A Skeptic's Primer on Global Warming

.
I.e., a (partial) year in review...

Below are some (in fact, less than half) of the Global Warming related news articles I sent myself for potential use in my news shorts/Netizen Blog form March of last year to March of this ('08).

They've lost all formatting and source article active linkages, and I haven't the time to manually add them back in (you'll so realize why). While few will have the time to actually read just the 'shorts' presented here, all of their source-URL links still work if copied into your browser manually to validate or elaborate on any piece.

The real purpose of this post is to demonstrate to those who get their news solely from TV the volume of skepticism on this issue world wide, and the quality of that skepticism. Even a speed-scroll down this piece should convey the former - I'd suggest slowing down and reading who is doing the talking as they're predominantly not just scientists, but climate related scientists. I know that doesn't compare to celebrities and politicians - but give it a try anyway.

I'd suggest just reading the headlines initially - they by themselves begin to convey the control of communication on this issue. Once that's realized I think the conclusion as to why become clear.

March '07 starts at the top with March 'o8 at the bottom - read in good health and please do consider forwarding the link to this piece to others - we're slightly out gunned by the MSM which has proven virtually none of this will get by it. The URL is:

http://netizennewsbrief.blogspot.com/2008/04/skeptics-primer-on-global-warming.html




March '07:


Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

[snippets]

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists, saying that there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a program called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels. But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels. [the golden question rears its head again]

/snip/

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists. But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."

Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, says the science is being suborned to politics; "The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.

"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."

The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965







Allegre's second thoughts

Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming. Fifteen years ago, he was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly [highly] publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence [evidence, not theories] indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.



[the miracles of science: able to overcome being French and a socialist in the name of reason - truly impressive.]



http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388





British Documentary: Global Warming 'Biggest Scam of Modern Times'

A British television station is set to do something that no American network (including Fox News) has ever done--air a lengthy documentary arguing that global warming is not caused by humans.

The program titled "The Great Global Warming Scandal" and set for screening by TV Channel 4 on Thursday dismisses claims that high levels of greenhouse gases generated by human activity causes climate change. Instead, it rejects the concept of man-made climate change, calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times."

The truth, it concludes, "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media."

Channel 4 says that the program features an impressive roll-call of experts who are experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, biogeography and paleoclimatology.

There's lots more…

[personally I believe 'created by fanatically anti-free market forces and supported by power & revenue hungry politicians' might be more on the mark]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm





British Scientist Warns of 'Moral Danger Behind Global Warming Hysteria'

The most recent act of GW heresy has come in the form of an op-ed written by Philip Stott, an Emeritus Professor from the University of London who is almost guaranteed to receive hateful and possibly threatening e-mail messages for his unwelcome contribution to this debate.

Stott began his article with a marvelous historical and religious reference that should – but, likely won’t – act as a wakeup call for those on the left and in the media now claiming that this matter has become a moral issue (emphasis mine throughout):

From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness.
In the 1970s, the fear was "global cooling." The Christian Science Monitor then declaimed, "Warning: Earth's climate is changing faster than even experts expect," while The New York Times announced, "A major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable." Sound familiar? Global warming represents the latest doom-laden "crisis," one demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven ways.
But neither history nor science supports such an apocalyptic faith.
Nicely stated. Stott then shared some of the history surrounding this issue that is totally ignored by global warming alarmists:…

http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=2938762





Scientists Debate Sun's Role in Global Warming

Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun's activity is the common thread linking all these events. Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression [?] that global warming is a natural phenomenon. [if it isn't, how'd it happen the last dozen times? ]

[all of earth's surface energy is from the sun - even the smallest fluctuation would have immediate impact - and a parallel effect on our solar-siblings obliterates the man-caused argument for any rational person - but alas…]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258342,00.html





Top scientists attack 'Hollywoodisation' of global warming

Two leading British scientists have hit out at the "Hollywoodisation" of fears over climate change. Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier of the Royal Meteorological Society have criticized peers who they accuse of ''overplaying'' the global warming message. The pair placed the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) at the centre of their criticism. /snip/ 'researchers are making claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science.'

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=421572007





Europe's dirty little secret on global warming
By Bjorn Lomborg
Commentary by
Monday, March 19, 2007

[Gist: no one can do anything substantial about climate change and they know it. It's all a ruse for power and money - how else could you possibly explain the continued lip service for Kyoto-like schemes given the scientific and financial facts below?]

Almost two weeks ago, the European Union declared that it had practically saved the planet. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso claimed that Europe would lead the way on climate change, and the EU promised to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 20 percent below 1990-levels by 2020. Of course, with the EU already having promised an 8 percent cut by next year in the Kyoto Protocol, this new target seems slightly less ambitious. Moreover, in continuing the fundamental problems besetting the crippled Kyoto Protocol, the EU has essentially gone and made a worse deal.

The agreement's fundamental problem has always been that it is simultaneously impossibly ambitious, environmentally inconsequential, and inordinately expensive. It required such big reductions that only few countries could live up to it.

Some countries, like the United States and Australia, chose to opt out of its stringent demands; others, like Canada, Japan, and a raft of European states, pay lip service to its requirements, but will essentially miss its targets. Yet, even if everyone had participated and continued to stick to Kyoto's ever more stringent commitments, it would have had virtually no environmental effect: The treaty's effect on temperature would not have been measurable by mid-century and would only have postponed warming by five years in the 21st century. Nonetheless, the cost would have been anything but trivial - an estimated $180 billion per year.

With the EU's high-pitched rhetoric, you would be forgiven for believing that it has now single-handedly taken the major step toward solving the problem. Barroso called the agreement "historic." British Prime Minister Tony Blair extolled its "groundbreaking, bold, ambitious targets." German Chancellor Angela Merkel even ventured that Europe's promises could "avoid what could well be a human calamity."

But nobody sees fit to reveal the agreement's dirty little secret: It will do next to no good - and again at very high cost. According to one well-established and peer-reviewed model, the effect of the EU cutting emissions by 20 percent will postpone warming in the 21st century by just two years, yet the cost will be about $90 billion annually. It will be costly, because Europe is a costly place to cut carbon-dioxide, and it will be inconsequential, because the EU will account for only about 6 percent of all emissions in the 21st century. So the new treaty will be an even less efficient use of our resources than the old Kyoto Protocol.

It is important to learn from the past. We have often been promised dramatic cuts in carbon-dioxide emissions far into the future, only to see the promises vanish when we got there. In Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the West promised to stabilize emissions, but overshot this by 12 percent. In Kyoto, we were promised a 7 percent reduction in world emissions, but will probably achieve only 0.4 percent. Of course, such promises are made by politicians who in all likelihood are no longer in office when the time comes to fulfil them.

The EU's new global warming agreement may help win elections for leaders faced with voters scared by the prospect of climate change. But it will do virtually no genuine good, at a high cost, and, as with many other lofty promises from the EU, it will carry a high probability of failure. Let us hope that the rest of the world will keep its cool and propose a better, cheaper, and more effective solution for the future.

Bjorn Lomborg is the organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus, an adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School, and editor of the new book "How to Spend $50 billion to Make the World a Better Place." THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org).

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=80585





Retired Arctic Research Director Slams Global Warming Alarmism

Despite the constant drumbeat coming from the media we have lately seen more and more noted scientists around the world speaking out against the supposed consensus that man causes climate change. The most recent entry on the side of the skeptics was Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of the University of Alaska Fairbanks International Arctic Research Center.

/snip/

"If you look back far enough, we have a bunch of data that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the present," Akasofu said. "Scientists who support the man-made greenhouse gas theory disregard information from centuries ago when exploring the issue of global warming. Satellite images of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have been available in the satellite era only since the 1960s and 1970s.

/snip/

Of course, the date 1975 is crucial, for between 1940 and 1975, the planet was going though a period of cooling which lead many scientists to believe – and media to report – that the earth might be entering a new ice age. As such, looking at data specifically from 1975 will only show increasing temperatures. How convenient.

http://www.adn.com/life/v-printer/story/8756517p-8658008c.html







Yet Another Skeptical Global Warming Documentary Ignored by American Media

A year after Lars Mortensen’s documentary “Doomsday Called Off” was made, the Canadian non-profit organization Friends of Science created another video skeptical of anthropogenic global warming (h/t NB member dscott).

Entitled "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change," the piece similarly used scientists from around the world to debunk theories the organization felt were devoid of facts (videos available here in both Windows Media and Quicktime).

The video was described in an April 13, 2005, press release (emphasis added throughout):

At a news conference held in Ottawa, some of North America’s foremost climate experts provided evidence demonstrating that the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed; a problem that continues to be ignored by the Canadian government. Scientists called on the Canadian government to delay implementation of the Kyoto Protocol until a thorough, public review of the current state of climate science has been conducted by climate experts. Such an analysis has never been organized in Canada despite repeated requests from independent, non-governmental climate scientists.
Think you’ll see this video on American television any time soon?

The release and the video made some pretty strong statements that would be interesting to hear or read rebutted by anthropogenic global warming alarmists here in America, in particular, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore - if he wasn't continuing to ignore any-and-all invitations to debate the subject.

http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/April2005/13/c5042.html







Global Warming Skeptic Rips Media Alarmists and 'Malevolent' Scientists

Canadian environmental consultant, Dr. Timothy F. Ball is yet another distinguished member of the growing list of scientists around the world desperately and passionately fighting to inject some facts into this contentious debate.

/snip/

"The major problem with the politicizing of climate, especially in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], is it took computer model experiments that produced scenarios and presented them as predictions. This practice was exacerbated by groups with a political agenda and the media who invariably focused on the worst case scenario because it suited them. "
/snip/

"Sadly, too many of the modelers and many scientists who did not understand, did little to disabuse the public or the media of the severe limitations, the original intent, and the nature of what was being presented. In fact, too many acted to obfuscate the truth and attacked those who tried to explain."
/snip/

"When you go public and allow the output of the models to become the basis of global, national and regional policy there is a different set of responsibilities and these are definitely not being met. Worse, they are deliberately being manipulated and misused. "
http://newsbusters.org/node/12174





Stanford Atmospheric Chemist: Ethanol Blends Worse Polluters Than Normal Gasoline

Did you hear about that report released last week from a Stanford University atmospheric chemist demonstrating that the tailpipe emissions from cars using E85 ethanol are actually more dangerous than those using normal gasoline? You didn’t?

/snip/

His results, published today on ES&T's Research ASAP website (DOI: 10.1021/es062085v), show that ethanol is no silver bullet for health. Switching to E85 blends (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) could result in slightly higher ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma (9% higher in Los Angeles and 4% higher in the U.S. as a whole), the study finds. Cancer rates would be similar for gasoline and E85.

