The Global Skeptic

2012! We're all doomed!

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:27:00 +0000

If you're as old as me, you've lived through more than one of those "end of the world" days. I remember in middle school the entire student body was so upset that it was rumored that on a particular day the world was going to come to end; the day came and went and here I am to talk about.

As we approach the 2012, there will be more hype as a new era predicted by the Mayan calendar begins. As our eminent demise looms more closely, I predict GOREBAL alarmist will tell us that the Mayans predicted our own self destruction, and I'm sure that many will be enticed to follow along; why not, it makes good news!

So why am I bringing this up now? Well, according to this editorial by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe, Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography is quoted as saying..

"The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."

Wouldn't that be something?! How would we ever go about warming the earth?! Perhaps it will be recommended that we sell the SUV's that we traded in for eco-friendly automobiles to the world's poorest populations so they can idle them, increase CO2 emisions and save us all! However, don't expect ALGORE to give up his SUV for that cause either.

Jeff Jacoby has been cited in this blog before. He does a good job of sifting through the buffoonery that is the "shock-and-awe" of the supposedly intellectually gifted environmental movement. Here are some highlights of the article:

"Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."

A re-emphasis of the obvious...

"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind."

The inescapbale truth (unless you're the lame-stream media):

Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO{-2} is the cause of climate change.

And the conclusion?

Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current US approach of CO{-2} reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."

How painfully obvious is it becoming that we are in the midst of the biggest swindle in the history our species? How is it have we come down this road? How far must we travel before we start asking some serious questions?

Ultimately, as we shudder in cold and wrap ourselves blankets, ALGORE will be disgraced, or they will retool their theory to explain why their messiah, in this case, Mr. Heatmiser, hasn't presented himself.

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?

By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / January 6, 2008

Crazy is still crazy, not matter what it looks like!

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:11:00 +0000

It's been a little bit since my last post. I did a very good job expanding my carbon footprint by eating my fair share of turkey, gravy, stuffing; I even opted for Idaho potatos because they have to travel much further to get to my dinner table, than the ones grown here in Maine.

The picture illustrates an important lesson, that no matter how good things may appear, they are what they are. My first wife is a good example of looks being deceiving!

David Lindorff, takes a very cheerful approach to the reluctance of those who, like myself, regard climate change as a natural phenomenon, not human induced; he would like us to drown!

In keeping with the "peace on earth" and all that other ho-hum jazz of the season, Lindorff suggest that the "Red" states, those who consistently vote conservative, lay in the flood plains of the south east, and coastal regions of California, so it's only natural that we die. Although, Lindorff who lives on the metropolitan east coast, suggest dikes and leavies could be built to protect, New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. Why not, we saw first hand how well they worked for New Orleans!

Lindorff suggests that conservatives deserve to die, due to their inaction on climate change. Now if that's the case, why would he even bother to write about it? Seem to me he would keep the secret under wraps while he, and his cronies buy up beach front property in Oklahoma.

The important thing is that we, on the higher ground both actually and figuratively, need to remember that, when they begin their historic migration from their doomed regions, we not give them the keys to the city.

So, let me get this straight, suggesting that conservatives drown, and deserve to do so is taking the "higher ground?" Huh? Well, there you have it. To me, liberals would love the Utopia that conservatives are creating for them! Why the hate then?

Global Warming Will Save America from the Right...Eventually
by Dave Lindorff

The consensus is, there is no consensus.

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:24:00 +0000

Not only Yeah, but HELL YEAH!

Or is it no? Consensus is a word that floats around the GOREBAL Warner circle quite often. In their minds, there is a "consensus" that human caused climate change is real and an unavoidable fact of our greed and consumerism. Perhaps they're right, I mean, I would think there probably is a general consensus among the so-called environmentalists that we are to blame for the ills of the world, despite evidence likewise.

But as human caused climate change critics swell in numbers, the "consensus" a nice little term that the legacy media likes to hang thier credibility on, is simply fading away. The IPCC is composed of 2,500 members, but not everyone is drinking the kool-aid.

