The Futile Quest for Climate Control

“The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels - the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming - has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.  Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof - of which history offers so many examples - that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don’t they just turn to the genuine article?” - Paul Johnson

Climate change knows three realities: science reality, which is what working scientists deal with every day; virtual reality, which is the wholly imaginary world inside computer climate models; and public reality, which is the socio-political system within which politicians, business people and the general citizenry work..   [Read More]

The Earth’s Not Flat, and It’s Not Warming 

It boggles the mind. Years after global temperature rises peaked around 1998 — and the world has been cooling ever since — we're still hearing shrill warnings that we are doomed to be deep fried by Mother Nature.  It's almost like insisting the world is flat even after Columbus made it to the New World without plunging over the edge of the earth.   And the warming alarmists have the gall to compare the growing number of scientists and others who scoff at their specious claims to flat-earth believers.  Whatever warming that took place as the world slowly emerged from the last little ice age has stopped. The cold hard fact of the matter is that the world is getting cooler. Spring and fall seasons are getting shorter, and all the evidence points to the onset of a new little ice age, if not a big one.  We don't have to worry about proving the case for global cooling. Mother Nature is doing the job for us. I'm willing to bet that as this winter gets underway, she's going to put on a real winter carnival for us, with blizzards of unprecedented fury, shoulder-high snow falls, and temperatures so cold as to be in some cases life-threatening.

Global warming is a fraud.  [Read More]

Cold, Hard Facts

Climate Change: Despite record snows and low temperatures around the world last month, a major Al Gore supporter says October was the hottest on record. The only thing being cooked here is not the Earth, but the books.

James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and global warming alarmist, is Al Gore's favorite scientist, part of that mythical global warming "consensus" that says we are doomed and man is the culprit. On Nov. 10 he announced that last month was the hottest October on record and we were still doomed.
Snowboarders march through snow in Saas-Fee, 1,800 meters above sea level, in Switzerland on Oct. 30 after Snowboard World Cup qualifying was canceled due to heavy snowfall. Christopher Booker, writing in the U.K. Telegraph, reports that Hansen apparently has been spreading disinformation all his own to come up with a conclusion that flies in the face of empirical evidence we can see with our own eyes. Booker writes: "The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running." Caught with its pants down, the Goddard Institute started juggling its books. To compensate for the carrying over of the bogus temperature readings, it claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic — in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice 30% more extensive than at the same time last year. Ooops.  [Read More]

Obama Pushes Carbon Tax Proposal That Would Inflict New Great Depression

President elect Barack Obama used his speech at a Los Angeles summit last night to reinvigorate a push for the revival of a frightening proposal to slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status. “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change,” Obama said in a video message to governors and others attending a Los Angeles summit on the issue. “In the roughly four-minute message, Obama reiterated his support for a cap-and-trade system approach to cutting green house gases. He would establish annual targets to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them another 80 percent by 2050,” reports the Associated Press. Obama’s mission is to revive and expand the defeated 2007 Lieberman/Warner bill, “America’s Climate Security Act,” which proposed a cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions 70 per cent by 2050.

The bill was rejected for a very good reason its passage would have created economic conditions comparable to a new Great Depression and sunk America to near third world status.y.  [Read More]

Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests study on black carbon

A detailed analysis of black carbon -- the residue of burned organic matter -- in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions. A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper's lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published. By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account. The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact.  [Read More]

NBC's Curry Climbs 'Poster-Child' for Climate Change
'Today' show anchor misleads viewers about declining Mt. Kilimanjaro ice during network's 'green' week.

‘Tis the season for global warming alarmism on NBC. It is “green” week after all. Just like last year, “Today” hosts have ironically traveled to the “Ends of the Earth,” spewing carbon emissions all the way. (The network said it will “offset” the emissions.) This year, Ann Curry has been reporting from Tanzania, where she was attempting to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro. In a taped segment for NBC “Nightly News” Curry presented a dire image of the volcanic glacier and connected its ice loss to climate change – presumably she meant global warming, not global cooling. But what Curry didn’t tell viewers was that “most scientists who study Kilimanjaro’s glaciers have long been uneasy with the volcano’s poster-child status,” according to Seattle Times science reporter Sandi Doughton. Why were those scientists “uneasy?” Because despite its status as an “icon of global warming,” climate scientists like Philip Mote say Kilimanjaro’s melt hasn’t been caused by greenhouse gases “from cars, power plants and factories.”  [Read More]