Starting to make sense why you didn’t hear much about this? The article continued:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/apr/science/ee_ethanol.html





Ethanol is a waste of energy

Despite mounting evidence that ethanol is about as useful as a flux capacitor, Gov. Bill Ritter is ensuring that Colorado will become dependent on this "alternative" energy. No need for debate. No need to heed the market. No need to explore viability or consequences. Executive orders will do the trick.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_5728436





Environmental Alarmists Have It Backwards

By John Stossel

John Semmens of Arizona's Laissez Faire Institute points out that Earth Day misses an important point. In the April issue of The Freeman magazine, Semmens says the environmental movement overlooks how hospitable the earth has become -- thanks to technology. "The environmental alarmists have it backwards. If anything imperils the earth it is ignorant obstruction of science and progress. ... That technology provides the best option for serving human wants and conserving the environment should be evident in the progress made in environmental improvement in the United States. Virtually every measure shows that pollution is headed downward and that nature is making a comeback."

[did you know this nation has been reforesting roughly 1 Million acres a year for the past 40 years? Did you know that young/growing trees convert nearly 50 times the CO2 to oxygen as to mature/stagnant trees? (ever tried to feed a teenager?) The US is leading the industrialized world in emissions reduction/mitigation* {* less per capita while growth continues} - it's way ahead of Europe by virtually every measure save one: ludicrous promises]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/how_about_economic_progress_da.html





Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists

The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists. Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet. Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century.

http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=502332&catname=Local%20News&classif=





Climate change hits Mars

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap. Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s.

[DAMN those SUVs]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece





Earth's Climate Is Seesawing, According To Climate Researchers

During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the north have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

[does this mean that everything isn't already know about global climate? heresy! ]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070428170229.htm





Kilimanjaro's Glacier Study Refutes Global Warming as Cause

The fabled snows of Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro may not succumb to global climate change as quickly as scientists had feared. A joint Austrian-U.S. research team that took seven years of measurements from weather stations atop Africa's tallest mountain says that its ice fields will be around for another 30 to 40 years /snip/ The research team found new evidence showing that lower precipitation—and not rising temperatures on the summit—is the main cause for the Kilimanjaro glaciers' retreat.

[again, as time goes on, the more past dire predictions will be proven false - hence the push to do something now-right-now ]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070501-kilimanjaro.html





The New Religion

Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won't find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' former Vice President Al Gore's book about global warming.

[the old faith replaced by the new…]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=us&sid=afIESX3LdgnQ





Media Ignore Evidence of Global Climate Change 20,000 Years Ago

It's so easy, the cave men did it? LiveScience.com staff writer, Dave Mosher, wrote an article titled "Climate Change, Not Humans, Trounced Neanderthals"

/snip/

This is another analysis of physical data that confirms an extreme cold snap 20,000 years ago. Climate studies indicate that since then, Earth has been warming.

/snip/

This lends weight to the idea that we are now experiencing a natural interglacial warming trend after a period of global cooling. If we experienced one of Earth's coldest periods 20,000 years ago, then it only makes sense that the temperature has increased since.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070505/sc_livescience/climatechangenothumanstrouncedneanderthals





German Mag Debunks Climate Change Hysteria, Extols Benefits of Warming Planet

Here’s something you’re unlikely to see in an American newspaper or magazine: global warming might actually be good for the planet and its inhabitants.

This radical idea was advanced Monday by the German magazine Der Spiegel which did something I can’t imagine a U.S. publication having the nerve to do in this highly politicized environment: offer readers a comprehensive, balanced view of the pluses and minuses inherent in a warming earth. How delightfully extraordinary.

Unlike most American media reports on this issue, Spiegel, in an article ironically titled "Not the End of the World as We Know It," wonderfully began with a little history on the subject to put things in a proper perspective:

. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html





Weather Expert: Sub-tropical Storms Being Named to Fuel Global Warming Alarmism

[remember this in future and note if the MSM ever points it out…]

For weather watchers, the name Joe Sobel should be a familiar one, as he has been with AccuWeather for 35 years, and is a regular guest on radio stations as well as MSNBC. With that in mind, Dr. Sobel posted an article at the AccuWeather blog Wednesday highly critical of the naming of sub-tropical storms. In his view, this practice – which is only five years old – is exaggerating the number of storms per year thereby adding to global warming alarmism:

Back in the old days... and I'm only talking 5 years or so ago... we did not name sub-tropical storms. Those named storms go into the total of named storms and obviously increase the number of storms that year and consequently increase the average number of storms per year. It has been claimed that global warming is responsible for an increasing number of tropical storms and hurricanes, but here is a reason that the number of storms is increasing that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. It's because we are mixing apples and oranges and calling them all apples! And, by the way, on that topic, there was an interesting article recently published by the American Geophysical Union written by C.W. Landsea, a very respected hurricane researcher, that says any increase in the number of hurricanes observed over the last 100 years is only the result of the fact that we have more ships at sea, more people living on coastlines, and satellites to see storms now that would have gone unrecorded 50 or 75 years ago.
Think the global warming alarmists in the media will explain this distinction as they go apoplectic over the significance of this first storm?

http://wwwa.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&blog=sobel





Did the U.N.’s IPCC Report Exaggerate CO2 Increases to Hype Global Warming?

Those who have been following the manmade global warming debate are well aware that every time the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues another dire pronouncement, the media report the bad news every hour on the hour.

However, what if a new scientific study concluded that the IPCC cherry-picked data concerning CO2 levels in the past in order to make it look like today’s levels are out of the ordinary. Would the media report that?

Well, an article written by scientists Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project was published on Monday making exact this claim …

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm





Global Warming Comes to Neptune

First came the news that Mars is getting warmer, now comes the news that Neptune is also experiencing global warming:

…infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. But with no one to blame, Hammel and Lockwood explored how variations in the output of the Sun might control variations in the brightness of Neptune. [...]
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/





Global Warming Debate and the Absence of American Media

Have you noticed that most of the articles you see that are skeptical about man’s role in climate change come from foreign publications based in countries like Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada?

Are the American press too emotionally attached to the issue -- and, in particular, the chief spokesman, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore -- to even consider the possibility that the debate isn't over, and that their role as journalists is supposed to be to further discussion rather than squelch it?

While you ponder, an editor for Australia’s The Age, Melanie Griffin, published another thoughtful article Sunday slamming the upcoming "Live Earth" concerts about to be thrown in the name of global warming alarmism …

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/live-earth-useful-as-a-green-bracelet/2007/05/19/1179497334395.html





Kyoto target is out of reach for New Zealand

There is no way we will be able to meet our Kyoto target. Our Government is already allowing for about $600 million to purchase carbon credits to meet our obligation by 2012. To date the Government has not actually purchased any credits but is merely regarding this as a future liability.

Other political parties (National and the Greens) have disagreed with this estimate of credits required and suggested it should be at least $1.7 billion by 2012. It is unlikely taxpayers will find it acceptable for our Government to spend such sums on carbon credits, probably from Russia, for no demonstrable benefit apart from trying to maintain our "clean and green" image.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10440771





An Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Fiction?



Steve Hayward, the F.K Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, and Senior Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy in San Francisco, is the producer of the new film An Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Fiction?, a rebuttal to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. To see the film, visit aconvenientfiction.com.

"environmentalists really want to extend political control over resources, and if you can get control of energy resources, you've gone a long way to controlling everything, since energy is the master resource of a modern economy."


http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28395





Devastating Critique of Climate Modeling


This Website posting from Dr. R.A. Pielke Sr., a bona-fide climate scientist and author of a book on climate modeling, is just devastating to Global Warming alarmists.



'That the (UN's) IPCC states that this (climate modelling) is a "much more easily solved problem than forecasting weather patterns just weeks from now" is clearly a ridiculous scientific claim.'


Although there is a fair bit of scientific jargon, let's count the ways it refutes the UN IPCC:


/snip/



But I found some of the most devastating revelations in the comments from other climate scientists:



"....we've been modeling the climate with supercomputers for more than a decade, why is there no public "scorecard" comparing predictions to actual reality? I think if we are going to base massive changes to the economy on the predictions of these models, they should at least make public predictions, a decade out, each year. Then we should be able to compare them to the previous year's predictions and climate measurements."


Dr. Pielke replies that he has previously called for testable climate model predictions to be verified with careful measurement of heat accumulating over time -- but his call has apparently fallen on deaf ears at the IPCC and among the climate modelling community at large. Perhaps this further comment sums up the situation best:



"Thats the metric alright. But the energy-deprivation-crusaders aren't going to be signing up for this. Because they've been on a years-long evidence-filibuster."


http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/05/23/a-short-summary-of-why-skillful-climate-prediction-is-much-more-difficult-than-skillful-weather-prediction/





[ as time goes by more and more evidence disproving the theory of atmospheric CO2 caused global warming is emerging - hence the 'emergency' to enact draconian measures now-right-now...]

Junk Science: Hot Air Study Melts Global Warming Theory
Thursday, May 24, 2007
By Steven Milloy


Global warming alarmists may want to expedite their efforts to hamstring the global economy with greenhouse gas regulation. A new study touted as showing that we’re not sufficiently panicky about manmade carbon dioxide emissions actually supports the exact opposite conclusion.

“Warnings about global warming may not be dire enough, according to a climate study that describes a runaway-train acceleration of industrial carbon dioxide emissions,” USA Today shrieked this week.

The study authors reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the rate of manmade carbon dioxide emissions was three times greater during 2000 to 2004 than during the 1990s.

Since increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels allegedly are causing global warming, the new study must mean that global temperatures are soaring even faster now than they did during the 1990s, right?

Wrong, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Climatic Data Center.

By overlaying the atmospheric carbon dioxide trend onto graphs of near-surface temperatures, surface temperatures and ocean temperatures, it is readily apparent that ever-changing global temperatures aren’t keeping pace with ever-increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.


The bottom line is that while we may be burning more fossil fuels than ever before — relatively inexpensive coal, oil and gas are facilitating steady global economic expansion — that activity isn’t having any sort of discernible or proportionate impact on global temperatures.

Not surprisingly, the study authors don’t seem to want you to know that fact since nowhere in their study do they even mention the word “temperature,” let alone do they present a graph comparing trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide with global temperature.

Are such increasing rates of carbon dioxide emissions grounds for future worry?

Study author Michael Raupach of the Center for Marine and Atmospheric Research in Canberra, Australia, told the Orange County Register that, “If emissions continue to increase at the rate of 3.1 percent a year, carbon dioxide concentration would rise to 560 parts per million in 2050 and soar to 1,390 parts per million in 2100.”

That sure sounds scary, but what would such increases really mean for global temperatures?

No one knows for sure. But it could easily be a non-event and there’s no scientific basis for pressing the panic-button.

First, despite all the carbon dioxide emitted by man since the industrial revolution, manmade carbon dioxide is an exceedingly small part of the total greenhouse effect — on the order of about 0.11 percent.

Remember that we’re talking about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in parts per million. You may choose to believe that a 3 percent annual increase in manmade carbon dioxide emissions — releases that represent way less than 1 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions — is something to worry about, but the numbers seem to speak for themselves.

Next, we’re not even really sure of the true relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. While the alarmists want us to believe that rising carbon dioxide levels necessarily increase global temperatures, scientific data from Antarctic ice cores indicate the exact opposite — increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide appear hundreds of years after increases in global temperature.

