Al Gore's defense of global-warming hysteria in Sunday's New York Times has many flaws, but I'll focus on just one whopper -- where the "Inconvenient Truth" man states the opposite of scientific fact.
Gore says, "The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere -- thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States."Gore: Still citing predictions that science has disproved.Gore: Still citing predictions that science has disproved.
It's an interesting theory, but where are the facts?
According to "State of the Climate" from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Global precipitation in 2009 was near the 1961-1990 average." And there was certainly no pattern of increasing rain and snow on America's East Coast during the post-1976 years, when NOAA says the globe began to heat up.
As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement
Saturday, Feb. 06, 2010
Excerpts:
In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.
These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.
But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.
The economy-destroying measure ekes out a House victory.
By PETE DU PONT
July 27, 2009
The fresh news about Washington--the White House and Congress--is that things are not going very well. A new president in full command of public-policy matters is having problems, from health care to taxes to massive federal spending and now to the Waxman-Markey bill, one of the oddest and most far-reaching pieces of legislation advocated by the new administration.
It passed the House a few weeks ago by a 219-212 vote--not much of a margin. Most interesting was the fact that of America’s 50 state delegations in the House, 28 voted no and 22 aye, and one quarter of the 219 majority votes came from New York and California. Most of America’s states and communities didn’t much like the bill.
No wonder, for it would regulate many things--energy, wages, imported goods, corporations, states, cities, buildings and houses, snowmobiles, lawn mowers, light fixtures, candelabra base lamps and many others--while containing broad exemptions for regulation of agribusiness, ethanol and biofuels. The Waxman-Markey bill would be without question the biggest expansion of federal government control over our economy since the 1930s.
The disaster known as Cap and Trade, President Obama is saddling America with is shameful, deceitful and geared above all to redistribute as many hard earned dollars of those who pay a FINAL NET TAX toward his WELFARE CONSTITUENCY.
Congress Shouldn't Fight Global Warming By Freezing The Economy
By PETE DU PONT
June 23, 2009
Excerpts:
Two months ago this column offered an analysis of the Waxman-Markey global warming bill, its enormous cost and its practical impossibilities.
Sometime in the next few weeks Congress will begin consideration of the bill, one of the priorities of the Obama administration and the Al Gore enthusiasts who think that Earth will die unless the governments of the world regulate our electricity, energy, autos, economies and backyards.
They do not seem to believe that energy is of any significance to our economy or our people. But the truth is it matters to all of us--to those who drive, heat our houses and run businesses, cities, towns, hospitals and schools.
So they have put together the "cap and trade" bill, the goal of which is to control the annual amount of CO2 emissions that will be permitted. First comes setting the "cap," the amount a business is permitted to emit, and then "trade," allowing them to buy permits to emit more CO2 or sell permits if their emissions are lower. It will be the largest and widest intervention by government into the lives of Americans since the 1940s
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
March 19, 2009
The Inhofe EPW Press Blog
Update: 59 Additional Scientists Join Senate Report...More Than
700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global
Warming Claims
March 16, 2009
Posted By Marc Morano – 4:09 PM ET –
Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov
Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made G W Claims Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report
Washington DC: Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release.
The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week.
This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.
The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.
The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article in the Australian revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC.
Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”
[Also See: The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.
[ See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here –More analyses of recent developments see report’s introduction here. ]
SANTA FE, N.M. - Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.
"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.
January 21, 2009
THE AUSTRALIAN
January 20, 2009
THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.
Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.
Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?
There are two fundamentally different ways in which computers can be used to project climate. The first is used by the modelling groups that provide climate projections to the IPCC. These groups deploy general circulation models, which use complex partial differential equations to describe the ocean-atmosphere climate system mathematically. When fed with appropriate initial data, these models can calculate possible future climate states. The models presume (wrongly) that we have a complete understanding of the climate system.
January 19, 2009
Majority Now Say Global Warming Due To Planetary Trends, Not People--Brainwashed Group Now a Minority
44% Say Global Warming Due To Planetary Trends, Not People
Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.
Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.
Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
November 11, 2008
Latest Data Show Much Cooler Temperatures Nationwide-As Global Warming Myth Keeps Getting Shattered
Let's face it. The average individual American has little or no clout with Congress and can be safely ignored. But it's a different story with groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy.
When they speak, Congress listens. Unlike the average American, they are well organized, loaded with cash and well positioned to be a disobedient congressman's worse nightmare. Their political and economic success has been a near disaster for our nation.