Global warming ideas disputed by PSU prof

While a large number of people, including some scientists, believe that we are in an unprecedented period of global warming caused primarily by humans, Dr. James Koermer, a meteorology professor at Plymouth State University, would beg to differ. During a presentation at the university on Wednesday, Koermer explained why there are a growing number scientists, such as himself, who don't subscribe to the popular theory on global warming. Koermer said the Earth's climate has always changed and has experienced alternate warming and cooling trends long before the dawn of man. Going back millions of years, some research suggests the Earth has had much more extreme climate changes than are occurring today. "Over millions of years there have been periods when we have been hotter than we are today," Koermer said. He added that while humans do have an impact on the climate, it is minimal compared to natural phenomena. He also said that humans are not the biggest producers of carbon dioxide and that the gas is not the most abundant green house gas in the atmosphere. That title goes to water vapor, which is produced by the world's oceans.   [Read More]

Obama Out-Gores Gore at Climate Summit

Barack Obama managed to say all the wrong things at this week's Governors Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles -- without even showing up. The President-elect appeared to the green faithful on Tuesday in the form of a mammoth video image, and opened his pre-recorded pledge to "take the lead" in addressing global warming with these eerily familiar words: "Few challenges facing America -- and the world -- are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen record drought, spreading famine and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."

Now from whom have we heard such an arrogant concentration of misinformed alarmist hokum before? Of course - the man that Obama promised "will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem." The Delphic Goracle himself. And just as we have been compelled to do with the teacher, so must we with the heir apparent student. Let's dissect this...  "Few challenges facing America -- and the world -- are more urgent than combating climate change"

Stop right there! Waging a Don Quixote style battle against the very forces of nature trumps all but a few challenges? Do these happen to include the immediate issue of collapsing international markets and their very real potential to spark a worldwide depression? Or assuring the denial of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists and rogue nations? Or evading the strangle hold our dependency on oil allows those same factions and governments to leverage over us?....

Or, for that matter, any of countless bona fide and resolvable dangers the planet actually faces in the immediate future?  [Read More]

Film-makers taking on our 'global warming hysteria'

A new Irish film claims that climate change guru Al Gore is an alarmist and that those who think they are saving the planet are only hurting the poor. IF THE ADVANCE publicity is anything to go by, Not Evil Just Wrong will do for Al Gore what Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 did for George W Bush. "This is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don't want you to see," declares the website for the latest work by film-makers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer.  Their latest film - which takes on what are described as global warming alarmists - is "the most controversial documentary of the year". Indeed, it could very well be the most controversial. And Al Gore and Hollywood may well not want you to see it. And in that respect, Gore and co are actually succeeding for the moment. Because there is no completed film. Not yet anyway.  [Read More]

China tells rich polluting nations to change lifestyle

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said rich nations must abandon their "unsustainable lifestyle" to fight climate change.  Chinese officials have said wealthy nations should divert as much as 1 percent of their economic worth to paying for clean technology transfers and helping the Third World overcome damage from the rising temperatures bringing more heatwaves and droughts, more powerful storms and rising sea levels.  China is widely believed to be the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from industry, power plants and vehicles lifting global temperatures. But Wen threw the onus back on rich nations, with their much higher emissions per person and long history of polluting the air.  But foreign officials at the meeting raised doubts about Beijing's proposal, which could stoke contention over who pays and how much.    "If we go to citizens under the current circumstances ... and say 'I'm increasing your tax burden in order to pay for climate policy', that might not go down very well," Yvo de Boer, who heads the U.N. Climate Change Secretariathe told Reuters.  [Read More]

Alarmists Still Heated Even As World Cools

Climate Change: It's been a bad year for global warming alarmists. Record cold periods and snowfalls are occurring around the globe. The hell that the radicals have promised is freezing over.   As the British House of Commons debated a climate-change bill that pledged the United Kingdom to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, London was hit by its first October snow since 1922.  Apparently Mother Nature wasn't paying attention. The British people, however, are paying attention — to reality. A poll found that 60% of them doubt the claims that global warming is both man-made and urgent.     [Read More]

WHAT’S NEXT? A NEW ICE AGE IS UPON US

What the future holds for all mankind. In that context the only part the new political situation plays is Barack Obama’s determination to deal with a threat that does not exist - he wants to further cripple the economy by combating global warming that isn’t happening when the real threat is global cooling on a massive scale which is. As a result, when our attention should be focused on how we can deal with a real and immediate major shift in the global climate it is instead concerned with how we should approach what is provably an imaginary threat based on imaginary science. Belief that the planet is fast approaching a conflagration that will fast fry the earth is a triumph of fiction over fact. To waste our time and treasure combating a ginned-up threat while at the same time ignoring the real challenge is nothing short of blithering idiocy.

The earth is not warming. The 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 stopped dead in its tracks and the climate has been cooling ever since.   Meteorologist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman put it this way: “In the face of a rapidly cooling planet, all the proponents of global warming can do is to lamely suggest that global warming has gone on vacation and is taking a 10-year hiatus on account of the absence of sun spots. If this weren’t so serious it would be laughable,” Coleman said.   [Read More]

Beaker Fuel

The limitations of corn-derived ethanol have sent biotech researchers scrambling to devise new biofuels from agricultural waste, algae and other sources that are cheaper, more abundant and don't compete with the food supply. Ethanol producers used 23% of our corn crop last year to make 5% of our car fuel supply. Says gene hunter turned biofuel researcher Craig Venter: "We can't have fuels competing with food. It is already a semidisaster, and it is only going to get worse." People in the corn ethanol business disagree.