If the temperature-carbon dioxide relationship indicated by the ice cores is correct, then Raupach’s concern is entirely backwards and misplaced.

On the other hand, even if it were true that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels discernibly increased global temperatures, temperatures wouldn’t likely increase by very much.

Based on the physics of the greenhouse effect, a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from the pre-industrial period (supposedly around 280 parts per million) to 560 parts per million (about 48 percent higher than present levels), might lead to an increase in average global temperature on the order of less than 1 degree centigrade — and we’ve already experienced about 60 percent of that increase.

A further doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide to 1,120 parts per million would result in even less of an increase in temperature because of the energy absorption properties of carbon dioxide. [i.e., think of an exponential curve and flip it: with a steep increase initially that planes out to an ever slowing increase in effect - i.e.e; self regulating]

Essentially, the Earth only radiates so much energy back into the atmosphere that is available to be absorbed by carbon dioxide. Once all that energy is absorbed, superfluous carbon dioxide will not add to the greenhouse effect.

Study author Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution made the bizarre comment in the press release that we must “shift more of the economy toward activities like service industries and information technology” — as if the ever-expanding global population won’t require even more goods like food, energy, housing, clothing and transportation in the future.

We should, of course, strive for energy efficiency and new energy technologies to an extent that’s reasonable. But we shouldn’t condemn conventional energy sources based on dubious reasoning, risk harming the global economy for no good reason and deprive poor nations of their right to develop — all in the misguided hope of manually adjusting the global thermostat.

[now to see how the legacy media portrays this study - any bets?]

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275267,00.html







Noah`s Flood Cancelled

The new paper by Smith et al, suggests that there has been no global increase in water vapour content, and undermines the IPCC foundation stone of an enhancement of the increased warming effect of CO2 via increased atmospheric water vapour:

/snip/

No net increase in precipitation means no increase in atmospheric water vapor, which is something the Global Warming models predict. A hotter planet means a more humid planet, which means more rainfall overall, and it just isn`t happening.



http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2005GL025393.shtml





India Rejects Global Warming Hysteria, Says Kyoto Hurts Economy, Worsens Poverty

As reported by Australia’s Herald Sun Tuesday (h/t Benny Peiser):

“Legally mandated measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are likely to have significant adverse impacts on GDP growth of developing countries, including India,” environment ministry secretary Pradipto Ghosh said.
“This in turn will have serious implications for our poverty alleviation programs,” he said.
Unfortunately, this side of the argument is rarely shared by a media much more interested in presenting fear rather than facts.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21812265-5005961,00.html





Canadian Climatologist Asks Government to Prove Bulb Ban Saves the Planet

Titled “Prove It! Environmental Do-gooders,” the piece marvelously took aim at governments deciding to prevent the use of consumer products – in the name of saving the planet – without any proof that their recommendations actually will benefit anyone.

/snip/

"Show us the results of comprehensive life cycle analyses that demonstrate the energy savings accrued when operating a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) more than compensates for the increased manufacturing and mercury disposal impacts associated with CFLs. Prove to us that the loss of convenience and light quality of the incandescent is off-set by a significant net environmental benefit."
/snip/

Or, is it enough for folks that have had absolutely no formal training in climatology, meteorology, or any earth science to just claim “The debate’s over?”

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2007/05/28/4214065-sun.html





ABC’s Global Warming Piece Ignores Decades of Hysteria from NASA's James Hansen

ABC’s Bill Blakemore wrote an article posted at the network’s website Tuesday citing global warming alarmist and NASA scientist James Hansen as stating that the earth is at a tipping point “with dangerous consequences to the planet”.

/snip/

Unfortunately, Blakemore chose to completely ignore decades of hysterical predictions by Hansen that have already proven wrong, and that this is not the first time the NASA scientist has referred to ten years before disaster strikes…

[this is the fellow that's charged the Bush administration with censorship - yet every time this individual speaks it's propagated throughout the MSM - all the while ignoring multiple coworkers who have publicly said he's a media hound with little credibility within NASA. Meanwhile, the Heidelberg Appeal, Leipzig Declaration and Oregon Petition, consisting of tens of thousands of scientists [www.sepp.org] publicly denouncing the corruption of this issue go virtually unknown to the majority of Americans? We might want to revisit exactly who's being censored here.]

http://newsbusters.org/node/13114





NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming



In a pretaped interview to be broadcast this morning on National Public Radio's ":Morning Edition" program, NASA administrator Michael Griffin was asked whether he is concerned about global warming. Griffin replied:

"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
"I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."


[actually, he didn't question that we're currently experiencing an up-tic, just what we can/should be doing to control it. Still, that was enough to start the cries of 'ignorance' against him…>]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1





Meteorologist: ‘Al Gore’s Global Warming is the Biggest Myth of the Century’

As published at the Muskogee Phoenix Sunday evening (emphasis added throughout):

I’m telling you global warming is a myth. However, please check the Internet (Al Gore’s invention) and ask about greenhouse gases.You will find that there are five. The most plentiful is water vapor making up 35 to 70 percent of all greenhouse gases. Mankind’s total contribution to all greenhouse gases — this includes cars, trucks, manufacturing plants, boats, planes and any pollution producer you can name — the total is less than 1 percent. Mother Nature provides the other 99 percent.
Before you buy into the global warming myth, just remember that most of the natural wonders of the world were caused by various ice ages and periods of global warming. We’ve warmed one-half of a degree in the last century, but Gore has Florida under water in a decade or so when the ice cap melts.

http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/local_story_154213535.html





Former German Chancellor Calls For End of Media Hysteria Over Global Warming

As reported by Deutsche Welle (emphasis added, h/t Benny Peiser):

There has always been climate change on earth, Schmidt said.

"We've had warm- and ice-ages for hundreds of thousands of years," he said, and added that the reasons behind the multiple climate changes have been "inadequately researched for the time being." To assume that global climate change can be altered by any plans made at the Heiligendamm summit is "idiotic," he said.
Think Katie, Charlie, or Brian will be reporting this tonight? Think they would had he said that global warming is the biggest challenge facing the planet today?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2575639,00.html





When Will [U.S.] Media Report the Kyoto Carbon Con?

There’s a huge financial scam being cynically perpetrated on the people of the world that, for the most part, American media are not reporting: the Kyoto Carbon Con. What makes this silence so astounding is that the press love stories about corporations and governments bilking people out of their life savings.

Fortunately, as has been addressed before, foreign media seem much more willing to expose the charlatan behind the curtain. For example, England’s the Guardian reported Saturday in an article entitled “Truth About Kyoto: Huge Profits, Little Carbon Saved":

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2093816,00.html





Science Organization Debunks Global Warming Claims of NASA’s James Hansen

Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 5, 2007 - 19:17.

As reported by NewsBusters last week, NASA’s chief global warming alarmist James Hansen voiced displeasure with NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s recent comments concerning climate change not being an urgent issue.

With this in mind, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has published a detailed analysis of Hansen’s claims about global warming.

Moments ago, the center released the following press release concerning their study (emphasis added throughout):

A new report published today by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change challenges NASA scientist James Hansen's claims of a dire global warming future. In the report, physicist Sherwood Idso and agronomist Craig Idso conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Hansen's April 26, 2007 testimony before the House Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming and concluded there is "very little evidence to justify [Hansen's] policy prescriptions for dealing with what he calls a 'dangerous climate change.'"

Considered by many to be perhaps the world's foremost authority on the 'greenhouse effect' of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, Hansen's statements are typically regarded as expressions of fact. "In many cases, however, they are merely his opinions," said Dr. Sherwood Idso, lead author of the report. "When Hansen's testimony is compared with what has been revealed by the scientific investigations of a diverse assemblage of highly competent researchers in a wide variety of academic disciplines, we find that he paints a very different picture of the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in shaping the future fortunes of man and nature alike than what is suggested by that larger body of work."

Among the inconsistencies between Hansen's House of Representatives' testimony and the scientific literature is Hansen's claim of a sea level rise this century measured in meters, due to "the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet." However, the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise measured in millimeters. Similarly, whereas Hansen claims the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, century-scale data indicate the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all or has actually slowed over the latter part of the past century.

Think this study will get much air or print space tonight or tomorrow?

Neither do I:

Another Hansen claim that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are "skyrocketing," which is not universally true. The most important contrary example is methane, which has historically provided a climate forcing equal to approximately half that provided by CO2, but whose atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has not risen since by any appreciable amount.

Also contrary to what Hansen claims is the fact that the earth is not any warmer now - and is possibly a fair amount cooler - than it was many times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when (in all six cases) the air's CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. These facts are extremely important because they demonstrate that today's temperatures are not in any way unusual, unnatural or unprecedented, contrary to what Hansen claims.

Hansen also foresees a warming-induced "extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species," with many at high latitudes and altitudes being "pushed off the planet." However, as demonstrated by the scientific studies cited in the Center's critique of Hansen's testimony, warming - especially when accompanied by an increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration - typically results in an expansion of the ranges of terrestrial plants and animals, leading to increases in biodiversity almost everywhere on the planet. Likewise, where Hansen sees nothing but "destruction of coral reefs and other ocean life" in response to a predicted CO2-induced acidification of the world's oceans, real-world observations suggest just the opposite.

The Center also released the following editorial statement concerning this study (emphasis added):

In a recent interview broadcast on National Public Radio's Morning Edition program, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin was asked if he was concerned about global warming. His response - "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with" - prompted a prominent NASA scientist, James Hansen, to tell ABC News that Griffin's remark was "an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," and that it indicated "a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change." Equally upset was Princeton University's Michael Oppenheimer, who said that he was "shocked" by the Administrator's statement and that he felt that he "ought to resign."

As a public service to help people better evaluate Hansen's characterization of Griffin, plus Oppenheimer's call for Griffin to resign, we are devoting this week's entire issue of CO2 Science to a comprehensive evaluation of Hansen's 26 April 2007 testimony to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the United States House of Representatives, which Hansen entitled "Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate." Before any more calls are made for Griffin's resignation, our critique of Hansen's testimony, linked below, should be carefully studied. It is very possible that Oppenheimer's invitation for Griffin to resign might more appropriately be extended to someone else.

Those who believe there’s a consensus on this issue really need to rethink their position. Of course, since it’s quite doubtful that such a study will get reported by a media more focused on hysterical alarmism than fact, it is indeed difficult for the open-minded to actually get information that might assist them in reaching a more reasoned conclusion.

Of course, that's the point isn't it?

Regardless, I highly encourage folks to take the time to read the Center's entire study. It is quite enlightening.

. http://newsbusters.org/node/13241





NBC Networks to Air 75 Hours of Gore 'Climate in Crisis' Concerts

NBC Universal announced late last week that its networks will devote an incredible 75 hours of time on Saturday, July 7 to showing Gore's “Live Earth: The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis.”

In addition to the entirety of NBC's prime time that night, CNBC will carry seven hours of coverage from 7pm to 2am EDT; Bravo will show the concerts around the world for 18 hours starting at 8am EDT; and both the Sundance channel and the Universal HD channel will showcase the concerts for 22 hours each beginning at 4am EDT.