For several decades, environmentalists have managed to get Congress to keep most of our oil resources off-limits to exploration and drilling.
Many Americans think that switching to energy-efficient light bulbs, buying environmentally friendly appliances and obeying a (100% recycled) bag of green living tips will be the extent of their contribution to curbing greenhouse gases. But the price tag to consumers could be a lot higher if some politicians have their way. In fact, U.S. households could expect a $2,900 annual hit to their family budget sooner than they think.
That's just one figure causing concern as politicians race to address global warming. Therefore, it's worth noting that at the same time Americans are concerned about climate change, they are also very concerned about the sluggish economy and the impact it is having on the pocketbook. It is only fair, then, to view the two issues side by side. When cooler heads prevail, the reality is clear:
There is weak public support for global-warming policies, which would end up costing the average family thousands of dollars.
First, it's worth noting where Americans currently stand on global warming. According to Gallup, as much as 70% of the public during the late 1990s through 2000 said the environment should take priority over the economy. That number has dropped to just 49% this year.
Hampton,Va.(HFR:WASHINGTON) - A conservative, free-market advocacy group will begin airing ads this week pressing Senate Republicans and Democrats to vote against a bill that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Club for Growth wants to scuttle a bill by Sens. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, and John Warner, R-Va., that the Senate is scheduled to begin debating next month. Despite the ad campaign, the bill seems to lack the votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
With $250,000 in radio and television spots, the Club for Growth is targeting Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana. Dole, a co-sponsor of the bill, as well as Alexander, Baucus and Rockefeller face re-election this year
Global Warming April 28, 2008
We Now Learn That Enron Was A Creature of the Environmental (Loco) Movement and Elitist "Corporate Social Responsibility"
For most Americans, Enron was the poster child of unfettered capitalism. After its fraudulent activities led to the company’s collapse, business ethicist Marjorie Kelly proclaimed, “The ideal of the unregulated market is flawed and it’s time we said goodbye to the invisible hand.” But as Rob Bradley argues in a provocative new essay (pdf), Enron was the epitome not of capitalism, but rather of the environmental Left and the corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement.
Bradley should know. He spent sixteen years at Enron, ultimately serving as a corporate director in public policy analysis, and even wrote speeches for none other than Enron chairman Ken Lay. (Bradley is also the founder of the Institute for Energy Research, a free market think tank with which I am affiliated.) Yet as a believer in capitalism—true capitalism, where consumers determine winners and losers, not the politicians—Bradley didn’t fit in so well with his peers. It seems the “smartest guys in the room” running the company decided that the best way to ensure profits was to put in the fix, courtesy of the government, and all sold to the public under the guise of CSR and “green” energy.
Enron’s key to (politically assisted) success was to lobby for “farsighted” government policies that just so happened to give the company an advantage over its competitors. For example, because it was heavily invested in natural gas production, transmission, and electricity generation, Enron would benefit from regulations on carbon dioxide emissions. (Natural gas is less carbon intensive than oil and especially coal.) Enron also was far ahead of the curve in investing in alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Global Warming April 26, 2008
NEWSWEEK
CAMPAIGN 2008
Evan Thomas
The Green Phantom
Global warming's curious absence as a campaign issue.Apr 24, 2008
In the summer of 2006 I went to see Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who was running the Democrats' successful effort to regain control of the House of Representatives. I had been reading a great deal about global warming in the mainstream press ("Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" warned Time). So I asked Emanuel, how are the environment and global warming playing out there in the heartland? Is it stirring voters? No, he replied. In the 2006 congressional elections global warming was virtually a nonissue, he said, a low-priority item way behind the war and the economy and old staples like education and health care. Global warming is an issue for the elites, he said, not for the average voter.
That's still true. The mainstream media continues to write urgently about global warming. Last month NEWSWEEK asked on its cover which candidate will be the most green. On Sunday the New York Times Magazine produced a special issue on how to reduce your carbon footprint-from changing your light bulbs to walking more to eating "slow food." Any reader of old-line mainstream media-the traditional news source of the upper middle class-would think that the country is rallying to a crisis.
But the disconnect persists. National polls show that the environment ranks fairly low as an issue that moves voters. In the Pennsylvania primary global warming was such a peripheral issue that exit pollsters did not even bother to measure voter attitudes toward it. Many younger voters wish the candidates would talk more about global warming. But most voters worry more about jobs and keeping fuel cheap. Aside from speaking in broad generalities and making vague promises, the candidates steer away from involved debate on global warming. (Enabled, it should be said, by political reporters. Of the more than 3,000 questions asked in the more than 20 presidential debates, fewer than 10 mentioned global warming.)
