Pete'sPlace On Global Warming/Climate Change

Lies, Lies, And More Tall Tales About Global Warming And Climate Change

2013-05-07T23:11:00.000-05:00

History will show most of the work done and efforts made to convince the public of a relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming and/or climate change is based almost completely on faulty science, doctored data, and politically motivated lies. It is and has been a shameful record of mixing so-called science and politics. It is worse that Soviet-style central planning, the kind that lead to the failure of the Soviet Union and the suffering and deaths of millions of people. More and more people are belatedly coming to the same sad realization.
Peter

Global warming as real as Obama's jobless numbers, GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says

Written by Ben Wolfgang, The Washington Times.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher - WikimediaIf you believe in man-made climate change — and think the nation’s unemployment rate truly has fallen to 7.5 percent — then Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has a bridge to sell you.

At a Tuesday-morning House hearing on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the outspoken Mr. Rohrabacher, California Republican, took aim at environmentalists’ claims that mankind is fueling global warming by continuing to use fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal.

That notion, he suggested, is as false as the idea that the U.S. jobless rate really is as low as the just-announced 7.5 percent. The Labor Department on Friday reported that the U.S. economy added 165,000 jobs in April and that the unemployment figure fell to its lowest level in five years.

“The American people understand how fragile we are economically, even with a supposed 7.5 [percent] unemployment rate. Anybody who believes that probably also believes in global warming,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. “I believe the global warming theory that mankind is impacting climate change has been so exaggerated, … that it will bring down the standard of living of the American people.”
Read rest…

2013-04-18T06:20:00.003-05:00

Sharing the news:

Climate Change Dispatch news

Europe’s New Anti-Green Majority Scores Huge Victory

Posted: 17 Apr 2013 04:20 PM PDT

The European Union’s climate change policy is on the brink of collapse today after MEPs torpedoed Europe’s flagship CO2 emissions trading scheme by voting against a measure to support the price of carbon permits. The price of carbon crashed up to 45 per cent to a record-low €2.63 a metric ton, after the European Parliament rejected a proposal to change the EU emissions-trading laws to delay the sale of 900m CO2 permits on the world’s biggest carbon markets. --Bruno Waterfields, The Daily Telegraph, 16 April 2013

Given the manifest reluctance of the world’s big emitters to accept any legally binding carbon targets and in face of our deepening economic crisis, Europe should undertake a comprehensive review of its economically damaging carbon targets and — in the absence of an international agreement — should consider the suspension of all unilateral climate policies that threaten Europe’s economic recovery. –Benny Peiser, National Post, 25 November 2011

"The decision means the end of a European approach to climate policy." --Felix Matthes, Spiegel Online, 17 April 2013

2013-02-21T01:57:00.000-06:00

Interesting article, repeating and elaborating the general theme I've pursued on this blog since the beginning. The game of lies and deception about global warming, now called "climate change" is not over. The powers that be are determined to use "climate change" to increase their power and control over people and our economy. Scientific "debate" or study is simply a cover, a distraction. They use scare tactics with current extreme and local weather events as examples to stimulate the passage of legislation serving their purpose.....all in the name of necessity, or the "common good". The same is done by using the horrible, random, insane murder and violence involving guns being to justify increased gun control. The common word and goal here is CONTROL. That is what this is ultimately all about.

A relevant quote for thought:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human
freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of
slaves."
William Pitt (1759-1806)

I post this for the record, mine, yours or whoever.
Peter

See the original articel and graphics here:

http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-global-warming-and-other-superstitions.aspx?article=4253869694G10020&redirect=false&contributor=Bob+Hoye