Rounding out the 75 hours, mun2 will run a two-hour show at 5pm EDT and Telemundo will air a one-hour special at 7pm EDT. And that's not counting how NBC's press release touted that “MSNBC will broadcast special coverage of this global concert event throughout the day with live reports from the concerts in New York and London.”

[imagine what could be started if such an effort were made for moderate Muslims leaders {and they're out there} around the world to kick-start a global call to recognize the peaceful majority as the mainstream, and send a unified message to ostracize the jihadists --- feel free to suggest it to them {it's America babe} > http://www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us/ ]

http://nbcumv.com/release_detail.nbc/entertainment-20070531000000-039liveearth58.html





Beware deep-green luddites on climate

Technology is the answer to carbon emission reductions

WHEN the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) was announced in July 2005, The Australian gave it the front-page coverage it deserved, recognizing that the failure of the Kyoto Protocol would spawn regional agreements that engaged China, India and the US. It would adopt the only realistic way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly - through the transfer of clean energy technology. Meanwhile, the doom-mongers at The Sydney Morning Herald wrote the initiative off as window-dressing and dismissed the group as "partners in pollution".

Almost two years later, the wisdom of this approach is in even greater evidence. Kyoto has been shown to be bankrupt as a mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. Numerous countries that ratified the protocol are expected to overshoot their targeted reductions - Canada by 33 per cent, Spain by 41 per cent, Portugal by 37 per cent, Greece by 26 per cent - and the total impact of the Kyoto emission reductions is estimated to be a mere 0.6 per cent lower than they would have been if Kyoto had never been signed at all.

Yet there are still those who cling stubbornly to the Kyoto Protocol as if it were the Holy Grail of the new climate change religion that will deliver us from the evil of carbon emissions. The reality of Kyoto is that it is not about reducing carbon emissions, at which it has been an abysmal failure. It has been a naked attempt by Europeans, who, having chopped down their forests and burned all their fossil fuels, are trying to get the rest of the world to shift to the high cost energy they have been forced to adopt.

[i.e., the only way to avoid the painful decisions re: welfare entitlements vs. global competitiveness is to raise your competitors costs - and current Kyoto plan is only the camel's nose under the tent; it's the transfer of future policy setting authority to the U.N. that is the real goal]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21867633-7583,00.html





[from The Nation no less - the worm is truly turning]

The Nation Slams Global Warming Alarmists Again: ‘Dissidents Against Dogma’

In his current article posted at both The Nation, Cockburn castigated his own readers as he accused the left of having “been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism by the weight of the global emergency.”

The overwhelming majority of climate computer modelers, the beneficiaries of the $2 billion-a-year global warming grant industry, certainly believe in it but not necessarily most real climate scientists-people qualified in atmospheric physics, climatology and meteorology.
Powerful stuff to publish in one of the most liberal magazines in the country, wouldn’t you agree? Strap your seatbelts tightly, for Cockburn was hunting alarmists, and came loaded for bear (emphasis added throughout):

http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20070625&s=cockburn





Top British Scientist Says Biofuels Are A Scam, Rainforests at Risk

Top Scientist Says Biofuels Are Scam.
Well, such was the headline in England’s Sunday Times today. Roland Clift, professor of environmental technology at Surrey University, will tell a seminar of the Royal Academy of Engineering that the plan to promote bioethanol and biodiesel produced from plants is a “scam”.

/snip/

"…the moderate emission savings are undone by far greater emissions from deforestation, burning, peat drainage, cultivation and soil carbon losses. Every ton of palm oil produced results in 33 tons of carbon dioxide emissions — 10 times more than petroleum."



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1909827.ece





Carbon trading is 'emission impossible', says WWF

Carbon trading is becoming "emission impossible", according to the environment group WWF. It says European companies are planning to meet their commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions by investing in dubious projects in the developing world, rather than schemes that will genuinely help reduce carbon emissions. Companies are allowed to meet Kyoto targets by trading in emissions permits, effectively buying permission to pollute.

From issue 2608 of New Scientist magazine, 14 June 2007, page 7



[what, you mean a profit motive? how cynical.]



http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19426085.100-carbon-trading-is-emission-impossible-says-wwf.html





BBC Reports EU’s Carbon Trading Scheme Has Actually Increased CO2 Emissions

On several occasions I have pointed out how much better foreign media are at presenting reports either skeptical of anthropogenic global warming or addressing the failings in government sanctioned solutions.

Last week, the BBC did a report on the European Union’s carbon trading scheme failing so miserably that CO2 emissions in the region have actually increased since the strategy was implemented.

An investigation by BBC Radio 4's File on 4 program has found that after two and half years the scheme has yet to cut in carbon dioxide emissions. The EU's carbon trading scheme has increased electricity bills, given a windfall to power companies and failed to cut greenhouse gases, it is claimed.
Think any American television news division would touch this story save maybe Fox News?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/6720119.stm





Father of Climatology Speaks Out on Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Reid Bryson, the 87-year-old considered to be the father of scientific climatology, has once again spoken out strongly against anthropogenic global warming theories being regularly disseminated by alarmists in the media and the scientific community.

In an interview published by Wisconsin’s Capital Times Monday, Bryson spoke about the money involved in this "religion," and when asked about soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" responded (emphasis added throughout):

"Don't make me throw up...It is not science. It is not true."
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.
Think Bryson will be interviewed any time soon by America's networks? Regardless, the article continued:

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613





Professor Bets Al Gore $10,000 He’s Wrong About Global Warming

As most folks who don't get their news from TV are aware, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore has refused to debate scientists and politicians that disagree with his views on manmade global warming. Potentially realizing that Gore has turned down such challenges in the past, a Wharton professor is willing to put his money where his mouth is that Gore’s cataclysmic planetary predictions are wrong. As reported by the Daily Pennsylvanian (emphasis added throughout):

Armstrong has challenged the former vice president to a 10-year bet, in which $10,000 from the two would be set aside in escrow as Gore pits his forecast of how much global temperature will increase during that time against a so-called "naive model," in which temperature would be expected to stay the same.

Armstrong said that he discovered that most climate-change forecasts use bad methodology.

Professor Armstrong is internationally known for his pioneering work on forecasting methods. He is author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, and co-developer of new methods including rule-based forecasting, causal forces for extrapolation, simulated interaction, and structured analogies.

http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2007/06/21/News/An.Inconvenient.Bet-2917280.shtml





Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence

According to Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades, the scientists working for the IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their point.

Mörner was recently interviewed by Gregory Murphy of Executive Intelligence Review, and began by making it clear that the sea level claims made by the IPCC are a lot of nonsense (emphasis added throughout, h/t Eduardo Ferreyra):

[W]e can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure.
1.1 mm per year? That means that if this were to continue for 1000 years, sea levels would be 1.1 meters higher. Doesn’t sound very catastrophic, does it?

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf





Lawyers preparing for explosion of climate-related work

Think this global-warming controversy will blow over soon? The lawyers don't. Top Dallas firm Thompson & Knight started a dedicated climate-change practice June 4 with 26 lawyers. /SNIP/ The law firms – and a dozen others nationwide – are getting ready for a predicted explosion of climate-related work tied to government regulation, lawsuits against energy companies and new markets that will trade the rights to emit carbon.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/062507dnbusgreenlawyers.37f90e0.html





Survey Says: [super] Majority of Britons Believe Global Warming is Natural

According to the UK's Life Style Extra, a majority of 4,000 people surveyed believe global warming is a natural occurrence, as opposed to being caused by mankind, despite a scientific consensus claimed by the article:

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.
This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution. [...] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents most scientists, stated earlier that the increase in global temperatures is 'very likely due to the observed increase of man-made greenhouse gas concentrations'.
[blatant fabrication re: majority opinion - evidently the IPCC's ~ 2000 scientists (many of whom have resigned in protest) trump SEPP's >20,000 signatories [sepp.org] - luckily our British cousins (notice how we're related when then do something right) see through the sham - then again, their media does a much better job of providing some opposing views than does ours]

http://newsbusters.org/node/13736





Forecasts all up in the air

KEVIN Trenberth is head of the large US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory high priests of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A New Zealander by birth, Trenberth has had a distinguished career as a climate scientist with interests in the use of computer General Circulation Models (GCMs), the basis for most of the public alarm about global warming. When such a person gives an opinion about the scientific value of GCMs as predictive tools, it is wise to pay attention.

In a remarkable contribution to Nature magazine Trenberth concedes GCMs cannot predict future climate and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate prediction. This might be news to some people. Among other things, Trenberth asserts ". . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been". Instead, there are only "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to input emissions scenarios.

/snip/

"None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state [baselined to reality] and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate. "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.

/snip/

Having analysed the IPCC's approach in detail, Armstrong and Kesten conclude that "because the forecasting processes . . . overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific".

/snip/

In a third devastating blow to the credibility of climate forecasting, a lead author of the IPCC Working Group 1 science report, Jim Renwick, recently admitted "climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well".

[summary: crap in, crap out - it's an insulting litany of unscientific conduct - as the basis for spending trillions? - read >]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21977114-27197,00.html





IPCC Scientists Challenge Claim of Global Warming Consensus

The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan social and economic think tank, issued the following press release revealing that many of the folks involved in the most recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were not in agreement with the study’s 'findings' concerning man’s role in global warming:

"In general, the certainty with which this report presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout it, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.
"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.
The Heartland Institute has been running ads in national newspapers calling on Al Gore to debate Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent global warming "skeptic." Starting today, the institute says it is now including Dennis Avery, an economist and coauthor of a book on global warming that is on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list, who Gore has also refused to debate.

Gore has also not responded to a debate challenge from Wharton Business School Professor Scott Armstrong, or a similar challenge from Czech President Vaclav Klaus.

Makes one wonder how the media can continue to support a man who isn’t willing to debate anyone concerning this matter. Furthermore, given the press focus on the IPCC any time it releases a new report, one also has to question why this new information which actually came out on Wednesday went totally ignored.

In fact, according to LexisNexis and Google News searches, not one American press outlet covered this new revelation out of the IPCC.

[I think they answered their own question re: the media's support of Gore: old media isn't reporting on the debate, they're advocates one side]

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21579





Manmade Global Warming: The Real Assault on Reason



In the opening chapter of The Assault on Reason, its seldom reasonable author accuses the Bush administration of exploiting people's fears "to short-circuit debate and drive the public agenda without regard to the evidence, the facts, or the public interest."

Shamelessly abusing lingering September 11th and nascent Iraq anxieties, he argues that the roles of "reason, logic and truth" have been eroded from the American decision-making process. This lack of focus and clarity, charges Al Gore, is personified by an administration that ignores expert advice, circumvents analysis and debate, and suppresses evidence to promote predetermined, agenda driven policies.