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is re-launching an ad campaign that is designed to raise awareness to the threats posed by Al Gore's "global warming" agenda.
According to a press release from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection recently launched a $300 million ad campaign that seeks to build support for policies that "restrict energy through higher prices and reduced supplies." But in response to that ad campaign, CEI has released a counter ad that "contrasts Gore's energy-consuming lifestyle with the life-and-death need for energy in developing countries."
Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at CEI in Washington, DC, explains that his group's ad -- which begins tomorrow (April 4) -- shows viewers the tremendous blessings that come from having access to energy. For example, it highlights a village in Haiti that cheers as they install their first street lamp. But Ebell says if society continues to pursue what he labels "nutty global warming policies," hundreds of millions of people worldwide will be left in the dark.
Global Warming March 25, 2008
CEI counters Gore's 'global warming' ad blitz
Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, March 24, 2008
They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.
Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.
These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.
Global Warming March 13, 2008
From: Investors Business Daily
Hungarian Scientist May Have found that the Earth does a good job of adapting and self-regulating.
Climate Change: When new facts emerge, the open-minded tend to alter their views. This is what has happened to a Hungarian environmental scholar whose position on global warming has been transformed.
Until his Damascus moment, Miklos Zagoni, a physicist and environmental researcher, had been touted as his nation's "most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol." But then this activist saw the work of a fellow Hungarian scientist. His world was rocked. "I fell in love" with the theory, he told DailyTech.com.
Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist at NASA's Langley Research Center with three decades of experience, had found that researchers have been repeating a mistake when calculating the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on temperatures. We're not scientists, but it looks to us like Miskolczi found that the Earth does a good job of adapting and self-regulating.
Global Warming March 11, 2008
From: Nationalpost.com
The media snowjob on global warming
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, March 10, 2008
Just how pervasive the bias at most news outlets is in favour of climate alarmism -- and how little interest most outlets have in reporting any research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy -- can be seen in a Washington Post story on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), announced last week in New York.
The NIPCC is a counter to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The group was unveiled this week in Manhattan at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, along with its scientific report claiming that natural factors -- the sun, El Ninos and La Ninas, volcanoes, etc, -- not human sources are behind global warming.
The Washington Post's first instincts (not just on its opinion pages, but in its news coverage, too) were cleverly to sew doubt of the group's credibility by pointing out to readers that many of the participants had ties to conservative politicians, such as former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, and that the conference sponsor -- the Heartland Institute -- received money from oil companies and health care corporations.
Global Warming March 4, 2008
From: Business and Media Institute
TWC [The Weather Channel]founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'
The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.
Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.
“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”Cold Water on "Global Warming"
Global Warming Debate Among Climatologists and Scientists With Real Credentials Coming Up
Will Mainstream Media Democrats and Other Leftists Show Up
A new and very different conference on global warming will be held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th -- weather permitting.
It is called an "International Conference on Climate Change." Its subtitle is "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.
They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.
There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.
The theme of the conference is that "there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming."
John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all promise bold action on climate change . All have endorsed a form of cap-and-trade system that would severely limit future carbon emissions. The Democratic Congress is champing at the bit to act. So too is the Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of companies led by General Electric and Duke Energy.
You'd think this would be a rich time for debate on the issue of climate change. But it's precisely as sweeping change on climate policy is becoming likely that many people have decided the time for debate is over. One writer puts climate change skeptics "in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial," another envisions "war crimes trials" for the deniers. And during the tour for his film "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore himself belittled "global warming deniers" as unworthy of any attention.
Take the reaction to Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg's latest book, "Cool It," which calls for a reasoned debate on global warming. Mr. Lomborg himself leans left, and he opens his book by declaring his belief that "humanity has caused a substantial rise in atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels over the past centuries, thereby contributing to global warming." But he has infuriated environmentalists by saying it is necessary to debate "whether hysterical and head-long spending on extravagant CO2-cutting programs at an unprecedented price is the only possible response." To do so, he says, it will be necessary to cool the doomsday rhetoric, allowing a measured discussion about the best ways forward. "Being smart about our future is the reason we have done so well in the past. We should not abandon our smarts now."
Global Warming February 24, 2008
Business and Media Institute States the following:
"The hosts and crew of NBC’s “Today” show were in Vermont February 21 on the first leg of their “winter vacation” that concludes February 22 in Miami. The trips call into question how dedicated “Today” really is to “going green.”