	Global Warming and Other Superstitions
	by Bob Hoye - Institutional Advisors Published : February 20th, 2013
	Update: February 13, 2013 Each of the three great experiments in authoritarian government in the senior economy included some promotional inspiration. As Rome was corrupted from a republic to a police state the "Genius of the Emperor" provided compelling guidance. In the Sixteenth Century "Papal Infallibility" provided the front for a venal and corrupt bureaucracy. The current financial experiment started around 1900 and essential dogma has included the omniscience and omnipotence of central bankers. The wonders of extremely intrusive government under the label of Communism was rejected by an always dissatisfied and, in 1989, suddenly critical public. The fall of the Berlin Wall was the symbol. Just as suddenly, full-on socialism could not be sold to the public by control freaks. "The Freeman" in the early 1990s had an article that named the names that turned to environmentalism as a possibly more successful way to impose control. The most successful and at the same time the most dangerous within this political movement has been "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW). Then, the promoters discovered that the climate has been warming for some 12,000 years and the pitch was morphed to "Climate Change". The labels also included "Greenhouse Effect" and no matter what the weather event the "cause" has been the evils of free-market economies. Research behind the effort was quite limited - the assumption has been that there has been only one influence upon the climate and that is atmospheric carbon dioxide. This was an IPCC selection from all of the influences upon climate. The main ones are solar energy, which is variable, and the amount received at the Earth's surface, which also varies. Both variations are periodic - as are consequent warming phases and cooling phases. On the nearer-term, Solar Cycle 23-24 has been the weakest since 1913. Solar physicists, Livingston and Penn, have been working on the possibility of diminishing solar output since the mid-1990s. A link to the 2008 review of their updated paper follows. Subject: Livingston and Penn paper: "Sunspots may vanish by 2015″. \| Watts Up With That? In early January, the UK Met Office quietly released their study that temperatures have not increased since 1998 The chart below clearly shows the "Maunder Minimum" and the "Modern Maximum", which is the period of unusually high output that prevailed from the 1940s to the 1990s. Prof. Solanki at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich states that this is the sun's brightest period in a thousand years. Temperatures have been at the highest in a thousand years, but not as high as with the Medieval Maximum. The latest warming trend seems to have stalled out, naturally, almost 15 years ago. The following chart (1979 to date) plots temperature history (blue line) trending sideways. CO2 (green line) is still going up. If the Left's theories about CO2 were valid the rise in global temperature would be getting steeper. It isn't. As in "paper covers rock", solar energy trumps CO2. Note CO2's remarkably regular seasonal variation. This is explained as due to seasonal variation from plant life (land and sea) changing from emitting CO2, to absorbing CO2. Global commercial and industrial activity does not show the equivalent variation. Larger Image Beginning with the 1990s low, the next chart covers Cycles 23-24 when the high count was 170 sunspots with the peak in 2000. So far the high has been slightly less than 100 in 2011. This compares to the high of 254 in 1957. Solar activity has been diminishing since and recently solar physicists have provided the research that explained and anticipated the decline to the lowest minimum since 1913. The current cycle has been scheduled to reach its best this year (one review expects this leg up to peak at 84 in August) and then turn down. Livingston and Penn called for a significant decline in solar activity and the numbers are confirming it. Within a couple of years it could be concluded that the Modern Maximum is over. That the trend could continue to another minimum that would be as severe as the Maunder Minimum is uncertain. The main thing is that IPCC was run by a political caste that selected theories about climate disaster and when necessary data were cooked to "prove" otherwise unsupportable notions. The goal was to create hysteria that could only be remedied through massive increases in taxation and intrusion upon private life. The advance of science has always depended upon skepticism, sound data and logic. This authoritarian age has created some interesting departures. Throughout mankind's history we have thrived during climate warming and suffered during extensive cooling. The IPCC insists that for the first time in history warming is harmful. Oh well, it goes with the ideology - the Berlin Wall was the first wall ever built to keep the people in rather than the bad guys out. The last time the authoritarians made it dangerous to hold