands for a “cow tax” in the U.S. and a campaign in Europe last year called “Less Meat = Less Heat,” political commentator Gerald Warner points out in Britain’s Daily Telegraph.
Now Dr. Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California at Davis, calls the U.N. report “scientifically inaccurate.”
In a report to the American Chemical Society, he reveals that the U.N. added all greenhouse-gas emissions associated with meat production, including fertilizer production, land clearance, methane emissions, production of feed, milk processing, and vehicle use on farms, to get the highest possible result.
But the transport figure included only the burning of fossil fuels, resulting in an “apples and oranges analogy that truly confused the issue,” Mitloehner disclosed.
In fact, just 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. are attributable to the raising of cows and pigs, compared to 26 percent from transport, according to Mitloehner.
“It is becoming difficult to keep pace with the speed at which the global warming scam is now unraveling,” Warner writes, noting that the Washington Times has called the latest flap “Cowgate.”
“Himalayan glaciers, polar bears, Arctic ice, Amazon rainforests, all discredited.”
One of the authors of the U.N. report, Pierre Gerber with the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, told the BBC he accepted Mitloehner’s criticism: “I must say honestly that he has a point — we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn’t do the same thing with transport.”
While I totally appreciate the delineation of the big money Dem's who backed Obama, and the linkage to silicon valley and the investment of those Dem's in industry which backed the Obama movement's stated objectives, I kind of disagree with your premise. Arn
That's what I meant, that it's about what they all have to gain by pushing the global warming myth.
Senator Jay Rockefeller told a group of constituents yesterday that 9 in 10 legislators have absolutely no idea how Cap and Trade actually works. That’s quite an admission, particularly considering that 219 – all but 8 of them Democrats -- successfully voted to pass the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill in the House last June.
The West Virginia Democrat’s confession came when he returned home to reassure voters that he will continue to fight for the state’s indispensible coal industry. With health care in the rearview mirror and cap and tax apparently back on the Senate road map, Rockefeller is among a sizeable group of Dems torn between what’s best for their own states (not to mention careers) and a key platform of their heavily-leftist-controlled party.
But Rockefeller’s is a particularly unenviable position.
According to the West Virginia Office of Miners' Health, Safety and Training, coal is responsible for more than $3.5 billion of the gross state product and approximately $70 million in property taxes annually. The coal industry and utility companies making electricity using West Virginia coal account for two-thirds of the business taxes paid in the state. Add statewide unemployment looming around 11% to the mix, and the five-term Senator knows that voting for coal-killing cap and tax would be political suicide.
That’s why he co-sponsored legislation that would delay for two years any EPA regulation of greenhouse emissions from stationary sources – such as coal-fired power plants.
And his butt-covering antics didn’t end there. According to the Wheeling News-Register, Rockefeller told yesterday’s crowd that some of the West Virginians’ hostility toward cap and trade is born of widespread ignorance, even amongst law-making politicians: "I will tell you that there are not 10 percent of people in Congress, either house, that can give you three paragraphs that make any sense on what cap and trade is. A lot of the phone calls I get refer to 'captain trade,' but I don't blame anybody for that."
Captain trade? Just perfect. As was the helping of double-talk Rockefeller used to explain his own understanding of cap and tax’s merits: "It can be good or it can be bad. If it is not good, I'm going to vote against it, and I may vote against it anyway unless it helps and preserves West Virginia's coal status."
Of course, that’s as absurd a promise as one to oppose pro-abortion legislation unless it helps and preserves human life.
More likely he’s already posturing for a sleazy deal to exempt users of West Virginian coal from Waxman-Markey -- or its purported successor’s -- emission caps.
In a now famous March 9th press release, Speaker Pelosi said “we have to pass the [healthcare] bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Rockefeller’s admission that no one really understands the key component of the energy bill -- and thereby the economic havoc it will unquestionably wreak -- makes clear that Congress has become even more akin to the old TV show Let’s Make a Deal than previously imagined.
Not only are players greedily trading away their integrity, but they have absolutely no idea just what it is behind curtain number two that they’ve bargained for.
It will take a long time for the truth to come out about that volcano. It is almost incalculable in the scope of its emissions. On another note, we are up to 12 Sunspots. While this isn't very big at all, there is a trend upward, and, if over the next year the sunspot activity starts bouncing up, the earth will be into a warming trend again. Of course Al Gore will claim it's all our fault, so, we have a little time, but not allot, to get the message out. Manmade Global Warming is a hoax.