Recently, and in contrast to the tears shed for the environment at the Bali conference, more and more current and former IPCC panelists are coming forward against ALGORE and his hysteria machine. At least 400 speaking out despite the political and professional pitfalls that obviously face these heretics. And as per the article...

Several scientists in the report said many colleagues share their skepticism about man-made climate change but don't speak out publicly for fear of retribution, acording to the report.

I could go on and on about about the doubt being cast on this all, but I think it is best said in the words of the dissenting members...

"I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached," -Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrick Tennekes

"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact." -Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences

If you have a distrust of Russians, what does the expert reviewer for the IPCC say?

"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... the public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates." -David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

And, of course, the obvious shot at the media's role in all of this...

"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming." -Chief meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

So what does the GORE camp say about all this? Stop me, if you've heard this one before...

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

So where is the consensus? And as Hendrick Tennekes concludes, "The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day."

True, but as long as the legacy media can cash in on our ignorance, man-made GOREBAL Warning may have a long demise.

Scientists doubt climate change
By S.A. Miller

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:34:00 +0000

Sometimes I take a couple of days off from the blog to let my brain relax a little, but I'm still indexing, reading, and generally keeping an eye out for next dropping of GOREBAL guano. Then I came across this gem of an article.

Eco boat is a "zero net footprint" craft that is going to circumnavigate the world completely with bio diesel. I know what you're thinking, "what a good use of wasted french fry grease." Well, apparently french fry grease is not nearly as attention grabbing as using human body fat!

Demonstrating further commitment to the cause, Bethune underwent liposuction and donated enough to produce 100ml of biofuel, while two other, larger volunteers also had the procedure, making a total of 10 litres of human fat. This in turn produced seven litres of biofuel, which could help the boat travel about 15km.

Now here is something that ALGORE could certainly do to offset his the carbon footprint of his 10,000 acre mansion! And just think of the good now that Hollywood's elite can claim to be doing for the environment! Why I can see Rosie O'Donnell now, claiming to have offset billions of tons of carbon output!

"Politicians in Western Europe must be prepared to stand up to the oil industry, and be more supportive of the biofuels industry to make sure the production of biofuels is sustainable."

Now if they found a way to use their brains for bio fuel, I would wholeheartedly support that statement!

Eco-boat powered by human fat attempts round the world speed record

Even Global Warming causes Global Warming!

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:18:00 +0000

Damn it!

Well, someone did their homework, actually "This is London" did their homework, and calculated the cost, in terms of emissions, for Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary, to fly all over the world to express his deepest concerns for the environment. Apparently, concern kills!

According to This is London online, Ban Ki-Moon will be traveling from Bali to New York, adding 4,300 miles to his itinerary. And as far as irony goes....

The flight from Tokyo to New York takes him the wrong way around the world to arrive in time for the reception of a Korean concert-at Carnegie Hall, where he is the guest of honour. The concert is titled Around The World In Eighty minutes.

HUH?! Seems to me you would not want to draw attention to yourself when you're traveling back to your home country, the wrong way!

I think one of the people posting to the article sums it up best...

What’s funny is that they are contributing OUR money to “various environmentally friendly projects” to offset THEIR extravagance. - Qaton Chozeh, Detroit, Michigan

But a submission by a chap from the UK simply named Brett succinctly sums up the article..

There's something haunting, ominous and ironic about someone claiming that the world is going to end while causing it at the same time. It's like a preacher passing the collection plate for and 'end of the world fund.'

BRAVO, BRETT! BRAVO!

What a lot of hot air!
This is London
December 12, 2007

Breaking hockey sticks over their heads!

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:38:00 +0000

Well, I couldn't come up with any other clever titles for this post but I did post these polar bears playing hockey, so you have to cut me some slack.

Anyone that has been following the climate change debate knows the hockey stick theory. For those that do not, I've posted the graph that depicts the estimated temperature variation globally for the past 1,000 years. Around here, we call it "Lie #1."

As the article states, inconvenietly missing from the timeline is "the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850)." If such crucial data is absent from the chart, then how can an entire social movement be built upon a chart with incomplete data?! I'll have the answer to that question in tomorrow's post!