scientific theories that denied the politically correct ones was at the end of the last great experiment in intrusion. In the early 1600s Galileo was condemned for denying that the solar system rotated around the Earth. A couple of pieces we published in 2009 concluded that the mania about "AGW", or "Climate Change" was peaking. These are attached. Other Superstitions Ambitious authoritarians promoted that only one thing was influencing climate change and that is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That it makes up only 0.038% of the gases surrounding our planet does not matter. Nor does the long history whereby the amount of CO2 lags temperature change by some 400 to 800 years. Of course, ambitious governments using one focus for control have not been limited to climate hysteria. Beginning in the early 1900s financial adventurers touted that a US central bank would end financial panics and disguised as the Federal Reserve System it was imposed. Original and subsequent promoters seem to have overlooked that the tout behind the formation of the Bank of England in 1694 was that it would "infallibly" lower interest rates. Naturally, to prevent financial disasters. There have been many since - usually two or three big ones per century. Sometimes severe enough for the establishment to distress itself about the inadequacies of the prevailing banking system. The other part of the pattern is that the same establishment during a financial mania boasts the current government financial agency will prevent things from going wrong. In the 1873 Bubble enthusiasms were assured because the US did not have a central bank and the Treasury System was proof against contraction. At the crest of the 1929 Bubble enthusiasms were supported by the tout that the old and dreadful Treasury System was gone and replaced by a "scientific" Federal Reserve System. The Fed was the first of over-rated concepts that were selected to serve authoritarian ambition.. The next was the grand idea that a central agency can and should "manage" a "national" economy. Keynesian theories were selected because they enabled a massive expansion of government, which extended its power through mainly one thing - the amount of money in circulation. Warm-mongers have been obsessed about atmospheric CO2 and policymakers have been obsessed about M1, M2, etc. Financial history has a long record of dynamic economic expansions turning into eras of magnificent asset inflations - including financial assets. After the huge expansion of credit a long post-bubble contraction has followed. The feature of which has been severe recessions and weak recoveries. Essentially on a global scale, when policymakers have discovered that there is no such thing as a "national" economy. The financial mania that climaxed in 2007 virtually replicated all of the great bubbles since the first one in 1720. Ours was number six and 1929 was number five. And the record is that the senior central bank has never been able to keep a bubble going and has never prevented the lengthy post-bubble contractions. Wrap The next few years are going to be very interesting. Solar activity and its influence upon the warming trend that began out of the exceptionally cold winters of the late 1600s is ending. The Maunder Minimum became the Modern Maximum and the latter is ending. This would be supported by the sunspot count resuming its downtrend in the fall. The establishment has been boasting that by manipulation of only one gas society can be saved from a self-inflicted climate disaster. In 2007 the establishment boasted that through manipulation of interest rates a financial calamity was impossible. They had a "Dream Team" of economists. Then the same establishment admitted that it was the worst recession since the last Great Depression. Then they boasted that without their "stimulus" the 2008 Panic would not have ended. Now they admit that this has been the weakest recovery since the 1930s. This is the basic pattern of a post-bubble contraction. The first business expansion out of the Crash is becoming mature and any weakening will be dangerous to an economy still over loaded with debt. It should be understood that great financial manias and their consequent contractions have been regular events, as has been an unusually active sun and its recent decline. Mother Nature will continue to prevail. Implacable market forces will insist that debt be contracted and solar physics has arranged for a significant decrease in solar output. Fads in "Science" "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperatures have fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the past decade. Judging from the record of past interglacial ages, the present time of higher temperatures should be drawing to an end...leading into the next ice age." - National Academy of Science (NAS), 1974 - as quoted in Forbes, December 5, 2009 "The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), are responsible for most of the climate change currently being observed." - National Academy of Science, Website, February 2012

