A few questions for climate alarmists

by Paul Driessen

May 15, 2010

It’s time to ask these politicians some fundamental questions.

What to say to a global warming advocate

02/10/10

By MARK LANDSBAUM

At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.

Global Warming Is a Religion

By Walter Williams

01/13/10

The very idea that mankind can make significant parametric changes to the Earth has to be the height of arrogance. How about a few questions because temperature is just one characteristic of the Earth. The Earth's orbit is another. If all 6.5 billion of us, all at once, started jumping up and down for a little while, do you think we'd change the Earth's orbit or rotation? Do you think mankind could change the direction and timing of the ocean's tides?

Ben Franklin on Real Science

12/19/09

By John Armor

Before you commit to spending a trillion dollars or more on any program, perhaps you should begin with the science offered to support it. Consider my experiment with a kite in a thunderstorm in Philadelphia in 1752. I did not get lightning to strike my kite and come down the wet string to a key tied directly to it. There was a thin wire functioning as an antenna on the kite. Insulated silk held the key away from me. At the bottom was a Leyden jar.

Who Needs Data?

12/18/09

By Randall Hoven

Skeptics, your weapons are useless. The climate alarmists always have something else that trumps whatever evidence you have against their alarmism. They don't even need evidence at all -- just an asserted probability as low as 1% that the world will end if they are right

What a Piece of Work

By Ben Stein

12.15.09

Man still tries to come up with a theory to explain everything and then to use that theory to control his fellow man, always in the presumed wish to save the white race or the working class or someone or something.

We are living in frightening times, and the ones who are the most frightening among us are, as usual, the ones pretending to save us.

100 REASONS WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL

UK NEWS

December 15,2009

100 REASONS WHY CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL

Climate change campaigners: 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

E-mails, Schme-mails -- Look at the Polar Ice Caps

By Randall Hoven

12/11/09

We need to look at all the data. But instead of being forthcoming and presenting everything, the alarmists cherry-pick only the warming data: the north ice cap, but not the Antarctic one. Greenland's melting land ice, but not Antarctica's growing land ice. The warm temperatures from 1980 to 2000, but not the warm temperatures from 1920 to 1940, or the cooler ones since 2000. The apparent warming since 1850, but not the even warmer medieval period.

Let’s have an inquisition

by Colin Cohen

December 11th, 2009

And everyone must believe this truth, or there will never be the consensus necessary to save the world by destroying its economy. That is why those who refuse to accept the truth should forthwith be brought in front of an inquisitional tribunal, comprised of the New York Times editorial board and under the jurisdiction of one of the countless United Nations judicial bodies.

Four Colossal Holes in the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming

By John Hawkins
December 08, 2009

When was the last time you heard a scientist get hysterical when you asked him to explain Einstein's theory of relativity? If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn't tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don't believe the theory is right, does he? Scientists who are confident and in command of the facts don't need to distort data and duck basic questions about the assumptions that are behind scientific theories.

What the time series data shows depends on when you start the time series.

12/07/09

By Charles Hakes

What the time series data shows depends on when you start the time series.

During the 16th and 17th centuries there was a period called the Little Ice Age when global temperatures were 2-3 degrees F cooler than today. The period began about 1250 A.D. Warming began in about 1850 and continues through today.

Based on these data one could conclude that the earth has been warming at the average rate of 5/8ths of a degree F per century for the last 4 centuries. Before that it was cooling at somewhat the same rate. Within that period there were fluctuations. The earth has actually cooled a little during the past 11 years during which time carbon emissions continued to increase. This is not cause and effect. It shows that there are other influencing factors.

The "warmers" point to 20th century data for their proof. Warmers tend to be liberals. Liberals tend to select only the information that supports their viewpoint rather than doing a thorough analysis before establishing a viewpoint.

You can rig a time series analysis to show almost anything you want if you choose the base time period judiciously. Want to show an increase then choose a low base. Want to show a decrease then choose a high base.

The Little Ice Age wrought these effects on the human environment:

Tree growth was stunted Livestock died Harvests failed Famine and disease, including bubonic plague was rampant Glaciers advanced and sometimes engulfed mountain villages Growing seasons were shorter Farmers abandoned northern lands because they couldn't grow enough For obvious reasons more fuel had to be burned to keep warm, if fuel was even available.

Fur trappers reported that southern Hudson Bay remained frozen 3 weeks longer in the spring. The good news about that is that fur-bearing animals would have responded to the climatic conditions by growing extra-luxurious, and more valuable, coats.

The cause of the Little Ice Age was attributed to less solar activity and more volcanic eruptions.

The cold from the Little Ice Age brought disease, misery, starvation and death to millions.