The article starts with the shaft and goes right to the blade of the IPCC's most coveted possession, the "Hockey Stick" theory, the "tip of the spear," if you will, of the IPCC's argument that my '97 F150 is creating ocean front property opportunities in Ohio. The author, David Legates, puts that tip to a grinding stone.

Starting at the shaft....

They contend that Mann and his colleagues in their 1998 and 1999 papers unjustifiably truncated or extrapolated trends from source data, used obsolete data, made incorrect calculations, and associated data sets with incorrect geographical locations.

The broken blade...

Mann’s warming estimate has grown substantially over the last couple of years, apparently to accommodate his continuing claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the last two millennia, but we found that the blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques.

The uncertainy factor...

Mann and Jones’ uncertainty assessment — the estimate of how much warmer or cooler than their reconstruction the temperature could actually have been — is based solely on how well the proxy records match the observed data. However, their assessment fails to account for several significant forms of error, including:
Biases in hemispheric air temperatures estimates
Reconstructions based on a small number of trees
The inability of a proxy record to represent regional air temperatures

The stick is broken....

Consider that if 1) the amount of uncertainty is doubled (an appropriate representation of the “sheath”), 2) appropriate 20th century increases in observed air temperature are applied (a correct representation of the “blade”), or 3) the period from A.D. 200 to 1900 correctly reproduces millennial-scale variability (a reliable representation of the “shaft”), then one can have no confidence in the claim that the 1990s are the warmest decade of the last two millennia. The assertions of Mann and his colleagues — and, consequently, the IPCC — are open to question if even one component of their temperature reconstruction is in error, let alone all three!

'Nuff said!

Breaking the “Hockey Stick”
by David R. Legates

"Do Nothings" you can really support!

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:10:00 +0000

Meow! Lazy kitty says, "Why bother?" And seriously, why bother? I wonder if the world spent as much energy (no punn intended) on Global hunger, would anyone go without a Big Mac today? Hmmm...I'll have to think about that one.

But on a more serious note, the United Nations, specifically the IPCC, are hell bent on stifling the opposition and those legitimate scientists who are screaming, "Show us the proof!" Why?

Well, when you're the UN and you need to line your pockets with the West's money, I don't think you'd be very well willing to give that up. And think of the power you'd be losing if GOREBAL Warning were in fact, untrue. Who can forget the "Food for Oil" program?

There is currently a conference going on in Bali being heald by the UN to discuss so called "climate change." Apparently Lord Monkton, this chap from the U.K. who is also a leading climate researcher, has soured the tea of the conference and put the IPCC on bloody report!

Here are some of the highlights:

"Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

And if you ever wondered how open the IPCC is to differing opinion...

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

Oh, and there are others...

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - (LINK)

And...

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

And yet still, what I've been saying all along...

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)

I guess to the UN, self importance is far greater than the truth; why am I not surprised?

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
By Marc Morano

The Truth versus Opinion

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:20:00 +0000

Pursuit of the truth can be a dangerous journey to undertake. You may have to face demons within yourselves, and slay others along the way. You see, truth is what we believe to be true and not necessarily fact. Facts however, are laws. Laws of nature, although truisms in themselves, are also undeniable fact.

Unfortunately, this is not taught in today's learning environments. In an age where it's acceptable to get an equation half right as long as you get the concept, it's easy to pull the wool over the eyes of those willing to be deceived, not because they want to be wrong, but because they're never taught that truth is the glue that holds us all together.

The following online article was written by David Morgan, Editor-at-Large of the Tribune Papers. Morgan does an excellent job of putting together the counter-argument to much of what he calls the "glum prognosis" of the GOREBAL Warning crowd. I love the following quote from the article, and it sums up the debate very nicely...

Remember that H.L. Mencken once observed, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

And isn't that what ALGORE and his ilk are all about? Are we not being constantly told of the doom and gloom as a result of our excessive lifestyles and our insistence on the use of fossil fuels? Every day (and you can Google your way to hysteria if you'd like) we are faced with the dire consequences of western glut.