Follow The Money To Solar And Wind Energy......NO MORE PLEASE

2012-11-16T16:20:00.000-06:00

As was totally predictable, the Billions of taxpayer dollars spent on subsidies to the solar and wind energy industries has been a bust, a failure, a waste. With America in such debt, isn't it time to pull the plug on these losers? Will anyone be held accountable for such a criminal waste? And voters elected the same Administration responsible for this outrage to four more years? Amazing stupidity.
Peter

Is Colorado's "new energy economy" still viable in light of recent setbacks in the industry? No

By William Yeatman The Denver Post

Posted:

DenverPost.com

It's been a rough stretch for Colorado's "new energy economy." Over the last few months, the Centennial State's green energy industry, which the new energy economy was supposed to kick start, has been beset by a series of setbacks. Loveland-based Abound Solar went bankrupt; Vestas Wind Systems laid off almost 200 workers at its Windsor blade plant; and General Electric pulled the plug on a planned solar manufacturing plant in Aurora.

The troubles of renewable energy companies are not unique to Colorado; they extend nationwide. U.S. taxpayers ponied up $60 billion for green energy "investments" as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus bill. The results are only coming in only now, and they are not good. The list of "stimulosers" — of which Solyndra is only the most famous example — is long and growing. It includes Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Amonix, A123 Systems, Nevada Geothermal Power, and many others.

These green industries are in trouble for a simple reason. They are running out of subsidies. The 2009 stimulus has been spent and the wind production tax credit is set to expire in December. Without a steady influx of taxpayer help, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power cannot compete, due to their high capital costs and intermittent supply.

How dependent on government are these industries? The American Wind Energy Association estimates that almost half of the entire wind power workforce — almost 37,000 people — would lose their jobs if Congress were to allow a single tax subsidy to expire. Such sudden and severe contractions are symptomatic of industries whose business plan is predicated on political favoritism. When the political winds change and the subsidies on which these companies depend are cut, the bottom falls out from under them.

On the demand side, green energy entails higher rates for consumers. In 2011, for example, a New Energy Economy policy known as the Solar*Rewards program accounted for almost 4 percent of sales, despite generating a scant half a percent of Xcel Energy's system-wide power. That's a bad deal for Coloradans. Unfortunately, the burden on Xcel ratepayers will only increase with the expiration of federal subsidies, which have effectively discounted Colorado's policies.

Somewhat paradoxically, the new energy economy's biggest expense likely will pertain to fossil fuels. The 2010 Clean Air Clean Jobs Act mandated that Xcel Energy generate from natural gas almost 1,000 megawatts of base load supply that it now gets from coal. At current prices, natural gas is historically cheap, but it is still more than twice as expensive as coal, according to Xcel Energy's regulatory filings.

And let's not forget that the price of natural gas reached historical highs only four summers ago. In fact, the high cost and volatility of the natural gas market relative to coal was the primary reason that the Colorado utilities have relied on the latter to meet the preponderance of the state's energy needs.

A spike in the price of gas after the current supply contracts expire would cost Xcel Energy ratepayers dearly.

The worst aspect of the new energy economy program is its regressive nature. Utility bills represent a larger portion of poor households' budgets, so the new energy economy's costs are shouldered disproportionately by those who can least afford them.

Before the new energy economy program came along, Colorado utilities' decisions on how to provide power to consumers were guided by considerations on how to do so most efficiently at the least cost. Now, many of those decisions are based on political considerations, such as the need to prop up renewable energy, imposed by politicians. As a result, Colorado ratepayers can expect to pay for unsustainable subsidies, endure lower power supply reliability, and suffer unexpected consequences — all in the name of green ideology.

William Yeatman is assistant director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank in Washington, D.C.

Will The Debate On Global Warming/Climate Change Ever Be Over?

2012-08-03T16:40:00.000-05:00

So many people have a vested interest in maintaining the big public scare about global warming and/or climate change, the debate will go on forever. Many people's careers, in fact entire university science departments depend upon government funding for continual, "ad infinitum" research on climate. With that understood, in order to justify this spending to the tax-paying public, these "researchers" absolutely must keep up with the scare tactics. They must just love heat waves, floods, tornados, hurricanes, blizzards, and all the other usual weather phenomena. The more destructive and headline-making these things are, the better. It is all rather shameless, and in my opinion, much of it is despicable.
Peter

Announcement

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week held its first hearing on climate science since 2009. Politico incorrectly claimed that no star witnesses testified. In fact, University of Alabama-Huntsville Professor John Christy, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, provided outstanding testimony. Professor Christy’s written testimony is available here, and video of his opening statement is available here.

Among the alarmist witnesses, Stanford Professor Chris Field’s testimony was convincingly refuted in this response by University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr.

Landsat Joins Google Earth

2012-07-26T10:02:00.000-05:00

This is fabulous and very much worth following.
Peter

Google’s Landsat Video of EarthJuly 25, 2012 | Earth Engine
Google has prepared a video that describes the Landsat program and includes some spectacular views of earth. Now, Google Earth Engine allows scientists, researchers and the public to easily view and analyze this treasure trove of planetary data.