It will take a long time for the truth to come out about that volcano. It is almost incalculable in the scope of its emissions. On another note, we are up to 12 Sunspots. While this isn't very big at all, there is a trend upward, and, if over the next year the sunspot activity starts bouncing up, the earth will be into a warming trend again. Of course Al Gore will claim it's all our fault, so, we have a little time, but not allot, to get the message out. Manmade Global Warming is a hoax.
A prominent American geologist declares that global warming has ended and “even more harmful” global cooling has already begun.
Dr. Don Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, delivered that warning in a scientific paper he presented to the 4th International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago on May 16.
Dr. Easterbrook said the earth has consistently shifted between periods of warming and cooling over the course of thousands of years.
There were cooling periods between 1880 and 1915, and between 1945 and 1977, and warming periods from 1915 to 1945 and from 1977 to 1998, according to Dr. Easterbrook, and temperatures have been cooling since 1998.
Easterbrook is the author of eight books and 150 journal publications. He serves as associate editor of the Geological Society of America Bulletin, and was U.S. representative to the UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] International Geological Correlation Project.
He writes in his paper:
“That global warming is over, at least for a few decades, might seem to be a relief. However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming and a cause for even greater concern.”
According to Easterbrook, a recent study showed that twice as many people are killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat.
Global cooling will have an adverse effect on food production because of shorter growing seasons, cooler growing seasons, and bad weather during harvest seasons, he said.
“This is already happening in the Midwestern U.S., China, India, and other places in the world. Hardest hit will be third world countries where millions are already near starvation levels.”
Cooling will also lead to an increase in per capita energy demands, especially for heating.
“World population is projected to reach more than 9 billion by 2050, an increase of 50 percent,” Easterbrook pointed out. “This means a substantial increase in demand for food and energy at a time when both are decreasing because of the cooling climate.”
Among Dr. Easterbrook’s conclusions:
“Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, occurred during the last Ice Age, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2.
“Climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate warming and cooling with a 25-30-year period for the past 500 years . . .
“Expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.”
So now we are going to go from hot to cold. These scientists don't know if they are coming or going.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-23-2010).]
If we actually are going into a Global Cooling period, it will be a golden oportunity to finally prove that humans can cause Global Warming, but I doubt it.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-25-2010).]
I ride my bike to work. It seems so pure. We're constantly urged to "go green" -- use less energy, shrink our carbon footprint, save the Earth. How? We should drive less, use ethanol, recycle plastic and buy things with the government's Energy Star label. But what if much of going green is just bunk? Al Gore's group, Repower America, claims we can replace all our dirty energy with clean, carbon-free renewables. Gore says we can do it within 10 years. "It's simply not possible," says Robert Bryce, author of "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy." "Nine out of 10 units of power that we consume are produced by hydrocarbons -- coal, oil and natural gas. Any transition away from those sources is going to be a decades-long, maybe even a century-long process. ... The world consumes 200 billion barrels of hydrocarbons per day. We would have to find the energy equivalent of 23 Saudi Arabias." Bryce used to be a left-liberal, but then: "I educated myself about math and physics. I'm a liberal who was mugged by the laws of thermodynamics." Bryce mocked the "green" value of my riding my bike to work: "Let's assume you saved a gallon of oil in your commute (a generous assumption!). Global daily energy consumption is 9.5 billion gallons. ... So by biking to work, you save the equivalent of one drop in 10 gasoline tanker trucks. Put another way, it's one pinch of salt in a 100-pound bag of potato chips." How about wind power? "Wind does not replace oil. This is one of the great fallacies, and it's one that the wind energy business continues to promote," Bryce said. The problem is that windmills cannot provide a constant source of electricity. Wind turbines only achieve 10 percent to 20 percent of their maximum capacity because sometimes the wind doesn't blow. "That means you have to keep conventional power plants up and running. You have to ramp them up to replace the power that disappears from wind turbines and ramp them down when power reappears." Yet the media rave about Denmark, which gets some power from wind. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says, "If only we could be as energy smart as Denmark." "Friedman doesn't fundamentally understand what he's talking about," Bryce said. Bryce's book shows that Denmark uses eight times more coal and 25 times more oil than wind. If wind and solar power were practical, entrepreneurs would invest in it. There would be no need for government to take money from taxpayers and give it to people pushing green products. Even with subsidies, "renewable" energy today barely makes a dent on our energy needs. Bryce points out that energy production from every solar panel and windmill in America is less than the production from one coal mine and much less than natural gas production from Oklahoma alone. But what if we build more windmills? "One nuclear power plant in Texas covers about 19 square miles, an area slightly smaller than Manhattan. To produce the same amount of power from wind turbines would require an area the size of Rhode Island. This is energy sprawl." To produce the same amount of energy with ethanol, another "green" fuel, it would take 24 Rhode Islands to grow enough corn. Maybe the electric car is the next big thing? "Electric cars are the next big thing, and they always will be." There have been impressive headlines about electric cars from my brilliant colleagues in the media. The Washington Post said, "Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they're within reach of the average family." That was in 1915. In 1959, The New York Times said, "Electric is the car of the tomorrow." In 1979, The Washington Post said, "GM has an electric car breakthrough in batteries, now makes them commercially practical." I'm still waiting. "The problem is very simple," Bryce said. "It's not political will. It's simple physics. Gasoline has 80 times the energy density of the best lithium ion batteries. There's no conspiracy here of big oil or big auto. It's a conspiracy of physics."