My cynicism takes it one step further...perhaps we are too comfortable in the west to be newsworthy. Maybe, perhaps, GOREBAL Warning is our punishment for not acting like Islamo Facists. I wonder what Afghanistan's and Iraq's official position is on GOREBAL Warning? Do you think that Iran will soon ship IED's to Iraq with lower emisions with a reduced "carbon footprint?"

It should be mandatory that David Morgan's article linked below be giving to every student required to watch an "An Inconvenient Truth." The truth today is far to objective and too far an important responsibility to be given to a politician who also was a journalist!

Morgan concludes his article fittingly with..

Climate change – note, it is no longer being called ‘global warming’ - has now become a multi-billion dollar industry that is being driven mostly by unsubstantiated facts and simple hypothetical models. Lobbying for environmental causes alone consumes some $1.5 billion per year, according to Myron Ebell who works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC.
Remember: Gravity – it’s not consensus. It’s the law.

Global Warming – Since When, and Says Who?
By David Morgan

Going the way of the Dodo.

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:18:00 +0000

This is one of those articles that makes you just want to pull your
hair out! It has more twists and turns that San Francisco's Lombard Street! For instance...

Globally, 30 percent of the Earth's species could disappear if temperatures rise 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit _ and up to 70 percent, if they rise 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit, a U.N. network of scientists reported last month.

Then...

It wouldn't be the first time. There have been five major extinctions in the last 520 million years, and four of them have been linked to warmer tropical seas, according to a study published last month in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a British scientific journal.

So the article readily admits that the temperature of the earth has in fact change dramatically over the "520 million years" to the point of mass extinction? Interesting. And all this time I thought dinosaurs roamed the earth on their feet, not SUV's.

But let's take a closer look at the first statement. The article claims that 30% of the earth's species will die off if there is a 4.5 degree increase in temperature and 70% if there is a 6.5 degree increase? Huh? Where do they get these numbers? What is the magic formula that even remotely indicates that the earth's temperature will rise 4.5 degrees ? What is their timeline for that?

Such arbitrary behavior for anyone that considers themself a "journalist" should be unacceptable to their respective editors.

With many species unable to evolve fast enough to adapt, conservationists are considering the creation of natural corridors to encourage animals to move and even relocating them to cooler places. The latter is controversial.

"You are effectively playing God. You are effectively changing evolution on purpose," Foden said. "If our job as biologist is to conserve species, then certainly we must move them. But if it's to conserve natural evolutionary processes ... then we have to give them corridors and let them do their thing."

Well, unless you are God, they will either survive, or be at the end of their evolutionary life. Clearly more sensationalism to urge us "to act", but how? Evidence has shown that mass extinctions occur without human involvement, or activity. So what is the correct course of action? If we only produce less that 1% of greenhouse gasses that are created on an annual basis, what is there left for us to do?

Yet, like the article itself supports, some will perish and some will flourish, it's called evolution. Why is it a hard concept for the left to accept when they themselves use evolution to kill God in our classrooms?

Earth is a living breathing organism in of itself and as history shows, mass extinction leads to more and even exotic life. Who are we to determine that humans are the apex of Mother Earth's evolution? We surely are not.

Global Warming Wreaks Havoc With Nature
By MICHAEL CASEY, AP Environmental Writer
Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Another reason to dislike my ex-wife!

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:20:00 +0000

I don't care what ALGORE says, I'm not living with her!

In this article titled "Divorced Couples Contributing to Global Warming!" scientists, at least research students in need of work, concluded that divorce contributes to global warming because...

The new report shows divorced couples utilize more areas inside their homes. This effectively means there are 38 million more rooms to provide lighting, heating, and cooling for. Do your math correctly and you will see this works out to 73 billion extra kilowatt-hours of electricity.

Now I don't know how many of those connected to the study have been, or are, curently married, but I can assure you that when my ex was living with me, we spent so much time in seperate rooms, that being married, or not being married mattered very little.

Interestingling enough, the failed to mention that most men who are married to nags spend most of their time in sports bars. I wonder what the laundry list of eco-unfriendliness is for sports bars?!

The study also shows that when they live separately, they tend to use up 627 billion gallons of water more than they would if they had stayed together in 2005. The logic behind the calculations is simple. Being divorced and staying separate effectively means having two sets of the same things – from the plates to the SUVs.