Biofuels Lead To Food Crisis

2012-07-21T12:59:00.000-05:00

This is unfortunately so predictable. It has been said here by me, and others all along, that using food crops to make fuel is insanity. What is worse is it being done in the name of "stopping global warming" (now they call it climate change) by using less of those evil fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal). And these people call this being "green".....and call themselves "Progressives". They're not progressive in any way. To put it politely, they are regressive. They would have us living in the stone age, or using horses and buggies, if that.

It is becoming painfully clear that solar power and wind power and geothermal energy can not meet the demand either. Thank goodness we've discovered what can be done with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling to increase the production of oil and gas, the only fuels that can meet the world's demand. See here for more information on oil and gas: http://geopetesview.blogspot.com/
Peter

The Biofuels Disaster: ‘Green’ Politicians Cause Another Food Crisis

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF | July 20 2012

A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity. The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger. The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels. It was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. --Grant Ferrett, BBC News, 27 October 2007
The world is running short of corn. That is the message being delivered by the market, where on Thursday prices pushed above $8 a bushel for the first time. With no obvious abundance of international suppliers to make up for the drought-ravaged US corn crop and stocks close to record lows, traders and analysts believe demand must be pegged back.The biggest potential for a reduction in corn demand comes from the ethanol industry, which is using roughly 5bn bushels of corn, or nearly 40 per cent of the US corn crop, each year to make fuel for cars and animal feed. -- Financial Times, 19 July 2012

read the remainder of the article here:

Doomsday Environmental Fearmongers Will Not Go Away

2012-06-07T12:54:00.000-05:00

These "scientists" and the United Nations make a living from instilling fear in people, coercing them to pay higher taxes giving them more control. The late, lamented Michael Crichton was "spot on" with his book "State of Fear". Nature will pretty much take its course, no matter what us "insignificant" humans do. Giving money to these self-serving "scientists" and the United Nations is a total waste.

Do a search for Michael Crichton on this blog for much more information on his expose' of environmental fear tactics.

Peter

Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists

Climate change, population growth and environmental destruction could cause a collapse of the ecosystem just a few generations from now, scientists warned on Wednesday in the journal Nature.

The paper by 22 top researchers said a "tipping point" by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.

The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.

The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.

The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.

The factors in today's equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.

Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.

To support today's population, about 43 percent of Earth's ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.

On current trends, the 50 percent mark will be reached by 2025, a point the scientists said is worryingly close to the tipping point.

If that happened, collapse would entail a shocking disruption for the world's food supply, with bread-basket regions curtailed in their ability to grow corn, wheat, rice, fodder and other essential crops.

"It really will be a new world, biologically, at that point," said lead author Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California in Berkeley.

"The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations."

The authors stressed it was unclear when this feared tipover would happen, given blanks in knowledge about the phenomenon.

And they said there were plenty of solutions -- such as ending unsustainable patterns of growth and resource waste -- that mean it is not inevitable.

"In a nutshell, humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren't there," said Arne Mooers, a professor of biodiversity at Simon Fraser University in Canada's British Columbia.

"My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the Earth's history are more than pretty worried," he said in a press release. "In fact, some are terrified." (Yes, they're terrified they're going to lose their funding and government pensions.)

Past shifts examined in the study included the end of the last Ice Age, between 14,000 and 11,000 years ago, and five species mass extinctions which occurred around 443 million, 359 million, 251 million, 200 million and 65 million years ago.

Earth today is vulnerable to fast change because of the growing connectedness between ecosystems, voracious use of resources and an unprecedented surge in greenhouse gases, the authors concluded.

In a report on Wednesday issued ahead of the "Rio+20" summit, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that burgeoning populations and unsustainable patterns of growth were driving Earth towards "unprecedented" eco-damage.

Environmentalists Screw It Up Down Under

2012-06-07T08:28:00.000-05:00

It is not just in the U.S.A. that "environmentalists" and their liberal elitist enablers screw things up in their ignorance of science and basic economics. I won't even mention their lack of knowledge about human nature. The utterly absurd and unfounded belief in the myth of man-caused global warming has led and is leading to disasters such as this in Australia, and is being repeated around the world.