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was credited with being the first world leader to voice alarm over global warming — but she also became one of the earliest “climate skeptics.”
Thatcher expressed concern over climate change in 1988, calling for urgent international action and citing evidence presented to the U.S. Senate by James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Christopher Booker noted in Britain’s Telegraph.
She supported the establishment of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and in 1990 opened the Hadley Centre to study man-made global warming.
But in her 2003 book “Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World,” Thatcher issued “what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views,” Booker reported, and “voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us.”
She questioned whether carbon dioxide is the chief force influencing world climate, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, and said claims about rising sea levels were exaggerated.
“She mocked Al Gore and the futility of ‘costly and economically damaging’ schemes to reduce CO2 emissions,” Booker wrote. “She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer.”
In fact, a prominent American geologist recently declared that global warming has ended and “even more harmful” global cooling has already begun.
As the Insider Report disclosed in May, Dr. Don Easterbrook, a university professor and associate editor of the Geological Society of America Bulletin, warned in a scientific paper that global cooling over the next two to three decades “will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.”
Thatcher, Booker also observed, “recognized how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind . . .
“What she set in train earlier continues to exercise its baleful influence to this day. But the fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of ‘climate skeptics’ has been almost entirely buried from view.”
Thatcher was back in the news recently when Britain’s Daily Mail reported that she had agreed to meet with Sarah Palin if the former Alaska governor visits Britain. Palin’s representatives had approached the “Iron Lady” to request the meeting.
“A meeting with Margaret Thatcher would be an enormous publicity coup for Sarah Palin,” a source in Britain told the newspaper.
“Palin’s big hero is Ronald Reagan. In U.S. Republican folklore, Thatcher and Reagan brought down the Soviet Union between them. That’s why Maggie is so important.”
WRITTEN BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN, SUITE 101 | 25 JUNE 2010
New global warming data fraud scandal seems to show a faked 'consensus' of the impact of solar forcing on Earth's climate based on one finding.
A staggering new finding seems to mire the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in global warming scandal every bit as devastating as Climategate.
The news broke June 24, 2010 on a Czech climate skeptic blog, Klimaskeptik.cz, that calls the latest global warming scandal, "Judithgate.”
Roughly translated into English the site reveals that the The IPCC relied on evidence supplied by just only one Solar Physicist, Judith Lean, to create their "consensus that solar influence upon the climate was minimal.
Judithgate Scandal Goes Viral
The story has going viral on climate skeptic websites and is reported on a leading blog, ‘Climate Realists’ as ,’IPCC "Consensus" on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper.’
Apparently, objections were raised to the IPCC by the Norwegian Government as early as the draft version in the preliminary phases of the IPCC’s draft of their Fourth Report of 2007, which won the organization the Nobel Peace Prize.
A total of six further peer-reviewed papers were dismissed by the IPCC for inclusion. At least one of the papers, by leading solar expert Hans Svensmark totally contradicted the IPCC’s conclusions that the Sun was not a key player in climate change.