Well, ya! I mean, that's part of the deal! However, isn't this all a moot point? I mean, most men find a young blonde to shack up with, while ex-wives get involved with guys that have tatoos on their necks and go by the name snake?

Again, in all seriousness, it's studies like these that make you want to pull your hair out. They're meaningless. You're not going to stop divorce, period. And one man's trash in another man's treasure; the carbon production of divorce will be offset by you ex's marriage to some other poor slob who prior to your divorce was enjoying himself in a sports bar.

I can see it now, "We would like to get divorced your honor." "O.K., but it's going to cost you 400 carbon credits." Sigh.

Divorced Couples Contributing to Global Warming!
by Daisy Sarma
December 4, 2007

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:34:00 +0000

Um...sometimes saying little the the best thing to say. But if I had to say something "good!" comes to mind.

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly
By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER
(I guess it took two people to write this)

Gore's prize: A fraud on the people

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:34:00 +0000

Well, there is little I can add to this. Hmm....

Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Sir Austen Chamberlain, Albert Sweitzer, The International Committe of the Red Cross, Martin Luther King, Henry Kissinger, Amnesty International, The Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, Desmund Tutu, Nelson Mandella.....and Al Gore? Just rolls off your tongue, like the last swig of a cheap bottle of beer!

But the seriousness of the decision to award ALGORE for the regurgitation of scientific mythdom is troubling and frightening. But then again, perhaps the article is a little short-sighted, after all he's also on the same list as Yasser Arafat, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, and a rabble of other terrorists, communists, feeble-minded, con-artists!

Gore's prize: A fraud on the people

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:16:00 +0000

Well, I'm not sure what this judge is smoking, but he's my kind of guy!

This story has it all..claims of brainwashing, pissed off parents, high crimes and misdemeanors, even school teachers in fits of hysteria!

All across the world, the "Inconvenient Truth" is being used as an indoctrin-
ation device. The science in which the movie is based upon is not even proven as fact, it's scientific theory, yet when shown in science classrooms it is ordained as "the one and only truth."

Truisms, as they are, are often disputed by the intellectuals of our society. Hell, Aristotle mad a living debunking the truisms of his day. In fact, he went largely untouched, as he provocatively challenged Greek authority. But not today! Today, you had better sit in your seat and shut the hell up!

I find it amazing to me that schools all over America have shown this film, and many of them not even in science classrooms! I guess it's o.k. to pray to ALGORE and give offerings to the Church of Inconvenience, but not to Jesus.

Isn't that what schools are saying? Have faith in a washed up fat politician, but please, discard 2000 years of Christian tradition because there is "no proof" we were created?

This story is amusing and like the whole debate itself, it's full of twists and turns, good vs. evil...

David Miliband, who was Environment-Secretary when the school packs were announced, said at the time: 'The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.'

Hold on Mili!

But during the three-day hearing, the court heard that the critically-acclaimed film contains a number of inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there is currently insufficient scientific evidence.

That's the court's ruling, not my words! Aparently, the court did something the scientific community has largely been unable to do, request ALGORE and his love stricken puppets, to prove what it is of which he speaks of!

Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias

Obviously, someone didn't take their medication!

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:43:00 +0000

HUSH! Who the hell asked you?! All you're doing is is causing trouble! Noel Sheppard wrote this article on November 7th. In it, he surmises it would...

certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Bueller? Bueller? Sorry Shep, but I think you've got your answer!

In an article that has been largely spiked by the lame stream media, Weather Channel Founder, John Coleman unequivicolly states his views on GOREBAL Warning.

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Something tells me, Mr. Coleman isn't going to be invited to the MoveOn.org Christmas party!

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

Aren't we all!

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

By Noel Sheppard

News Busters

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:40:00 +0000

Ahh..the 70's, I remember it well. Bell bottoms, tight shirts, the Village People, and pre-AIDS sexual liberty for all! Life was grand, or so we thought...

In April 1975, Newsweek published, what is now been relegated to the "deny at all costs" files, an article that describes the cooling trend in the weather. Prominent scientists of the day were interviewed and the general consensus was "The Earth is entering the next ice age."