Let your politicians know enough is enough. End the nonsense!
Peter

Dam their flood of mistakes

Written by Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun | June 06 2012

Upstream on the Mitchell Rive (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

FLOODS? On Gippsland's Mitchell River? Again? What a surprise to anyone stupid enough to trust the warmist politicians who recently ran this sorry state.
Remember how the Bracks and Brumby governments refused to build a cheap dam on the Mitchell River for a quarter of the price of their $5.7 billion desalination plant?

Remember how Labor even turned the dam reservation on the Mitchell into a national park to stop anyone else from building a dam on Victoria's fastest-flowing river - a dam to harvest cheap water for booming Melbourne and minimise the flooding you're now seeing downstream?

Remember premier John Brumby insisting global warming was drying up our rains, so a new dam would be useless since "we don't lack for storage, we lack for rain"?
Remember Melbourne Water parroting the same warming creed, arguing against a dam on the Mitchell because a "rainfall-dependent water source in the face of rapidly changing climate patterns is very risky"?

Yeah, right.
Now let's remember what came next.

Let's remember how the undammed Mitchell flooded in 2007, sending a year's worth of drinking water for Melbourne down to the sea.

Let's remember how pigheaded Labor nevertheless ploughed ahead with its desalination plant, now hopelessly behind schedule and over budget.
Read rest…

Big Brother Is Watching, And Listening...And Who Knows what Else?

2012-05-30T04:44:00.000-05:00

I guess I can safely assume I'm on the Deparment Of Homeland Security's watch list. This is almost comical were it not so serious.
Peter

Don’t Say That! Just Don’t Say It!

Posted on May 29, 2012by Willis Eschenbach

source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/29/dont-say-that-just-dont-say-it/#more-64454

As the result of a Freedom of Information Act request, the US Government has released the list of words that will trigger the Department of Homeland Security to start monitoring your online contributions and conversations. The list is divided into sections by subject matter.

Figure 1. You can call it a thunderstorm, but under no circumstances should you call it “extreme weather”

I was greatly amused to find a section for words about “Weather” on the list, which contains the following terms.

Weather/Disaster/Emergency
Emergency
Hurricane
Tornado
Twister
Tsunami
Earthquake
Tremor
Flood
Storm
Crest
Temblor
Extreme weather
Forest fire
Brush fire
Ice
Stranded/Stuck
Help
Hail
Wildfire
Tsunami Warning Center
Magnitude
Avalanche
Typhoon
Shelter-in-place
Disaster
Snow
Blizzard
Sleet
Mud slide or Mudslide
Erosion
Power outage
Brown out
Warning
Watch
Lightening
Aid
Relief
Closure
Interstate
Burst
Emergency Broadcast System

Looks like WUWT is going to be front and center 24/7/365 at the Department of Homeland Security, no matter what we do …
Lest you think I’m making this up, the list of words is on page 23 of the “Analyst’s Binder“, which describes the situation for those doing the analysis …
w.

The More Science One Knows, The Less They Believe In Man-Caused Global Warming

2012-05-30T04:07:00.000-05:00

Surprise, surprise. The more educated people are the less easy they are to manipulate, fool and control.

Our public education system has failed, explaining why people believe such nonsense as man-caused global warming. (and elect such ignorant political leaders as we now have in the White House).......the following gov-funded study supports this obvious observation. Think about it when you wonder how things have gotten this bad....and when you next vote.
Peter

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10211-the-more-science-you-know-the-less-worried-you-are-about-climate?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatechangedispatch%2FnkcO+%28Climate+Change+Dispatch+news%29

Climate Change Dispatch - The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate

www.climatechangedispatch.com

Combating the alarmist nature of the mainstream media and the climate change zealots who have turned man-made global warming into a profit-driven industry and not a scientific endeavor for answers. We seek to explore the notion that the fractional increase in temperature is primarily caused by man a...(continued here)

Gator 2012-05-29 18:29

Ignorance is not bliss, it is servitude.