The “winter vacation” trip will end up pumping more than half a ton of carbon into the atmosphere per person, according to carbonfund.org. There’s no telling how many crew members joined Matt Lauer, Meredith Vieira, Al Roker, Ann Curry, Natalie Morales and Hoda Kotb on the trip, but the six hosts alone will emit 3 tons of carbon for the trip."
Global Warming February 23, 2008
Global Warming Hoax Continues To Unravel
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
From: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Excerpts:
"Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?
Scare mongering appears to be the case, 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."
Global Warming February 15, 2008
From: Capital Research Center
Camille Paglia, Global Warming Skeptic
Camille Paglia, of all people, points favorably to a new website, Climate Debate Daily, that fairly covers the global warming debate.
Many of the world's leading scientists, meteorologists, climatologists and other related specialties, have totally denounced many of the major assumptions, spin and theories forced on the public as fact.
These theories come from nothing more than computerized simulations, which all of the so-called experts pushing this reckless agenda realize, have been woefully inaccurate in the past, to say nothing of the fact there are probably dozens and dozens of variables that would need to be included to have even a half intelligent direction to take.
Benefits are not mentioned anywhere unless you read Bjorn Lomborg who was once on the bandwagon until he took a group of eager students, as convinced of the dangers as he was and assingned them to study and know both sides of the argument from A to Z, so they could know how to answer all arguments.
Their open minded study led them to believe that once certain conclusions were so weak that the normal arguments for global warming were indefensible.
In fact some of those arguments, went in the opposite direction
On warmer tempuratures, Mr. Lomborg finds that because of warming in certain areas about 20,000 lives would be saved from those who will not freeze to death because of those warmer climates.
He goes on to point out many other factors which should be telling us what priorities we should actually have when dealing with what we do know about global warming.
Global Warming January 28, 2008
From: National Leadership Network of Conservative Afican-Americans
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - "unalienable rights" cited by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence - are now at risk as left-wing activists seek to curtail our liberties and personal choices to save the planet from supposedly man-made global warming.
No one is saying global climate change doesn't exist. We all know the hot era of the dinosaurs later gave way to the frigid Ice Age. Throughout recorded human history, with and without the presence of factories and other factors blamed for today's alleged rising temperatures, there have been many warming and cooling trends.
What is unresolved is the role man actually plays in climate change. It is easy to be skeptical of the man-made global warming hysterics when the scientific data remains inconclusive and uncontrollable events, such as volcanic eruptions, can do more harm to the atmosphere than man.
Global Warming December 17, 2007
Does Al Gore Have Mental Health Problems?
EMISSIONS: U.S. HAS BEST RECORD, KYOTO SIGNERS HAVE WORST-SEE NUMBERS
Lest you think the above are "extremists," consider how deeply invested the "mainstream" is in a total fiction. At the recent climate jamboree in Bali, the Rev. Al Gore told the assembled faithful: "My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here." Really? The American Thinker's Web site ran the numbers. In the seven years between the signing of Kyoto in 1997 and 2004, here's what happened:
•Emissions worldwide increased 18.0 percent;
•Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1 percent;
•Emissions from nonsigners increased 10.0 percent; and
•Emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent.
Global Warming December 10, 2007
Climate Changes, but Media Remain the Same
Environmentalists, journalists head to Bali to discuss ways to spend your money.
Once upon a time, Bob Hope and Bing Crosby went off on the road to Bali. Fifty-five years later, politicians are heading to Bali for sun, sand and socialism – and they want us to pay for it to the tune of trillions of dollars.
The Financial Times reported November 28 that the United Nations expects “rich industrialized countries shouldering a cut of 80 percent” of emissions. In effect, eco-extremists want the U.S. to spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year. The U.N. position makes us pay and lets China and India almost off the hook, despite their growing economies and growing pollution.
That view will be center stage as 130 Environment Ministers are joined by other VIPs at the island resort for the December 3-14 conference of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Counting their families, friends, handlers, aides, assistants and toadies, that will probably equal thousands of people lining up at the public trough for a tropical vacation
Global Warming October 31, 2007
One of the world's most respected scientists-a real scientist-not a policy wonk, like many social scientists that make up the group with the misused phrase "scientific consenus", has called the Global Warming scare, "bunk"
Fred Singer said that even though the consensus agrees on many points having to do with Global Warming, many of those same scientists seriously question what is being put forth as science but is often more hype than science.
The Mainstream Media loves the fact that the whole Global Warming scaremongering movement ties in perfectly with its nanny-state loving philosophy.