Now, some 22 years later, Newsweek would like the dismiss the whole matter as a fun look the the catastrophic end of all of us; you know, just a light hearted article presenting a different view of main stream science. But as Jeff Jacoby points out:

Newsweek took rather a different line in 1975. Then, the magazine reported that scientists were "almost unanimous" in believing that the looming Big Chill would mean a decline in food production, with some warning that "the resulting famines could be catastrophic." Moreover, it said, "the evidence in support of these predictions" - everything from shrinking growing seasons to increased North American snow cover - had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

Jacoby then really puts the puts the boots to the throat of Newsweek "journalist" John Meacham.

What is brilliant about Jacoby's article is, he lays the foundation as to why anyone with half a mind (are you listening to me ITO?) should view the GOREBAL Warning shenanigans with a great deal of inredulity.

Why the relentless labeling of those who point out weaknesses in the global-warming models as "deniers," or agents of the "denial machine," or deceptive practitioners of "denialism?" Wouldn't it be more effective to answer the challengers, some of whom are highly credentialed climate scientists in their own right, with scientific data and arguments, instead of snide insinuations of venality and deceit?

Isn't that what many of us on the "wrong" side of the issue have been claiming all along. Jacoby speaks to the very heart of the debate, that it is just that, a debate! When is science going to prove/disprove the link between humans and climate change? The answer is simple, we're not.

To ALGORE and his ilk, the truth is not profitable; how often do we get told at how profitable "going green" is? Just look at ALGORE's own bank account! How much do you think the rotund prophet of eco-doom has made since leaving office?! And why doesn't ALGORE want to run for President? The answer is simple, he can't afford the pay cut!

Jacoby concludes his article with this quote:

"The greatest dangers to liberty," Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

Amen brother!

Hot tempers on global warming
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

And all this time I thought U of Hawaii was a drinking school...

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:31:00 +0000

O.K. So maybe being drunk in Hawaii is not everything it is cracked up to be, but this article, that has clearly been offshored for purposes I cannot explain, kicks the GOREBAL Warning crowd right in the coconuts!

The article is indexed in the "Skeptic's Toolkit" section of this blog, but it has it all. It's an indictment of the very science used by ALGORE and his ilk.

You see, ultimatley science and ...er..ahem..."scientists" have to submit their research and data for peer review, it's sort of the "bullshit siff test" if you will. And when these supposed scientists step out of the lime light and any from CNN, they actually have to submit something, ANYTHING, to get research money. Unfortunately, much of what is popularized as "fact" by the inept news media of our day, eventually becomes fodder for paper shredders.

A must read!

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
By Marc Morano, 8/29/2007 12:12:56 PM

From One Dork to Many Dorks

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:18:00 +0000

When your good friend that has bought into the GOREBAL Warning dilirium, simply say, "It's o.k. man, even scientists get it wrong." Yes, we all have a responsibility to pull our friends from the chaos that is carbon reduction.

Hell, I even advocate an intervention! Take your buddy up to the camp, cut some trees, make a bonfire, eat foods from the furthest reaches of the earth, and ride your four-wheelers all over hell! At the end of the weekend, you can breath easy knowing you did your part in two ways; 1. You "stuck it to the man." and 2. you saved your friend from wussification. EVERYONE WINS!

This article desribes how one nerd with a 56.6 modem and an Excel spreadsheet found an error in NASA's data findings. From what I've gathered, the "blogger of fame" is a Canadian (which doesn't speak well of America's standing in the space race) but I regress.

Of course the media and NASA down play the error because hey, who wants to admit they are not checking facts, doing cross-refrencing, and drinky copious amounts of Kool-Aid from sippy cups?

But as per the article, these "slight" changes in data are actually significant changes to the tired old arguments:

Further adjustments were made to the US data this year to take into account new information and new interpretations of how it should be adjusted. This meant that 1934 took over from 1998 as the hottest year on record in the US, and 1921 moved into third place above 2006.

Blogger forces Nasa to admit global warming figures error

PETA EATS ALGORE IN SEARCH OF MEAT!