What's most confounding about these stinging allegations is that they were penned by the very same man whose Oscar awarded fear-exploitation-film proclaimed - in a gross distortion of prevailing evidence and facts -- that:

"Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced -- a catastrophe of our own making."
Indeed, Gore's cataclysmic forecasts of worldwide famine, rising sea-levels, vanishing species, et al, are themselves the very epitome of the same agenda-driven, illogical, expert advice cherry-picking, closed debate, unfounded fear-mongering he devotes the majority of his recent Bush-bashing book to deriding.

For over 15 years, Al Gore has painstakingly ravaged all non-anthropogenic (NA) climate change theories (solar, cosmic, volcanic, etc) along with those scientists advancing them. During that same period, he has helped craft a worldwide global warming orthodoxy which holds the misdeeds of homo sapiens sacrosanct to its dogma and has pulverized anyone in its self-righteous path "without regard to the evidence, the facts, or the public interest." (See Gore's Grave New World)

Reason, Logic, Analysis and Debate

Can there truly exist any reason in such visceral antagonism to natural causation hypotheses given that solar fluctuations throughout retrievable history (observed as sunspots, auroras, etc) tend to sympathize with available climate proxies (e.g. tree-ring chronologies, glacial core and sea sediment samples and other repositories of plant and animal materials)?

In his recent National Post essay, noted Paleoclimatologist R. Timothy Patterson lends voice to the countless researchers who suggest not:



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


Patterson cites numerous studies correlating variances in solar output with shifts in solar wind, which in turn impact upon galactic cosmic ray atmospheric penetration and, ultimately, cloud formation on Earth. Increased solar output thereby warms the planet in 2 ways -- by direct radiation and decreased cloud cover. Conversely, when the sun is less bright:



"More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change."


Is it logical, therefore, to disregard all possible forces beyond mankind-emitted CO2 based primarily on hypothetical computer models? Or reasonable to brand those arguing the gas's contribution or suggesting an alternate cause and effect relationship (oceans warmed by NA forces produce more CO2, rather than manmade CO2 causing the warming) as duplicitous shills of big oil interests?


Particularly when, as Patterson points out:



"By comparison [to solar influence], CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."


So why do so many scientists continue to sing the Al Gore C-shanty?

Reid A. Bryson, the Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin's Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences knows a thing or two about the subject. As recipient of only the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education, he is often referred to as the father of modern scientific climatology, much as Al Gore ought be credited as the father of modern hysterical climatology. And, while the professor considers all the hype over Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) "a bunch of hooey," he certainly appreciates that:



"There is a lot of money to be made in this. If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"


Given these patently extortive efforts to circumvent analysis and debate, how can the alarmist marching tune, "the debate is over," possibly resonate as either reasonable or logical in anyone's ears?

The Truth about the IPCC

Adding a false sense of legitimacy to the over-hyping of CO2's potential greenhouse gas (GHG) effect on warming is the oft-Gore-quoted yet woefully compromised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These United Nations based "consensus builders" summarily dismiss solar activity in favor of more politically favorable culprits.

One former member and current outspoken critic of the panel testified to its bias before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in May of 2001. As I wrote following the release of the Working Group I Summary in February of this year, Dr. Richard Lindzen swore that, based on his experiences as a member, the IPCC was actually created specifically to support negotiations concerning CO2 emission reductions and would accept no contrary findings from its members:



"...throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green' credentials in defense of their statements."


Perhaps it's the IPCC's assessment that they and only they already know the truth and can little afford allowing expert advice or facts to interfere with it.

To be sure, there's nothing to be gained by blaming either NA forces or the most abundant of the atmosphere's GHG's - naturally occurring water vapor. Yet, there's everything to be gained (fear yields regulation which, cleverly crafted, yields untold political power) by blaming a byproduct of human advancement - CO2. Both the UN and their EU kick-line are all too well aware of this progression, as are their newly restored majority cheerleaders in the U.S Congress.

It's no wonder the rebuke of Carbon is such a high priority to them: Between corrupt cap and trade schemes and the specter of limitless U.N regulatory powers, Karl Marx himself couldn't have envisioned a better potential wealth redistribution plan -- truth be damned.

And the Consequences

Among the many "consequences" of Global Warming alarmists portend, perhaps the most dramatic and overly hyped is a catastrophic sea-level rise resultant to melting glaciers, mountaintops and icebergs.

Gore believers were outraged when this year's IPCC Fourth Assessment cut previously inflated estimates of such rise completely in half. But even these relaxed numbers now appear to have been cooked in order to promote predetermined, agenda driven policies.

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden and, unlike any of the IPCC report writers, a bona fide expert on sea level changes. Dr. Mörner questions the IPCC use of computer based models to produce desired sea-level predictions which contradict the observable physical measurements of his fellow geologists.

Furthermore, the Doctor scathingly charged, in a recent interview, that the IPCC applied arbitrary "correction factors" to predictive data graphs, thereby artificially creating the illusion of uplift. The models would then match their own sea level observations based on tide gauges which themselves were a deliberate fraud:



"IPCC chose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they chose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding; it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that."


Mörner describes myriad additional IPCC falsifications and even the destruction of a tree on a Maldive Island by IPCC hacks in an effort to suppress evidence that their sea-rise predictions were pure baloney.

So much for regard to evidence, facts, and the public interest, huh Al?

The Architects of Anxiety and Fear

As fear of impending doom plays such a crucial role in hysteria-building, it's no wonder that AGW has been blamed for everything from lighthearted Costa Rican Frog Die-Offs, Australian cockroach migration, Swedish beetle-infestation, Great Britain's puffin decline, a rise in hay fever and even staff shortages at Bulgarian brothels to deadly serious outbreaks of Malaria, Dengue Fever, West Nile Virus and Cholera, the killer Indian Ocean tsunami, and even this week's Lake Tahoe wildfires.

In fact, when U.N Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon wrote a WaPo piece this month actually blaming the genocide in Darfur on AGW, his was, not all that surprisingly, not the first. In fact, back in April, Stephan Faris had suggested in an Atlantic Monthly article that:

"The violence in Darfur is usually attributed to ethnic hatred. But global warming may be primarily to blame."

And yet, it is the Bush administration's alleged use of fear to further its agenda that Gore's book targets when the author cites Barry Glassner, a professor of sociology at the University of Southern California, who:



"argues that there are three techniques that together make up ‘fearmongering': repetition, making the irregular seem regular, and misdirection. By using these narrative tools, anyone with a loud platform can ratchet up public anxieties and fears, distorting public discourse and reason."


Say, Al, how about the repetition of the counterfeit phrase "the science is settled," when in fact thousands of papers are published on the subject each year? Or, perhaps, making the irregular concept of a gas essential to life on Earth (CO2) actually representing a life-adverse pollutant seem regular? Or how about the misdirection of claimed "consensus" among panelists when scientists with reasoned yet contrarian evidence, facts and theories are systematically denounced, defunded, demoted and, ultimately, demonized?

Are these not the same narrative tools for ratcheting up anxieties and fears and distorting public discourse that you speak of, Al - with which you and your doomsday legions launch your own implacable assaults on reason each and every day?

Note: Emphasis added throughout.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/06/manmade_global_warming_the_rea.html






Kyoto: Not For All The Coal In China

[snippets]



Pollution Control: China's booming economy has made it the world's biggest polluter. So why is it exempt from Kyoto, and why are the greenies so silent? Should we stop buying Chinese goods to fight global warming? Pollution and greenhouse gases are China's biggest export. But you won't see that in any balance-of-trade numbers or hear about it from the environmentalists who recommend draconian restrictions on the U.S. economy and insist we all drive battery-operated cars.

China's emissions of carbon dioxide have exceeded those of the United States at least two years ahead of most international estimates, according to a report issued last week by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. CO2 emissions, it says, rose an astounding 9% in 2006. China produces 12% of the world's CO2 and 25% of its mercury pollution.

In contrast, the Energy Information Administration announced that the big, bad USA's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels fell 1.3% in 2006, while our booming economy grew 3.3%. We are using energy more efficiently and reducing emissions without Kyoto. Energy use per unit of GDP fell 4.2 % last year, and carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP fell 4.5%.

While environmentalists and congressional Democrats have shut down our domestic development of fossil fuels like oil and even clean-burning natural gas, a new [dirty, by our standards] coal-fired plant big enough to supply every household in a city the size of San Diego comes on line every seven to 10 days in China, exporting more pollution to California and the western U.S. than even Gore's economic straightjacket could hope to eliminate.

As Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation reports, sulfur from China alone reaches 10% to 15% of the EPA's allowable levels in California, Oregon and Washington state alone. Estimates are that a third of California's air pollution and a fifth of Oregon's come from China. Sensors in the Sierra Nevada mountains have identified huge Chinese pollution clouds that traverse the Pacific.

As a "developing" nation, China is exempt from Kyoto — one of the reasons the U.S. Senate once voted 97-0 not to consider it for ratification. China would love to see the U.S. economy handcuffed as it races to make this century a Chinese one. As it is, our states and taxpayers struggle to clean up imported Chinese pollution.

Beijing has plans for 2,200 additional coal-fired plants by 2020. China relies on coal for some 75% of its energy and industrial needs. In 2006, China consumed more than 2.7 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity — almost double its 2002 rate. There's also vehicular pollution from 20 million cars on the road, a number expected to jump to a minimum of 150 million tailpipes by 2020.

Environmentalists are always suggesting ways we should change our lifestyles to reduce our "carbon footprint." Since a lot of what is produced in these pollution-belching Chinese factories is exported to the U.S., would they suggest we stop buying anything made in China until it cleans up its act?

Greenies say it'll take a lot to save the earth. We have a place they could start and remind them that a journey of a thousand miles begins with an inconvenient truth.

[there's more > http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=267923672133594 ]





New Poll: 56 Percent of British Aren’t Buying Global Warming 'Consensus'

So, the debate’s over?

According to a new poll done in England, a majority of British citizens aren’t buying the science is settled. As reported Tuesday by BBC.com:

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested. There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.
Hmmm. Maybe that’s how Gore has made $100 million dollars in the past seven years. The survey also suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6263690.stm





New Ice Core Reveals 800,000 years of Climate History

Earth's polar temperature has swung wildly—by as much as 59 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 800,000 years, an Antarctic ice core has revealed. /snip/ the warmest period was during the last interglacial period, which is an interval of warmer global average temperature that separates ice ages. At that time, around 130,000 years ago, it was a balmy 8.1 degrees warmer than today.

[how was that possible without SUVs?]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html





Greenland Ice Find Debunks Al Gore’s Global Warming Theories

Just in time for worldwide concerts to draw attention to the planet’s imminent doom at the hands of anthropogenic global warming,

Even though this study will likely get little to no attention from a media in full fawn mode over Gore and his Live Earth concerts, a new find in Greenland suggests that much of the model-based predictions of “An Inconvenient Truth” may have little basis in scientific fact.

The findings, published today in the journal Science, indicate Greenland's ice may be less susceptible to the massive meltdown predicted by computer models of climate change, the article's main author said in an interview.