Global Warming October 16, 2007
Gore Theory Called Ridiculous By Top Expert
One of the world's top meteorologists William Gray called Al Gore's information and award of the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and "the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".
Dr William Gray, is a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
Global Warming August 18, 2007
NASA Thanks Blogger For Data That Becomes Inconvenient Truth For Al Gore's temperature findings
Below are excerpts from an article by Amanda Carpenter, a political reporter from Townhall.com
Despite the fact that NASA tried to block him from accessing U.S. temperature data, persistent efforts by a climate change blogger forced the government to amend U.S. temperature data.
Because of the blogger’s efforts, NASA now recognizes 1934 as the hottest year in U.S. history, not 1998.
Steven McIntyre, a former mineral exploration executive and policy analyst for the governments of Ontario and Canada who blogs at ClimateAudit.org, wrote to NASA on August 4. He had found miscalculations in the NASA’s U.S. temperature recordings made after January 2000. “For Detroit Lakes, Minnesota,” McIntyre wrote “this introduced an error of 0.8 deg C.”
NASA responded on August 7 to tell McIntyre data was “changed correspondingly with an acknowledgement of your contribution.” Without any fanfare, the changes were made on the NASA website. The recalculations resulted in an overall decrease in U.S. temperatures since 2000 by 0.15 degrees centigrade. In a phone interview McIntyre said, “That doesn’t necessarily seem that much, but when the entire increase in temperature in the United States had been previously reported to be about half a degree, this .15 degree is not a small number when you are measuring half degree numbers.”
Now, the ten hottest years on record in the U.S., beginning with the hottest year, are: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939. Before the revision, that list read: 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921, 1931, 1999, 1953, 2001, 1990 and 1938. The re-ranking completely knocked 2001 off the top 10 list.
This U.S. temperature revision could cause problems for former Vice President Al Gore. Assisted by Hansen, Gore asserted in his global warming film “An Inconvenient Truth” that nine of the ten hottest years in U.S. history occurred since 1995.
Global Warming July 24, 2007
The film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was shown on TV for the first time by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
ABC gave its account of the film which was said to be quite one-sided on the side of Al Gore.
British film maker Martin Durkin. Durkin referred to ABC's reporting as an "ABC studio assault" that revealed the "intolerance and defensiveness of the global warming camp."
The film has many highly credentialed scientists disagreeing strongly with the entire notion which also refutes the alleged "consensus" that GW zealots are trying to ram down our throats.
Almost mischievously, Australia was at the time experiencing its coldest June since 1950.
Global Warming July, 2007
WHO IS THE BEST REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LOONY LEFT AL GORE OR ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.
Whenever this total fruitcake Kennedy discusses GW on TV, he changes the subject and rambles off into incoherency.
He is a total hypocrite with one standard for himself and another for the rest of the world.
JFK, despite some imperfections, like all of us, was tremendously popular and respected by millions.
Now we have Teddy Kennedy and this fruitcake representing the family.
Hopefully no one will take this character and his global Warming nonsense and insults, seriously.
RFK'S Nutty Quote:
Now you've heard today a lot of people say that there are many little things that you all can do today to avert climate change on your own.
But I will tell you this, it is more important than buying compact fluorescent light bulbs or than buying a fuel efficient automobile.
The most important thing you can do is to get involved in the political process and get rid of all of these rotten politicians that we have in Washington D.C. -- who are nothing more than corporate toadies for companies like Exxon and Southern Company, these villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity.
This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors.
###
Global Warming Update July 8,2007
They rocked the world, but as the clean-up at nine climate change gigs around the globe begins, many wonder if the galaxy of pop stars did much to change it.
Most reports on the climate change concert, were not overwhelming.
The reports did not seem overly excited about the performance itself or what good it may have done, if any, for the GW cause.
Some articles featured Madonna's personal habits on the subject, at least one noting that her "carbon" factor is about 100 times that of the average native of her present residence.
She was even referred to by one tabloid as a "climate change disaster"
She is also said to be seriously invested in companies considered major polluters.
Global Warming
July 3, 2007
The GW crowd uses the IPCC to spread much of its hysterical propaganda and non-science.
The IPCC is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change.
It is said to consist of hundreds of scientists from many nations, but many of those scientists are not true experts in climatology or atmosphere and many of them have the interest of the government they work for as a priority. The governments of many of these individuals want the global warming agenda to go forward.
But even then some of the findings of the IPCC do not support the gospel of Al Gore.