The warmer temperatures that existed before the Little Ice Age could have been in no way the result of carbon emissions from human devices. As the climate returned to normal in the 19th century there were minor increases in carbon emissions from the steam locomotive and from the conversion to coal heat, and increased industrialization. Few nations were industrialized.

But the 19th century brought a return to global temperatures that had been normal in the period preceding the Little Ice Age.

Costs

Now we are asked to stampede to economic disaster to stem global warming. Any costs incurred by energy companies will be passed on to us, and the current economic depression is a bad time to do that. This means we can expect to pay more for automobile fuel, home heating, and electricity.

We can expect to pay more for any goods that are transported in any form during their production and their delivery to us. We will pay more for groceries because these are transported by truck and diesel fuel costs will be passed on in the price of the groceries. Anything that moves by car, truck, train, steamship, or airplane will bear an additional cost due to the global warming initiative.

Anything that uses electricity in its manufacture, unless nuclear- generated, will bear an added cost. This means we will pay more because of the electricity consumed by the machines of production, and also more to keep the lights on in the office and run the elevators.

The global warming summit people are characterizing this summit as "our last chance" to do something about it. I'm not sure what they mean by this. They only have enough money to have one summit on the issue? We will all be under water from melting glaciers next year? They are only going to try to address the issue once and then are going to quit?

I don't like this cheap "last chance to buy at these prices" bum's rush we are being given. A lot of buffalo died acting on their last chance to escape the Indians.

For a good debunk on the subject of global warming go to: http://www.isthereglobalwarming.com/

For energy companies, global warming has now become a PR initiative, giving them the opportunity to advertise how responsible they are by addressing global warming. It matters little whether global warming is a real issue. It is perceived by many as a real issue, therefore energy companies have to treat it as such. They have two choices: (1) Communicate that they are addressing the issue. This would help their corporate image. (2) Declare it to be a non-issue. This would hurt their image because of the many people who would think they are lying about it.

By addressing it as an issue they are validating it as an issue.

The only significant evidence of global warming that I've noticed is that snow is not as deep. 70 years ago snow used to be knee-deep. Now it's only ankle-deep.

As I was stringing some outdoor Christmas lights a couple days ago with the wind chill in the teens I was mumbling to myself between chattering teeth: "Come on global warming. I need you NOW!"

The 12 C's of Climate Alarmism

11/23/09

By Paul Chesser

Today's report about political developments surrounding the global warming issue is brought to you by the letter "C.

My Global Warming Epiphany

08/26/09

By Randall Hoven

How can you blame man for sea levels rising when about 99% of that rise since the last ice age occurred before man built the pyramids, much less SUVs? A rise in sea level over the last century should not be surprising; it's been rising for the last 20,000 years.

The Real Climate Agenda

08/07/09

By Robert Ferguson

Environmentalism generally and catastrophic man-made global warming specifically is a falsified diversionary scare distracting us from the fall of our Republic into the dark, stinking swamp of statism.

Climate change “morality”

05/23/09

by Paul Driessen

The climate “crisis” is a “moral issue that requires serious debate,” Al Gore proclaimed in an April 27 AlGore.com blog post. Republicans had invited Lord Monckton to counter Gore’s testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

But Gore froze like a terrified deer in headlights, and Chairman Henry Waxman told the UK climate expert he was uninvited.

Wishful Thinking

05/02/09

by Randall Hoven

They (the Democrats) are not going to solve these problems with those "solutions," and they know it. All they need to do is convince you that they are solving those problems.

And that's the difference between liberals and conservatives in "public service." Conservatives think solutions should solve problems. Liberals know their "solutions" need only convince you they are solving problems.

The Truth About Green Jobs

04/14/09

by Neal Boortz

Barack Obama's plan to create green jobs in this country is purely in efforts to expand the number of workers on the government dole. This man is in love with government, and the more people who are getting their paychecks from the government, the better off this country will be.

So when it comes to these "green jobs" .. you do realize that this is an industry that is being created by government for government. This isn't about global warming or saving the planet. It is about government control. And Barack Obama has modeled his plan to create green jobs after Spain's recent efforts create green jobs.

But here are the ugly facts ... every "green job" that was funded by the Spanish government caused the loss of 2.2 regular jobs, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created. And - and this is a big one - only one out of the 10 newly created green jobs became a permanent job. In other words, folks. This isn't long term stimulus. This is a government-created industry that will create a temporary surge in jobs that aren't permanent and will squeeze out private sector growth.