"If our data is correct, and I believe it is, then this means the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," said Eske Willerslev, research leader and professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Copenhagen. "This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming. They may withstand rising temperatures."
Incredible. And, as many scientists have been claiming regardless of such falling on deaf press ears, this indicates just how nonsensical and worthless climate models proclaiming imminent planetary doom are:

"It suggests a problem with the [computer] models" that predict melting ice from Greenland could drown cities and destroy civilizations, according to Willerslev.
Think this will be headline news during Live Earth weekend?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate/





Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge

With each passing day, more and more current and former members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are stepping out of the shadows to suggest that this group’s alarmist conclusions concerning global warming are more based in myth than science. Another member of this growing list of skeptics is Tom V. Segalstad who was an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s third assessment report.

He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."
Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.

"They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process."
For those that are interested, this is why anthropogenic global warming is regularly referred to as junk science. As Segalstad stated, rather than base future expectations on known past and present observations, the IPCC has created models to predict future events lacking any historical basis.

The article then explained what has been observed, and why what the IPCC is predicting is so ridiculous…

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e





Truth in Global Warming

This week's prize for honest liberalism goes to Michigan's John Dingell, who is having fun with his fellow Democrats while also making a useful point about the politics of global warming. The venerable Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has announced that he plans to introduce as early as this week a new tax on carbon emissions.

Now, that's the way to clear a Capitol Hill hearing room. Americans are already miffed at paying $3 a gallon for gasoline, a fact that has the Members assailing oil companies on a daily basis. So the last thing Democrats seeking re-election want to do is pile on another dollar or two a gallon in taxes--especially in the name of "saving the planet" from the speculative danger of global warming 50 or 100 years from now.

It's one thing to pay 100 bucks to hear Madonna at the "Live Earth" concert, or impress your girlfriend by wearing an "I reduced my carbon footprint" T-shirt. It's quite another to accept that energy prices would have to rise by many multiples to make even a degree's worth of difference to the world's climate.

That's why most politicians prefer policy artifice that disguises the cost of raising energy prices. These policy tricks include higher automobile mileage standards and a "cap and trade" regime for swapping "credits" for carbon emissions. These schemes shift the direct costs onto businesses, which then pass them along indirectly to unwitting consumers. These policies still amount to taxes on energy use, but they allow politicians and green lobbyists to pretend that you can "save the world" for the price of a concert ticket.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010314





Former Weather Channel Bigwig Debunks IPCC and Global Warming Hysteria

Joseph D’Aleo is likely not a household name.

However his bona fides when it comes to meteorology are such that when he suggests that “a [small] cadre of agenda-driven scientists and statesmen” inside the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided a “more alarmist interpretation” of the facts concerning manmade global warming, and “the media took the most extreme of the messages to hype them further,” people should pay heed.

With that in mind, this former Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel, and current Executive Director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, published an article at Energy Tribune Monday that should be required reading for all actually interested in the facts surrounding this controversial subject.

Much of his article is highly technical in nature, but should be largely understandable for the layman willing to put in a little time:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=544





NBC-Universal Goes Beyond Live Earth Freebies With New 'Green Is Universal' Campaign

Apparently, airing 75 hours of free coverage of Al Gore's Live Earth global-panic concerts (complete with children shedding tears over the impending end of blue skies and green grass) was just the beginning of on-air activism by NBC-Universal. They're touting another week of on-air activism this November (during the week of Election Day) for their "pro-social cause" of environmental alarmism.

As Glenn Garvin of the Miami Herald notes on his blog Changing Channels [1], "The company press release pointedly includes NBC News and CNBC on the list of company divisions that are participating, not that there's any systematic ideological bias in network news, no sir."

On NBC, the Peacock's entire Thursday-night lineup -- The Office, My Name Is Earl, 30 Rock, Heroes and Deal or No Deal -- will be eco-themed, while NBC News will take in-depth looks at the issues and some unique special broadcast events.

http://ibc.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=162361





Energy Expert Bashes Media, EPA Regulations, Ethanol, and Global Warming

Trilby Lundberg, source of the Lundberg Survey has been the source for information related to fuel prices, fuel taxes, and all things petroleum for over fifty years. With that in mind, Lundberg was interviewed by the folks at CNN.com last Wednesday, and the never shy energy maven spoke candidly about a variety of issues that most in the media would be afraid to share with the citizenry (emphasis added throughout):

'environmental protection regulations that have made maintenance and repairs far more complex than they were in prior years.
The [government] subsidization of alternative fuels -- non-petroleum fuels -- has already added a great deal of cost for gasoline consumers here in the U.S.
To further mandate these uneconomic sources that cannot compete -- even with heavy subsidy -- would make gasoline prices higher and hurt consumers.
Meanwhile, the much heavier use of ethanol in the United States is affecting world prices -- not only U.S. gasoline prices, but world prices for those consumables that use corn. And the planting of so much more corn here has displaced planting of other crops, so that there are other indirect effects. And they're all negative.'
[{much} more > http://newsbusters.org/node/14174 ]





Some Common Sense Observations

WHEN I agreed to make The Great Global Warming Swindle, I was warned a middle-class fatwa would be placed on my head. So I wasn't shocked that the film was attacked on the same night it was broadcast on ABC television last week, although I was impressed at the vehemence of the attack. I was more surprised, and delighted, by the response of the Australian public.

The ferocity of the attack revealed the intolerance and defensiveness of the global warming camp. Why were Jones and co expending such energy and resources attacking one documentary? We are told the global warming theory is robust. They say you'd have to be off your chump to disagree. We have been assured for years, in countless news broadcasts and column inches, that it's definitely true. So why bother to stamp so aggressively on the one foolish documentary-maker - who clearly must be as mad as a snake - who steps out of line?

I think viewers may also have wondered (reasonably) why the theory of global warming has not been subjected to this barrage of critical scrutiny by the media. After all, it's the theory of global warming, not my foolish little film, that is turning public and corporate policy on its head.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22105154-7583,00.html





CNN Insists Global Warming Debate Is Over

On the Friday July 20 The Situation Room on CNN, substitute anchor Miles O'Brien insisted that, regarding the role of carbon emissions in global warming, "the scientific debate is over," as he lectured former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts on the subject. In response to Watts' contention that "I don't believe the Earth is melting because of carbon emissions," O'Brien responded: "Well, you're not paying attention to the science, J.C. You're definitely not paying attention. ... The scientific debate is over, J.C., we're done." (Transcript follows)

[can't get more intellectually persuasive than that]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/07/23/cnns-obrien-insists-global-warming-debate-over





If you have 74 mins to spare and if you are like me, a rational person that can consider both sides of an argument, you will enjoy this program.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

I still have questions of climatology I want answered beyond the "global warming" question. But I found this interesting.



Regards


Lee Hughes





Bush Administration: Our CO2 is falling, Cap and Trade Country's aren't

The topmost US negotiator, the under-secretary of state for global affairs, Paula Dobriansky, told the Herald in Sydney yesterday that emissions trading in current conditions could be harmful.

"When we have looked at cap-and-trade, it can have negative ramifications for one's economy, and it can stall investment in new technology," Ms Dobriansky said.
The conditions to successfully implement such a scheme were "not in place" she said, indicating the Bush Administration would not contemplate any such idea, despite some US states doing so without federal co-operation.

"We think our policies are working and we'll stick with them, and not shift courses."
The under-secretary said US carbon dioxide output in 2006 fell by 1.3 per cent while the economy grew by 3.3 per cent. She pointed out that this put the US ahead of European countries that had already set in place emissions trading systems, yet were still increasing their carbon output.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/bush-administration-blows-hole-in-co2-plan/2007/07/24/1185043117195.html





Award-winning Author Debunks Global Warming and 'Hockey Stick' Hoaxes

Orson Scott Card is an award-winning author who made his first step into the political arena on the day after 9/11. Recently, he's written an article meticulously debunking the infamous "Hockey Stick Hoax" that much of global warming alarmism is based on, and, after doing so, concluded (emphasis added):

What matters right here and now is that it is time for the world's scientists to apostatize from the Church of Global Warming. It is a false religion. It is based on lies, and its leading prophets know that it is because they're the ones faking the data or stretching it to ridiculous lengths to pretend that the real world hasn't already ruled against their claims.

It is time for our school systems to stop accepting the gospel of that false religion and start doing their due diligence. Our children should be taught about the demonstrable solar cycles and the whole human-caused Global Warming theory, along with the Hockey Stick Hoax, should be taught only as another example, after Piltdown Man and pre-Copernican theories of planetary movement, of how science can be corrupted when ideology gets ahead of the data.

It is time for us to laugh at the ideologues who try to pretend that any criticism of Global Warming alarmism is idiotic and unscientific. They are the ones who ignore the data; they are the ones who believe on faith alone, without evidence; and, most important, they are the ones who are trying to stifle the opposition without answering it.

The Global Warming alarmists are the anti-science religion that is trying to forcibly indoctrinate and convert everyone while suppressing dissent. And the news media are their patsies, their stooges, their puppets.

Right now, let's start demanding that whenever the local newspaper or TV stations say anything about Global Warming, they back it up with actual data that takes into account the solar oscillations, the real climate history of the earth, and the facts about what CO2 actually does in the atmosphere.
Obviously, five paragraphs can't do this piece justice. As such, I humbly implore both believers and skeptics to read this entire article. You will not be disappointed.





Japan struggling to hit emissions target

JAPAN will have "extreme difficulty" meeting greenhouse gas emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol, a government panel has confirmed. Japan, which undertook to cut its greenhouse gas outputs by 6per cent from 1990 levels between next year and 2012, when Kyoto expires, is emitting about 14per cent above the target.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22134201-25837,00.html





New Federal Bureaucracy Proposed to Deal With Carbon Emissions-profit [not the emissions, just the billions to be made]

Just how far is all this global warming nonsense going? Well, on Tuesday, four senators proposed a bill that would create a new federal bureaucracy to oversee the growing multi-billion dollar carbon trading market. Just what we need, right? Another monolithic bureaucracy, this one designed to help solve a problem the existence of which is greatly questioned.

As Duke University reported Tuesday (emphasis added): Senators Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and John Warner (R-Va.) introduced a bill to minimize negative economic impacts to consumers and industry of the transition to a lower-carbon economy [?] while achieving critical environmental goals [??]. The bill is designed to be incorporated into broader climate change legislation. [???]

/snip/

This proposal went almost totally ignored by conventional media outlets, most likely because the new federal bureaucracy they're looking to back at this point in time is universal healthcare. Regardless of why this went virtually unnoticed, not everyone was thrilled by this proposal. As reported by Greenwire (subscription required, emphasis added):

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) offered a more critical perspective on the cost plan. "Constructing new federal bureaucracies like the proposed 'Carbon Market Efficiency Board' will do nothing to alter the climate or solve the economic issues," said Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe cited Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Richard Lindzen, who said in March, "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."