For example, Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. The IPPC has said as recently as this year, there has been no scientific link established between tornadoes and global warming.
Imagine just for starters, that all of this zeal and certainty of the doom and gloom scenario, being predicted, is based on computerized simulations.
Yes, that's correct!!
Bad enough computerized simulations are being relied on, but being so, when these simulations have a notoriously bad record for accuracy.
Also many true scientists note that the simulations are woefully short on many variables that would be needed to get an accurate picture. This is complicated because what the missing variables are, are not yet known.
Global Warming
July 2, 2007
Al Gore-Still Ignoring The Science
As Al Gore continues his Doom and Gloom message, more and more climatologists, meteoroligists and other true scientists with impeccable credentials are revealing for the first time that they are not on board with all the fear-mongering and scare tactics of this whole movement.
Only last month the head of NASA, Michael D. Griffin joined a large and growing list of those who have kept silent.
His critics including one at NASA who just happened to have been very active in the Gore campaign and movie howled up and down, crying how could you? to the NASA head.
Finally just to keep the panic down, Mr. Griffin apologized, not for the statement itself but for the trouble it had caused.
From the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works an article listed some of those scientists. We will list different scientists and their background each day for the next several days:
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006.
Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!"
“Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories.
So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials.
The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.”
Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters."
Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago.
In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”
See Video Below This Article
Climate Expert Declares "Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time."
June 7,2007
Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.
Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.
"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?
"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.
Two things every voter should be aware of regarding the latest U.N. report on global warming:
1. What the science in the report actually says
2. What the policy makers who wrote the report, claim, the science, says
The science should have caused all global warming zealots to back off big time. This report throws serious doubt on some vital information in previous reports written by the same IPCC in 1990, 1995 and 2001.
The study was done by scientists and the report was written by policy makers, many of whom, possibly all of whom, have an agenda. In fact many of these policy wonks, work for governments who preach climate fear, to advance the Global Warming agenda.
In the Mainstream Media, those who tilt left loved the findings of the report which advanced the doom and gloom aspects found therein. The MM fell almost totally silent on the science.
Voters should also know, that contributions from respected scientists are often rejected, by this U. N. group, as they were in this report, for not advancing the global warming cause.
The New Report
The new report shows that when the U.N. did its 2001 assessment of the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution, it had overestimated that influence by at least one-third.
Reporting on sea level, the 2001 report stated a rise in sea level of 3 feet. In this latest report, that amount is less than half of 3 feet-17 inches.
Not only did sea levels not rise as high as formerly predicted; the pace at which they rose was much slower than predicted.
The three previous IPCC reports also did not report that oceans would cool, which they have done significantly since 2003. This also throws serious doubt on recent claims about the frequency and intensity of hurricanes.
The full scientific report has not yet been released. However, just from the limited information known so far, there is much that should make the Greens examine the science more carefully and take the time necessary for honest dialogue on the matter.
Less Certainty Since Last Report
Serious claims made with such certainty in previous reports, now show reduced numbers. Also the rise in temperatures since the last report has been miniscule.
It should always be kept in mine, that much of what has been predicted over the years has been based on computer simulations. In many cases these models are inaccurate. The tiny rise in temperatures and the unexpected ocean cooling are just two, of many examples.
Is Anyone Abiding By The Kyoto Agreement?
The United Nations monitors 41 countries in the area which includes greenhouse gas emissions. Of those 41, 34 had increased greenhouse emissions from 2000 to 2004, even though all 41 had committed to the terms of Kyoto.
A report from the European Environment Agency showed that thirteen of the original 15 European Signatories will miss their 2010 targets, the way they're heading now. Many of the countries making the most noise have poor records. The U.S. has had a better record than most, in recent years. Despite all this posturing by prosperous EU nations, the problem increasingly lies elsewhere.
The fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions are the poorer countries, and China. China's emissions are rapidly closing in on those of the U.S. In fact the International Energy Agency projects that China alone could account for 55 percent of those emissions by 2050. As to the poorer countries, do we want to limit or halt the economic gains they are making to cut these emissions?
Presently the doom and gloom crowd is being very loose with what the science says while at the same time offering solutions that would have a terrible effect on most economies.
Lately, more scientists with serious credentials, seem to be stepping up at a faster pace, to refute much of the hype while insisting that we need to know much more before we can look for solutions.
It is totally possible that there are no man made solutions.
Let's hold our judgment until May when the full U.N. report on global warming comes out. When it does we would be wise to focus on the science to the best of our ability.