Norwegian Government Snubbed By ‘Politicized’ IPCC
Citing evidence from the IPCC’s Fourth Report (AR4) second draft comments objections to the creation of a faked consensus among scientists was raised by scientitic representatives from the Norwegian Government which spotted the fraud.
Their noted objection reads: "I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be correct, is given too much weight."
The IPCC dismissed the objections of the Norwegian government outright stating that any such changes would be “impractical.”
“Scandalous Re-writing” of Climate Data Records
The Czech blog outraged at what it sees as apparent cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined political view to blame global warming on man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, fumed, "Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity.”
Backed up by evidence obtained from the Harvard University Library, it may be proven that satellite measurements between 1986 and 96 do indicate that Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) "manipulated" their data.
More Woe For Beleagured IPCC Chairman, Pachauri
The article asserts that there was also further deliberate intent committed by the IPCC to stifle objections raised by other international climate experts, “People who were in charge of the satellites and created the original graphs (the world's best astrophysics: Doug Hoyt, Richard C. Willson), protested in vain against such manipulation.”
The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, had already admitted to similar such "errors" in the Glaciergate scandal but has repeatedly refused to resign, as reported in the India Times. The UN has been conducting it's own internal investigations but has not divulged its findings to the public.
G20 leaders in Toronto tried to avoid the fate of colleagues felled by warming advocacy
Last week’s G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world’s leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism.
One year ago, the G8 talked tough about cutting global temperatures by two degrees. In Toronto, they neutered that tough talk, replacing it with a nebulous commitment to do their best on climate change — and not to try to outdo each other. The global-warming commitments of the G20 — which now carries more clout than the G8 — went from nebulous to non-existent: The G20’s draft promise going into the meetings of investing in green technologies faded into a mere commitment to “a green economy and to sustainable global growth.”
These leaders’ collective decisions in Toronto reflect their individual experiences at home, and a desire to avoid the fate that met their true-believing colleagues, all of whom have been hurt by the economic and political consequences of their global-warming advocacy.
Kevin Rudd, Australia’s gung-ho global-warming prime minister, lost his job the day before he was set to fly to the G20 meetings; just months earlier Australia’s conservative opposition leader, also gung-go on global warming, lost his job in an anti-global-warming backbencher revolt. The U.K.’s gung-ho global-warming leader during last year’s G8 and G20 meetings, Gordon Brown, likewise lost his job.
France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had vowed to “save the human race” from climate change by introducing a carbon tax by the time of the G8 and G20, was a changed man by the time the meetings occurred. He cancelled his carbon tax in March, two days after a crushing defeat in regional elections that saw his Gaullist party lose just about every region of France. He got the message: Two-thirds of the French public opposed carbon taxes.
Spain? Days before the G20 meetings, Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, his popularity and that of global warming in tatters, decided to gut his country’s renewables industry by unilaterally rescinding the government guarantees enshrined in legislation, knowing the rescinding would put most of his country’s 600 photovoltaic manufacturers out of business. Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi similarly scrapped government guarantees for its solar and wind companies prior to the G8 and G20, putting them into default, too.
The U.K may be making the biggest global-warming cuts of all, with an emergency budget that came down the week of the G20 meetings. The two government departments responsible for climate-change policies — previously immune to cuts — must now contract by an extraordinary 25%. Other U.K. departments are also ditching climate-change programs — the casualties include manufacturers of electric cars, the Low Carbon Buildings Program, and, as the minister in charge put it, “every commitment made by the last government on renewables is under review.“ Some areas of the economy not only survived but expanded, though: The government announced record offshore oil development in the North Sea — the U.K. granted a record 356 exploration licences in its most recent round.
Support for global-warming programs is also in tatters in the U.S., where polls show — as in Europe — that the great majority rejects global-warming catastrophism. The public resents repeated attempts to pass cap and trade legislation over their objections, contributing to the fall in popularity of President Barack Obama and Congress. Public opinion surveys now predict that this November’s elections will see sweeping change in the United States, with legislators who have signed on to the global-warming hypothesis being replaced by those who don’t buy it.
In the lead-up to the Toronto meetings and throughout them, one country — Canada — and one leader — Prime Minister Stephen Harper — have stood out for avoiding the worst excesses associated with climate change. Dubbed the Colossal Fossil three years running by some 500 environmental groups around the world, Canada — and especially Harper — are reviled among climate-change campaigners for failing to fall into line.