Oh and there is more. Now Spain has been at it for about eight to ten years. And when this economic crisis hit, the study shows that Spain's "green jobs" policy hindered its ability to cope with the crisis. Which is ironic, considering that Barack Obama feels that created "green jobs" will be America's way of getting out of this crisis.

Speaking of green jobs, I've been reading reports recently of community colleges that are seeing a surge in unemployed workers enrolling in courses that offer training in "green-collar" jobs. These are the people that will be installing solar panels and repairing wind turbines and producing biofuels.

But guess what ... all of these people are getting trained, but where are the jobs? The current financial crisis has caused the green industry to take a major hit. Businesses are drying up. So what we will have are a lot of trained workers and too few jobs.

Gored by a Nobel Joke

Gored by a Nobel Joke

10/26/2007
Matthew Schwartz
Guest Columnist

Jewish Times

It's official: The Nobel Peace Prize is now a joke. In selecting Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel as joint winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee continued its relentless quest to discredit Alfred Nobel's legacy.

This embarrassing course took root in 1994 when terrorist extraordinaire Yasser Arafat was a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. How Arafat's engineered murder of 11 innocent Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics qualified him as a Peace Prize recipient is difficult even for irrational "truthers" like Rosie O'Donnell to explain.

In 2002, the Norwegians chose to honor Jimmy Carter for his laudable work in connection with Habitat for Hamas. Carter's latent anti-Semitism has even earned the rebuke of such fellow liberals as Alan Dershowitz, who has gone through great pains to expose Carter's lies and the millions of dollars of Arab bribery that most likely motivated them.

The Norwegians further disgraced themselves by lionizing the United Nations on numerous occasions. The United Nations is an entity composed mostly of tyrannical regimes that oppress innocent people when they are not too busy murdering them. And their representatives have the chutzpah to chair such notable U.N. committees as the Human Rights Council (Libya) and the Nuclear Disarmament Commission (Iran). It is no wonder that the U.N. Human Rights Council has condemned only one country during its tenure - Israel - while merely expressing "deep concern" about countries like Sudan, where actual genocide is prosecuted. Add to this farce the well-documented corruption of Kofi Annan (the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize laureate), and the Mandalay Bay sports book will pay even money on a bet that the 2008 Peace Prize laureate will be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez.

It is within the company of these celebrated peacemongers that Al Gore finds himself while the rest of us are left scratching our heads and asking why. To begin with, what in the wide world of sports does raising awareness about global warming have to do with world peace? And even if one's imagination is so elastic as to perceive such a dubious nexus, one must further wonder why it is acceptable to honor someone who is predisposed to spreading lies to support a hysterical political agenda.

Did the Norwegians even blink last week when a British court issued an "inconvenient order" restricting the use of Al Gore's film in British public schools?

If you get your news from CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC, you probably missed the story about the High Court ruling that Gore's An Inconvenient Truth contains at least nine material misrepresentations and constitutes unreliable political propaganda. Consequently, British public schools are not permitted to exhibit the film without sufficient warnings about its falsehoods and bias.

Alas, the Goracle lied a bunch in his movie, but he's OK with that because we can't afford to let pesky scientific facts get in the way of saving the planet. Gore expressly admitted in Grist Magazine that he believes "it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is." Oy vey.

The reality is that the Nobel committee is blindly devoted to disseminating Al Gore's propaganda, and it matters not whether this is reasonably related to world peace, nor whether there are any factual inaccuracies in Brother Gore's Traveling Global Warming Show. Unfortunately, the Nobel committee has followed the beaten trail of most universities and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences by devolving into a politicized tool of truth-challenged left-wing propagandists. No longer should we revere what they stand for. Instead, we should regard all of them with suspicion and contempt. These collectivist secularists certainly do not have the best interests of the United States nor the Jewish people at heart.

In any event, the utility of promoting a peace award in the 21st century should be questioned. We are in the throes of an unprecedented war that pits religious freedom against religious totalitarianism. Given their numbers and impervious religiosity, our enemies pose more danger to the United States (and Jews in particular) than German Nazism and Soviet communism combined. The naive and clueless among us are looking for a resolution within the next few years by bringing our troops home, eroding American sovereignty and sharing our wealth, while our death-enamored enemies adopt a hundred-year suicide campaign to avenge their god. Clearly, we're not seeing eye-to-eye on things.

I suggest we hold off on promoting peace prizes and instead promote a Victory Prize. For only in a victory over Islamo-fascism will we ever again enjoy a moral state of peace. And that's no joke.

MATT SCHWARTZ

You Won't Believe Brignell's List of Global Warming Effects

04/12/09

By Tim Graham

Following is a list of alarmist claims in news reports that man-made global warming has caused or will cause. Take a breath and peek.