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:48:00 +0000

Who knew Peta would be hungry for ham? Listen, my position on ALGORE is pretty clear, but PETA is absolutely off the charts stupid.

That said, I have to ask myself, who has more integrity; The jet-setting ALGORE expanding he carbon footprint to the size of a mastadon's, or PETA who collect stray animals and give them the sleepy needle?

I wonder if we could have a UFC title fight? We could bill it as "Guts vs. Nuts!"

But then again, who would pay for that?

Activists take Al Gore to task on his diet

It's all in the papers!

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:19:00 +0000

In the movie "Contact" the President's Science Advisor, played by Bob Skerritt tells Ellie Arroway, played by Jodie Foster, that her pusuing the search for "little green men" is committing careericide and that she "...won't be published, you won't be taken seriously, and your career will be over before it's even started!"

For those of you who don't understand the sciencetific community, notoriety, or infamy, is gained through publishing your scientific finding in data in the trade journal of your scientific discipline. Then your findings are peer reviewed in which those in, and sometimes outside, your field of discipline point out the flaws of your work, or support your findings. This is where the rubber meets the road, if you're a bafoon, you will NOT be taken seriously and your career WILL end before it starts.

Recently, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte revisited a study previously performed in 2004 by history professor Naomi Oreskes in which she examined the peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database between 1993 and 2003. She found a majority of papers supported a "consensus view" that humans were having at least "some" effect on global climate change.

However....(ALGORE, are you listening) when Dr. Shulte reviewed papers published from 2004-2007 hever found....

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Checkmate!

Of course, you're still going to have those believing the lies; however, you're going to have to dig a little deeper to find reputable bonified scientists to support your claims. This means, ALGORE will have to find his scientists from the streets of Berkley rather than the halls.

But let's face it, if it took five years to shit can that fraud, Ward Churchill, from the hallowed halls of the Universtity of Colorado, I don't expect a purging of dogmatic jerk off professors anytime soon.

I've linked the Inhoffe EPW Press Blog below, but I also posted a much more extensive article that appeared in, of all places, the "Hawaii Reporter" in the "Skeptic's Tool Kit" section of this page.

Article: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

By: Michael Asher

The Breck Girl's Hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:09:00 +0000

Remember when you were a kid, well for some of us who lived back in the day when there was little government intrusion, your dad would tell you "Don't ever drink and drive or....." while he had a cold one between his legs on the way home from the beach? It's sort of like that.

Is anyone surprised that John Edwards is a hypocrite? I think not. I mean, this is what you've come to expect from those that profess to be liberal. To be honest, I don't even think John Edwards is a liberal Democrat. I think he's pretty much in politics as a hobby, something to kill time and feel important about.

Seriously, how can one believe that John Edwards is "for the children" when he spends $1,200 for a haircut and once told a jury that he channeled an unborn girl to win a case? The only thing less contrite than Edward's ability to talk to the undead is his position on GOREBAL Warning.

Remember, GOREBAL Warning is a "WE" problem not a "THEY" problem. So when Edward's claims “I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice,” he really means, "WE" not "THEY." And it's awful nice that Edward's is building a high efficiency 26,000 square foot mansion. I mean, we wouldn't want him to be accused of the "carbon slavery" of his butlers, maids, and grounds keepers.

Article: Edwards vs. the SUV

By: Ben Smith

When Worlds Collide

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:39:00 +0000

Oh my! This is a pretty interesting read. Now of course this article doesn't specifically talk about GOREBAL Warning in a traditional sense, it is however, worthy of mention. I can only imagine how conflicted the disciples of the GOREBAL Warning movement would be as they drink cocktails at the next gathering in France at the "Cannes Film Festival."

The author's premise is Leondardo DeCrapio's movie the "11th Hour" preaches to the bretheren that deforestation and the harvesting of old growth forest is bad, which to the author is argues is NOT true, in terms of fighting GOREBAL Warning.

He argues that old growth forests actually hamper the reduction in CO2 because old growth trees do know ingest the same amout of CO2 as younger trees. He also argues that when old growth forests catch on fire, which many of them do, the CO2 that they have captured is released, reversing the the positive affects of CO2 capture.