Not coincidentally, Canada has also stood out for having best withstood the financial crisis that beset the world. Fittingly, Canada and its leader played host to the meetings.
A combustion engine emits CO2, therefor combustion engine = bad.
A hydrogen engine only emits water, therefor hydrogen engines are considered "green", therefor a hydrogen engine = good.
Then I go on the interwebs to see which greenhouse gas contributes the most to the earth's greenhouse effect. Guess what's on the top of the list? Water vapor. Yes, water vapor contributes 4 times as much to the greenhouse effect than CO2.
So then why are hydrogen cars considered green? They emit water vapor like there's no tomorrow.
I must say that I am proud of Stephen Harper, and I only regret he could not go as far and as quickly as his supporters wanted him to. I communicated with my friends in the Conservative Party as well as Stephen directly that I was concerned about the fraud that is Anthropological Global Warming. I am greatly pleased that he was able to hold the line. I am greatly pleased that he, an economist by trade, was able to protect Canada's banks.
In short, it has been a good G20 for Canada and I am a happy camper.
A combustion engine emits CO2, therefor combustion engine = bad.
A hydrogen engine only emits water, therefor hydrogen engines are considered "green", therefor a hydrogen engine = good.
Then I go on the interwebs to see which greenhouse gas contributes the most to the earth's greenhouse effect. Guess what's on the top of the list? Water vapor. Yes, water vapor contributes 4 times as much to the greenhouse effect than CO2.
So then why are hydrogen cars considered green? They emit water vapor like there's no tomorrow.
The explanation I've gotten from the warmists is that the water vapor will condense out of the atmosphere (not remain in the air). I don't know if that's true, just reporting what they said.
I must say that I am proud of Stephen Harper, and I only regret he could not go as far and as quickly as his supporters wanted him to. I communicated with my friends in the Conservative Party as well as Stephen directly that I was concerned about the fraud that is Anthropological Global Warming. I am greatly pleased that he was able to hold the line. I am greatly pleased that he, an economist by trade, was able to protect Canada's banks.
In short, it has been a good G20 for Canada and I am a happy camper.
My point was that the leaders required a leader. The keynote speech by Harper set the agenda.
What is not widely talked about is that Canada has the biggest secure oil reserves in the west. Yes perhaps in the world.
Our oil reserves are bigger than Saudi Arabia, and in the control of a Western Democracy.
The tree huggers and Gorites have been complaining that our oil sands oil recovery should be shut down because it caused Global Warming. Now who do you think would profit from such a move?
We have huge deposits on the eastern seaboard and in the Arctic.
We also have a secure source for uranium.
So the Gorites who want to give American money to anybody who isn't democratic and western, would have the US give its money to whom?
Canada is saying "hey over here" "please buy from us". It is safe, secure and readily available. No BP oil debacle attached. No Exxon Valdez needed thanks to Sarah Palin who struck the deal for the overland pipe line from Alaska.
This means North America can supply its own oil without the Venezuelans or the Saudis. It can supply Natural Gas for the next 200 years. Of course Al Gore doesn't want this talked about because it does not fall in line with his scam. And they wonder why Tipper left him.
The fact is that Canada is America's biggest friend and ally. Stephen Harper personifies this and unfortunately Obama doesn't appreciate it. I guess I'm biased eh?
A combustion engine emits CO2, therefor combustion engine = bad.
A hydrogen engine only emits water, therefor hydrogen engines are considered "green", therefor a hydrogen engine = good.
Then I go on the interwebs to see which greenhouse gas contributes the most to the earth's greenhouse effect. Guess what's on the top of the list? Water vapor. Yes, water vapor contributes 4 times as much to the greenhouse effect than CO2.
So then why are hydrogen cars considered green? They emit water vapor like there's no tomorrow.
RAIN you may have heard of that event when water falls out of the sky so water is self limiting as a greenhouse gas as it cycles out in hours to a few days unlike CO2 that takes hundreds of years to cycle out and CO2 builds up with no real limits on max percent in the air unlike water that is limited to the humidity % and then falls as rain
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
The explanation I've gotten from the warmists is that the water vapor will condense out of the atmosphere (not remain in the air). I don't know if that's true, just reporting what they said.
What I mean is, they say that the water vapor from auto exhaust would condense out of the air, not remain suspended. That was not to suggest that it wouldn't rain.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-05-2010).]