Scientists like Lynd are trying to convert any type of plant matter, not just sugar, into liquid fuels. With exotic gene-engineering techniques, they are breeding crops that could thrive on marginally arable land and are contemplating farms of bioengineered algae. Using all of a plant might produce four times as much fuel per acre as current biofuels. With better technology, "One percent of the surface of the Earth could produce all the transportation fuel that the world needs," says biochemist Chris R. Somerville, who heads BP's $35 million (annual budget) biofuels research center at UC, Berkeley. Adds University of Massachusetts microbiologist Susan Leschine: "Biomass is the only source of liquid fuels that can replace petroleum."  [Read More]

Obama’s Mandate: Big, Sure, But Does It Really Include Energy?

But the exit polls, flawed as they are, tell a slightly different story. Energy was not a priority issue for voters; on the contrary, it was the lowest-ranked issue of the five items pollsters suggested. The economy, terrorism, Iraq, and health care all worried voters more, the exit polls suggest.  So what about those energy-obsessed voters? Yes, they supported Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain—but with the lowest level of support on any issue (50%) other than terrorism, which the Republicans owned. Put another way, terrorism aside, energy was the best issue for Sen. McCain, with 46% support. When it comes to mandates, a stronger case could be made for Sen. Obama’s positions on Iraq and health care than for his energy policy.

Some commentators point out that Tuesday’s tea leaves suggest there isn’t popular support for an ambitious government program to curb carbon emissions; Planet Gore quipped that the U.S. “did not elect Al Gore.” That seems debatable, since both campaigns pledged serious action on climate change.  [Read More]

Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored

Lindzen, probably the most qualified prominent global-warming sceptic, suggested that a number of changes in the way science is conducted have contributed to the rise of climate alarmism among American scientists.   Central to this is the importance of government funding to science. Much of that funding since World War II has occurred because scientists build up public fears (examples include fear of the USSR's superiority in weapons or space travel, of health problems, of environmental degradation) and offer themselves as the solution to those fears. The administrators who work with the scientists join in with enthusiasm: much of their own funding is attached to the scientific grants. Lindzen says this state of affairs favours science involving fear, and also science that involves expensive activities such as computer modelling. He notes we have seen "the de-emphasis of theory because of its difficulty and small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large programs unconstrained by specific goals.  [Read More]

Global Cooling - a growing business case

The media is in love with Global Climate change, and by default almost everyone is convinced that the direction will continue toward increasing global warming, ranging from the media, to most academics, to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC), who states categorically that it’s CO2 that driving “global warming”. Most people can't imagine a sudden reversal into global cooling like the earth witnessed 2-3 centuries ago.  If you search Google News to see if the media is reporting on both sides of the story, you only get 297 hits with stories that include the term “global cooling” , compared 25,757 for global warming – a 2 order of magnitude difference or a 1 to 86.7 ratio.

I’m not trying to take one side or another- but I see growing evidence for a near-term global cooling scenario or business case and industry and individual business owners and entrepreneurs need to be thinking about the possibility of both scenarios, planning contingencies for both and tracking early warning signals to tell you which way we are heading.   [Read More]

BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE

Botanist and well-known face of the British Broadcasting Corporation David Bellamy has had his career go down the tubes, thanks to a comment he made and a myth he didn’t believe. Bellamy refused to tow the BBC’s company line on global warming and has now been out of the spotlight for 10 years. Said Bellamy in the article below, “The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme.” We’ve all heard about scientists running scared for their jobs and livelihood for denying climate change but this is ridiculous. This is a fine example of control being exerted over someone’s life, and occupation, thanks to global warming alarmists.  [Read More]

'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology on Jan. 17, 2003:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.  Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period..   

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?   [Read More]

In Mayor’s Plan, the Plastic Bag Will Carry a Fee

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has called for charging shoppers 6 cents for every plastic bag needed at the register.  Environmentalists like the sound of Mr. Bloomberg’s idea. But from the corner deli to the high-end grocery store, other New Yorkers are not so sure. 

“A tax on plastic shopping bags would be regressive, with the most severe impacts on those who are least able to absorb them,” said Keith Christman, senior director of packaging for the American Chemistry Council, a manufacturers’ lobby. “There are better ways to protect the environment, to encourage sustainable choices and to support recycling without making it harder for those who are already struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy.” 

It sounds like a tax, but officials call it a fee. The distinction is important: A fee requires approval only from the City Council, while a tax requires approval from the State Legislature.  [Read More]