I can only imagine the mass chaos that would ensue between the GOREBAL Warning crowd and Greenpeace. "For each tree you cut, we're going to kill a whale!" Greenpeace would actually fall out of favor as a liberal movement and villified as employees of Haliburton preaching such heresy!

As a footnote, are you as sick of the word "inconvenient" as I am?

Article: An Inconvenient Fact

By: Dr. Patrick Moore

BULLWINKLE! LOOK OUT!

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:05:00 +0000

Now and then you get an article that is almost too stupid to be true. The blog posts at the bottom of the article are pretty hillarious and make good reading. Of course, I could fill my post here with countless cliche's about moose, but I will refrain from such sophmorish behavior.

I wonder what the PETA people think of this?

Article: Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching

Need Another Scientific Analysis

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:34:00 +0000

NASA recently was embarassed by the Blogosphere when a Canadian, of all people, discovered a little "accounting error" with how NASA's climatologists were calculating and reporting aggregate temperatures readings.

Put another way, the new figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the 1930s, not more recently. This caused a stir among
those critical of the push to stem human-induced climate change.

How inconvienent is this for ALGORE?

As usual, the liberal media has to explain away the whole subtle nastiness of innaccurate data by quoting NASA's Gavin Schmidt as saying;

"The data adjustment changes 'the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.,' he said. But 'global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century.' "

Yes, it maybe inconsequential to the bragging rights of sorts, but it also leaves one to wonder, if NASA itself is wrong, how are the other data sets calculated, who's doing them, and how accurate are they?

To me, this is a "believe as your told" event; another example of scientific elitism. The message is yet again, DO NOT to question academia.

Article: Change in hottest year fuels global warming skeptics
By: Brad Knickerbocker

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:51:00 +0000

I bet you didn't know that Greenland has its own airlines? Well apparently, the congressional delegation didn't either. Another example of how your tax dollars are hard work.

These baffoons just had to go to Greenland to see the "effects" of Gorebal Warming; I guess a picture is worth a thousand words, but first hand knowledge is priceless. I digress.

As ABC news reports, the congressional delegation that traveled to Greenland observed ""something as huge as the Greenland ice sheet is at risk of being lost because of our actions, but this is the reality I witnessed firsthand this weekend." O'RLY?

Did you know that our congressional leaders, especially the Democrats, are experts in Gorebal Warming? Neither did I. But to be fair, they probably did see the hardships brought about by climate change, you know, like Ms. Greenland being too hot to wear her traditional "bear skin bikini."

But as I've reported many times, there is always more to the story. You see, what makes great fodder for the "Geritol Generation" news casts, doesn't exactly make good science.

As reported in the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, there is little to be concerned about in regards to Greenland. In fact, this little gem, and "must read" pretty much confirms that your tax dollars were pissed away on what a "Beat the Heat" all expenses paid trip to Greenland.

To be fair, two Republicans, Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Johnny Isakson, R-Ga did partake in this farce, and for their efforts Senator Boxer rewarded them with the following press statement.

Boxer said that Morano, who took part in the trip, consistently challenged
scientists whom the senators met.

WTF?! Isn't that what they are supposed to do? What the hell did you do, shake your chattering skull and just take things of face value?! Remember folks, these are the people that want to tax you for something that you're not causing.

Read the report yourself, I doubt the desciples of the Church of Gore will, but you never know.

"Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt"

Someone didn't get the memo!

noreply@blogger.com (Rick and Abby G.) — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:03:00 +0000

Dr. Gray, (the Kavorkian looking chap on the left), you know the guy, the hurricane predicitor. Now this guy has unimpeachable credentials, yet some whipper-snappers are sitting in the halls of science calling him an old fool.

So, if you are to believe the stupidity of the Global Droners, then one should conclude that Dr. Gray's hurrican predictions, consistently the most accurate science to date is all bogus.

You see, unlike the Global Droner's "science" which is based on losely controlled studies, unrepeatable theory, and little imperical evidence, Dr. Gray uses proven methodology to predict the number of hurricanes and their strengths with remarkable accuracy.

I think I'll put my money on Dr. Gray not "Dr. Gore."

Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming
By CAIN BURDEAU