When bureaucracies are created to save the public money, it ends up being very expensive. Be afraid. Be very afraid. [better: be ready, to 'correct' congress as forcefully as we had to on immigration]

http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/print/2007/07/24/12





'Arctic Tale' 'Documentary' Scripted; Tricks Kids Into Worrying About Global Warming



Environmentalists are targeting kids and using deception to get their message out. Anthropogenic global warming evangelists and wildlife filmmakers, Sarah Robertson and Adam Ravetch, made the upcoming live action “Arctic Tale” because as Robertson told the LA Times, "Global warming to a lot of people is statistics...What we wanted to do was put a face on climate change."

OK, so there's the goal, now how to accomplish it? Adults ask all of those pesky questions, but children's minds are easier to mold and manipulate. During the credits, the filmmakers came right out and showed their cards, using kids to shill for AGW and convince their parents to change their evil habits.

The expected tugging of emotions was turned into a shell game by the way the movie was created. “Arctic Tale” is sold to the public as a heartwarming movie that follows a polar bear and a walrus through their first eight years of life. The problem is, they're not real, and neither is the alarming story about their environment - it was crafted by scriptwriters out of whole cloth.

[don't know which to comment on first: the despicability of using children as political pawns or the desperation the tactic suggests. Ok: both.]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2007/07/26/arctic-tale-scripted-not-documentary-tricks-kids-worrying-about-globa





The Seeds of the Global Warming Police State

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, drawing on his memories of Soviet oppression, recently declared that the global warming hysteria had replaced Communism as "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity." The environmentalists continue to do their best to prove him right.

In making the parallel to Communism, President Klaus cited the use of environmentalism as a justification for global central planning. But it is not just the vast scale of the controls proposed by environmentalists that is so revealing; it is also the detail. There is no aspect of life too trivial or intimate to fall outside of this new ideological regimentation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/the_seeds_of_the_global_warmin.html





Genie Out of the Bottle: 'U.N. Climate Change Meeting Aims at Rich Countries'

Climate change alarmism met the infamous Oil for Food scam at the United Nations Tuesday. As a result, if you had any questions regarding why the U.N. has been the point-man on driving global warming hysteria throughout America and around the world, they were all answered.

In fact, the genie was let out of the proverbial bottle by this Reuters headline: "U.N. Climate Change Meeting Aims at Rich Countries." More evidence that the U.N.'s interest is just to take money from wealthy nations - mostly America - and redistribute it internationally was found all over the body of the article :

The first U.N. special session on climate change focused on the world's rich countries on Tuesday, as policy-makers urged long-standing polluters to shoulder much of the burden for cutting greenhouse gases:

"Because of reasons of better access to resources, the rich countries should take much bigger objectives than that 50 percent," he said. "They should be looking for around 75 percent cuts." That responsibility could extend to financing cuts in emissions in other countries
How marvelous. So, America needs to cut its emissions by 75 percent, and, if one reads between the lines, can accomplish this goal in whole or part by sending money to other countries.

How likely will it be that the U.N. acts as intermediary for these funds as they pass from the rich countries to the poor, always taking their cut? Can anyone say "Oil for Food?"

Let the shakedown begin

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070731/sc_nm/climate_un_dc_1;_ylt=ApD_DReP1VrAVJ9rqhe_cssE1vAI





The Power of a Relentless Press
Climate change has become Swiss voters' biggest concern, according to a survey released two months before parliamentary elections. The Green Party, currently the fifth-largest in Switzerland, looks set to capitalise on this to make gains at the polls in October. [snip]For the first time voters have put environmental problems at the top of their list of concerns ahead of the elections.
[Iran is pursuing nuclear arms is says it will use, Russia has already blackmailed part of europe with oil/gas embargoes during life-threatening winters and is not coy about its willingness to do so again, and China is selling arms to any terrorist sponsoring nation with the petrodollars to afford them - but a demonstrably flawed theory re: the weather a century from now is their #1 concern. Of course.]
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Greens_profit_from_environment_fears.html?siteSect=105&sid=8077306&cKey=1186156821000


Renowned Economics Writer Slams UN's IPCC As Deserving of Disdain

Fans of the highly-respected British publications The Economist and the Financial Times are certainly familiar with Clive Crook, one of the leading economics journalists on the international landscape.

On Thursday, Crook wrote an article entitled "The Steamrollers of Climate Science," in which he took on the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as being "a seriously flawed enterprise and unworthy of the slavish respect accorded to it by most governments and the media."

In fact, Crook painted a picture of this U.N. outfit possessing the factual integrity of Baghdad Bob (emphasis added throughout):

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/39463a34-40a3-11dc-9d0c-0000779fd2ac.html





$100,000 Offered to Prove Global Warming: Can You Save Al Gore?





As soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore continues to duck every person on the planet willing to debate him about his unproven anthropogenic global warming theories, one well-known skeptic has put his money where his mouth is.

On Monday evening, the website JunkScience.com, owned and managed by Steven Milloy, announced The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge.

As laid out in this video, entrants are asked the following in order to receive $100,000 while, at the same time, saving Al Gore from looking like one of the biggest charlatans to ever walk the face of the planet:

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/





Al Gore [again] Challenged To Debate Global Warming By Best-selling Author



Well, sports fans, the list of folks challenging soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore to put up or shut up continues to grow, of course, with little notice from an adoring media.

Next is best-selling author Dennis Avery. As reported by PR Newswire Monday (emphasis added throughout):



Mr. Avery is co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years. Both Al Gore and Dennis Avery have New York Times best-selling books on global warming, but with opposite conclusions.

[…]

Avery joins Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S. National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist), Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) among others.



Of course, the media never report these challenges. After all, why should they? The debate’s over.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-06-2007/0004639709&EDATE=





Did Media Or NASA Withhold Climate History Data Changes From The Public?

A change in climate history data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday.

For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995. McIntyre has been crunching the numbers used to determine such things as published by GISS, and has identified that the data have recently changed such that four of the top ten warmest years in American history occurred in the 1930s, with the warmest now in 1934 instead of the much-publicized 1998.

As McIntyre wrote Wednesday

Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. Most importantly, according to the GISS, 1998 is no longer the warmest year in American history. That honor once again belongs to 1934.
As global warming is such a key issue being debated all around this country and on Capitol Hill, wouldn't such a change by the agency responsible for calculating such things be important to disseminate? When this correction was made by Hansen's team at the GISS, shouldn't it have been reported? If Hansen's team had made changes to the data which showed that ten of the ten warmest years in American history occurred since 1995, do you think that would have been reported?

*****Update: As e-mail messages from various scientists around the world have pointed out, American climate data collection is the finest on the planet. It is expected that when these changes are made to numbers across the globe, the worldwide rankings might see some changes as well.

Yet, still more to the point is the fact that American data were changed without any announcement.

[while our politicians at all levels are busy making global-warming mitigation laws as fast as they can]

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880





A productive global warming propaganda factory


Last week I wrote an article exposing the way the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) pre-packages templates for stories on the environment. At time I wrote it, I vowed to revisit the issue from time to time to see if the templates are being used. Well, I didn't have wait very long. Wednesday's Washington Post had a front page story on how global warming is drawing the faithful in into the fold. And by faithful, they don't mean global warming believers, they're talking about that oldtime religion, Christianity.

The story template, action line and some sources appear to be lifted right from the SEJ website. In fact, their climate change propaganda handbook has a chapter devoted to this very topic. The giveaway for me were the quotes from Sir John T. Houghton, atmospheric scientist, evangelical and prominent source for the SEJ. Houghton publishes a magazine called "Creation Care"

There appears to be a high level of like-mindedness, or maybe even coordination and cooperation going on among the global warming special interests and their shills in the media. The SEJ is working out well for those who provided its funding.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/global_warming_propaganda_fact.html





Are Greenland’s Glaciers Growing and Temperatures Cooling?

One of the keys to the manmade global warming theory is that glaciers in Greenland have been melting in the last fifty years at an alarming rate. In fact, both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) claimed to witness [?] such evidence of global warming during recent trips there.

Yet, a paper written by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change, and published Monday by the Science and Public Policy Institute stated that not only have temperatures been declining in Greenland in recent years, but also glaciers have actually expanded a bit (emphasis added):

The Greenland ice sheet would appear to have experienced no net loss of mass over the last decade for which data are available. Quite to the contrary, in fact, it was likely host to a net accumulation of ice, which Zwally et al. found to be producing a 0.03 ± 0.01 mm/year decline in sea-level.[...]
So, glaciers are actually expanding, and temperatures in this region are currently cooler than in the '30s and '50s. Not exactly the picture one would arrive at by listening to the media, is it? For those interested, the entire paper is available in PDF form here.

[very dry, it's science > http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/idso_greenland_sea_level.pdf ]





Global warming? Look at the numbers

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

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=61b0590f-c5e6-4772-8cd1-2fefe0905363 .





Leaked Document Shows Britain Can’t Meet EU’s Renewable Energy Targets

As Congress debates ways to combat climate change, a leaked internal briefing to officials in Great Britain (PDF available here) showed members of that government backtracking on renewable energy targets set forth by the European Union and agreed upon by former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

As reported by England's Guardian Monday (emphasis added throughout):

In contrast to the government's claims to be leading the world on climate change, officials within the former Department of Trade and Industry have admitted that Britain would miss the EU's 2020 target of 20% energy from renewables by a long way. And their suggestion that "statistical interpretations of the target" be used rather than new ways to reach it has infuriated environmentalists.
"Statistical interpretations" is a clever way of saying "cooking the books":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/13/renewableenergy.energy





A Really Inconvenient Truth: Kyoto Protocol Destroying Ozone Layer

[snippets]

Here's something the mainstream media are guaranteed to ignore: "The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says."

Didn't hear about this? Well, how could you, for although Reuters published its article on the subject Monday, no other mainstream press outlet thought it was newsworthy.

Not one.

Alas, there were even more worrisome revelations in this Reuters piece that folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio would find very inconvenient if media actually did their job and reported them (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):

In addition, evidence suggests that the same projects, in developing countries, have deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases only to destroy these and therefore claim more carbon credits, said Stanford University's Michael Wara.

The most popular type of project has been to destroy a potent greenhouse gas known as HFC 23, one of a family of so-called hydrofluorocarbons, in China and India.

The problem is that HFC 23 is a waste product in the manufacture of a refrigerant gas which damages the ozone layer, called HCFC 22, and chemical plants have used their CDM profits to ramp up production.

"This is certainly one of the major drivers now in the increase in production of HCFC 22," Rajendra Shende, director of ozone issues at the United Nations Environment Programme, which administers the Montreal Protocol, said on Monday.

CDM projects which destroy HFC 23 are especially lucrative because the gas is 12,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2). As a result, destroying HFC 23 spawns far more money-spinning carbon credits than any other way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

"They've tuned the plants to double the amount of HFC 23 you would normally produce, for example in Europe or the United States. All CDM participant plants came in at 3 percent (HFC 23 versus HCFC 22), the Kyoto Protocol maximum, versus 1.5 percent in countries that can't participate in the scheme."

Add it all up, and you find that the ozone layer is being negatively impacted while developing nations like China increase their emissions of GHGs only to get rich selling carbon credits to companies in Europe so that they can "offset" the GHGs they're releasing into the air.

Put more simply, complying with Kyoto in profit-making practice is destroying the ozone layer.

Any questions as to why our media won't report this? Wouldn't a truly "green" media trying to advance truly "green" concepts want to disseminate information concerning flaws in the Kyoto Protocol that are actually having a negative environmental impact? Isn't that newsworthy?

Or, is the environment really much less important to our press representatives than advancing the manmade global warming myth along with [as the perfect lever for imposing any and all] socialist economic "solutions" they deem are beneficial in the long run regardless of environmental benefit?

[more > http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL137011320070813 ]





Consumers Not Buying Gore's '10 Myths' on Environment, But Media Keeps Selling Them, Anyway

So, a new survey shows that only 22% of consumers think they can make a difference regarding the environment – and that they’re far more knowledgeable on the subject than typically thought. You'd think that'd be news, given the way the mainstream media seems to love proclaiming man's suicidal assault on Mother Earth. Apparently not, if you trust Lexis or Google News to track media coverage.

So, why haven't the major media's Big Guns been reporting the story? Perhaps, it's because the findings suggest that consumers aren't as "green" (in either sense) as they'd like the public to believe.

/snip/

Maybe the legacy media doesn't like the fact that the findings of the survey suggest that “green” products are nothing more than a niche opportunity in the marketplace, since only 13% of consumers are “extremely concerned” about the environment (consumers at least 16 years old) and nearly half are "lukewarm" about the environment.

Whatever the reason, the findings are out there, but the news coverage isn't.

[well, with so many deniers, it's a good thing the government is moving to force green conduct on the masses]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/craig-bannister/2007/08/15/consumers-not-buying-gores-10-myths-environment-media-keeps-selling





Global climate models fail yet another reality check

The very same climate models, on which warming "experts" the likes of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA's GISS base their catastrophic projections, have proven utterly unreliable once more. In a piece entitled Trouble in Climate-Model Paradise, Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, writing in CO2 Science, tell the fascinating story of a recent attempt to harmonize the model / reality relationship that, instead, yielded "embarrassing results" for the researchers.

The mission was to verify an accepted prediction by the esteemed Coupled Model Intercomparison Project and others that for every degree centigrade of surface global warming, precipitation would increase by between 1 and 3%:



"Hence, they decided to see what has happened in the real world in this regard over the last 19 years (1987-2006) of supposedly unprecedented global warming, when data from the Global Historical Climatology Network and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere have indicated a global temperature rise on the order of 0.20°C per decade."


What they found by marrying satellite observations with rain gauge measurements was an actual precipitation increase of 7% per degree C [emphasis added],



"which is somewhere between 2.3 and 7 times larger than what is predicted by state-of-the-art climate models."


Baffled by the sheer magnitude of the inconsistency, researcher F. J. Wentz and company attempted to reconcile it to global wind speed variations. They failed, forcing them to admit that,



"the reason for the discrepancy between the observational data and the GCMs is not clear."


Wentz confessed that the disparity his team discovered between the actions of nature and those of virtual simulations "has enormous impact."

The Doctors Idso agreed, adding:



"And until these ‘enormous impact questions' are settled, we wonder how anyone could conceivably think of acting upon the global energy policy prescriptions of the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen, who speak and write as if there was little more to do in the realm of climate-change prediction than a bit of fine-tuning."


Sadly, I don't wonder at all.

[it's not about climate, it's about money, power and ideology {but mostly money + power}]

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N33/EDIT.jsp





Propaganda as Journalism



One of the vilest, most venomous pieces of writing masquerading as journalism was the Newsweek cover story on August 13, 2007.

With the sun as the backdrop, which in the piece got a minor supporting role for global warming, compared to man-produced CO2, the magazine screamed “Global Warming is a Hoax” * and the asterisk led to the clincher as a large enough footnote: "Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Inside the denial machine."

/snip/

Well, I'm not in anybody’s pay and I am not even, heavens forbid, a Republican. And I need not rely on “hundreds of scientists” constantly predicting doom but never publishing causal papers. I have personally worked on radiation heat transfer and I do not need the opinions of others about anthropogenic global warming, maybe 0.1 degrees centigrade. The postulated global warming simply cannot be caused by man-made CO2.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22016





New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908


Senate Report: Over 400 Scientists Dispute Manmade Global Warming

According to a report just published at the United States Senate Committee on Environment, over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC.

[snip]

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK)

[snip]

This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.

Though lengthy, readers are strongly encouraged to review this entire document to learn the truth about what real scientists - those not receiving Oscars, Emmys, and Nobel Peace Prizes [or grants]- think about this controversial issue.

[reminder: alarmists are in a hurry to get their laws on the books because time will increasingly prove prior predictions and scientific methods false - hence they're becoming shriller and shriller in demanding legislation now-right-now, for as we all know, a law that brings the government money and power once enacted is forever...]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport





End of Global Warming?

Dr. David Whitehouse, the British astronomer and former science editor of the BBC, tells us:
"'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'
[snip]
"The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming - the greenhouse effect."
Whatever warming trend was going on has flattened out in the last seven years. Which is an odd thing, because China and India have been pumping out more CO2 from cars and industry. And an ever increasing avalanche of ugly facts are nailing the biggest scare story in history.

Dr. Whitehouse's wonderful news will make a lot of people angry. They don't want to believe good things about Mother Earth. They've put their money on Bad News for Momma. Which makes you wonder what they really want.

[NYT and BBC - oh my!]

http://www.newstatesman.com/print/200712190004



Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back



according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades... If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death.



http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html





HISTORY AND BEAR BIOLOGY SHOW WARMER TEMPERATURES AREN'T A THREAT

In early March, the polar bear could become the first species officially recognized by the U.S. government as threatened by global warming. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has proposed to list the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) -- even though U.S. polar bear populations aren't declining.

Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, comprehensive research demonstrates that since the 1970s -- while much of the world was warming -- polar bear numbers increased dramatically to approximately 25,000 today -higher than at any time in the 20th century.

Research conducted by the World Wildlife Fund shows that of the 20 distinct polar bear populations worldwide only two — accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total number of bears — are decreasing.

Those populations are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region.
By contrast, another two populations — about 13.6 percent of the total — are growing, and they live in areas were air temperatures have risen.
Evolutionary biologist and paleozoologist Susan Crockford, of Canada's University of Victoria, points out that polar bears have historically thrived when temperatures were warmer than today's -- during the medieval warming 1,000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum 5,000 to 9,000 years ago.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba610/





Global Warming Censored

http://www.businessandmedia.org/stillshots/2008/GlobalWarmingCensoredCoverSmall.jpg [book cover]



Business & Media Institute's new report, "Global Warming Censored," shows that network news shows routinely shut out debate on climate issues, even from scientists' perspectives. In fact, in 80 percent of the stories studied an alternate viewpoint wasn't even mentioned.

And when network news shows did feature dissenting views, those people were often branded as "deniers" or "flat Earthers." Scott Pelley, a reporter for CBS, continued to report on climate change for that network despite his 2006 comparison of global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

[Re: some companies going 'green':] "All businesses have marketing departments. Their whole job is to make the business look good," ... "If you do things that are going to make the business look bad, or you're going to get beaten up about it then you try to, then you try to adapt. And so I don't blame companies for trying to do that."

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingCensored_execsum.asp





GLOBAL WARMING: IS IT REALLY A CRISIS?

John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all promise massive new regulations that will cost trillions of dollars to combat global warming. Ironically, this political unanimity is occurring as scientific evidence points in the other direction, says John R. Lott, Jr., a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland:

Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years, according to a consensus of scientists.
Temperatures rose from the late 1970s to 1998, but there has been no net global warming since 1998; indeed, the more recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant cooling.
Even if temperatures were not decreasing, mankind is responsible for just a fraction of one percent of the effect from greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases are not responsible for most of what causes warming (e.g., the Sun).
Yet we just keep on piling on more and more regulations without asking hard questions about whether they are justified, says Lott.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,334682,00.html





Ad Council Uses Children in Horrific Global Warming Commercials


The non-profit organization Ad Council has not only decided to take on the most recent liberal bogeyman known as anthropogenic global warming, but do so by using young children.

In its current ads, a young girl is actually about to be hit by a train to disgracefully demonstrate that our inaction today will kill our children tomorrow. In another, kids imitate ticking clocks as they list the predicted climate change horrors of massive heat waves, severe droughts, and devastating hurricanes:

I don't know about you, but irrespective of my position on this issue, I find using children in this fashion to be indefensible and way over the line of decency.
How 'bout you?

[tell 'em (email form): http://www.adcouncil.org/contactus.aspx ]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/15/ad-council-uses-children-horrific-global-warming-commercials





American media ignores inconvenient science on global warming


Americans apparently have to look to Australia for truthful accounts of climate research conducted by our own space agency. Christopher Pearson' March 22 article in THE AUSTRALIAN concerns an interview of "Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs." When asked about "Global Warming", Marohasy stated:

"...actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.

"The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it."
Further, she says:

"The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

Isn't it odd that this "shocking" news hasn't been reported yet in the American Press?

[expect the fear mongering to reach a truly hysterical pitch as the alarmists face the fact that they're running out of time - they need enact legislation now-right-now as their chickens are on final approach...]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html


The Media Ignore Al Gore's Planned Global Warming Profiteering


How is Gore trying to be a climate change profiteer? Essentially, he wants to make a fortune by creating a new market for a product that he is attempting to create by legislative fiat. If he succeeds and carbon emissions trading comes to the United States, Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in. He's made sure of that.

Gore himself is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). He says the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are becoming environmentally-friendly, to use green parlance. GIM appears to have considerable influence over major carbon credit trading firms: the U.S.-based Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the U.K.-based Carbon Neutral Company (CNC). CCX appears to be the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

As reported in the August 2007 issue of Foundation Watch ("Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It," by Deborah Corey Barnes), with help from friends at Goldman Sachs, including Hank Paulson, the investment bank’s former CEO who is now the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Gore has created a web of organizations to promote the so-called climate crisis.
Meanwhile, Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection is pushing for tougher environmental regulations on the private sector. It wants “cap-and-trade” legislation enacted so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits. Untold billions of dollars could be generated in a brand new U.S. carbon market.
When Gore's potential for immense profits is factored in, the $300 million outlay for ads (some of which is likely to come from donations to the Alliance's "We Campaign") seems like a drop in the bucket...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/04/01/media-ignores-al-gores-planned-global-warming-profiteering







Spanish court prohibits ski station because of global warming

Madrid - A Spanish court has prohibited the construction of a ski station partially because global warming would make it economically unviable, media reported Wednesday. The court accepted the arguments of ecologists who opposed the construction of a ski station in the San Glorio mountain pass in northern Leon province for environmental reasons. (Snip) The court also justified its decision with the unprecedented argument that global warming would make the ski station economically unviable.

[all human activity will be regulated by this new religion]

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1398057.php/Spanish_court_prohibits_ski_station_because_of_global_warming


last/above piece dated April 2, 2008.