Well said Gator!

Grade-school teacher known as "Evil Mr. Methane" teaching (brainwashing) children about the grave dangers of fossil fuels that "cause global warming". This guy is what is known as a useful idiot by central control advocates.

Winning The War Over The Madness Behind The Myth Of Man-caused Global Warming And Climate Change

2012-05-28T12:08:00.001-05:00

We have not totally won this war, but we're making progress. Much depends on our ultimate victory; our economy, jobs, the environment itself, on even the integrity of science. Unfortunately this whole sordid affair has become all too political and is now one major reason Obama must go. The following article is excellent. Share it.
Peter

Al Gore's act is coming to an end.

Climate "Deniers" Winning the War

By Marita Noon

5/28/2012

source: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2012/05/28/climate_deniers_winning_the_war

“We are winning the war,” was a phrase I heard repeatedly this week. Congressman Sensenbrenner, Vice Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, said: “We won on these issues because we were right.”

Which war? The war that brought together more than 60 scientists from around the world—including astronauts, meteorologists, and physicians; politicians—comprising the Congressman, a head of state, and a member of the European Parliament; and policy analysts and media for two-and-a-half days in Chicago, in a battle over climate change and the belief that there needs to be real science—more “about honest debate than ideological warfare.”

Assembled by the Heartland Institute, the seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7) provided the second opportunity for Congressman Sensenbrenner to address the group. In his opening comments, Sensenbrenner said, “We’ve come a long way.”
He recounted: “When I last spoke, the House of Representatives was poised to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill; the United Nations was promising the extension and expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and President Obama was touting Spain as our model for a massive increase in renewable energy subsidies. Three years later, cap-and-tax is dead; the Kyoto Protocol is set to expire; and Spain recently announced that it eliminated new renewable energy subsidies.”

Sensenbrenner told about the behind the scenes wrangling that went on to get the Waxman-Markey bill passed. “I was on the House floor on June 29, 2009, when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi desperately pulled Members aside to lobby, beg, and bargain for votes for the Waxman-Markey bill.” It did pass. But “the electoral consequences for the proponents of these policies was severe.” Just 16 months later, in the 2010 elections, “over two dozen of the Members she convinced to vote ‘yes’ lost their jobs.”

It wasn’t just the Members who suffered harsh political ramifications for their support of the Waxman-Markey bill—which was supposed to nullify the impact of manmade global warming through a cap-and-trade scheme. Sensenbrenner contends that support of the manmade (anthropogenic) global warming position (AGW) also cost Al Gore the presidency back in 2004. He explained: “West Virginia’s 5 electoral votes would have tipped the election for Gore, and Gore’s near-evangelical support for climate change easily cost him the 42,000 votes he would have needed to win there.”

While there is little debate that the climate does change, there is debate as to what causes it. The camps are divided into two general groups along the line of human’s role—with Al Gore’s camp believing that the “science is settled” concluding that man’s driving of SUVs burning petroleum products that emit CO2 (and other symptoms of the developed world) is the cause, and the other disagreeing. The “other” is who gathered in Chicago last week amid the thousands of NATO protestors. The “other” not only disagrees with Al Gore’s AGW position—but they disagree with each other.

I attended session after session where sunspots were addressed, deep ocean circulation changes were discussed, the CO2 contribution of volcanoes was brought up, and the health impacts of a warmer planet were touted—just to name a few. I brought home reams of documentation, some of which are, frankly, beyond my comprehension.

Whether or not the documentable climate change—cooler in the seventies, warmer in the nineties, stable for the last decade (just to point out some recent changes)—is due to the sun or the sea, or myriad other causes, the key take away is that the science is not settled.

Four former NASA employees presented at ICCC7—two astronauts: Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7) and Dr. Harrison “Jack” Schmitt (Apollo 17). They talked about a letter sent to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., in which they requested that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) “refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites.”
The March 28 letter, signed by 49 former NASA employees, declares that they “believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”

It is the “unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change” that should concern you and me—and, it is not just coming from NASA. It is coming from the White House and the EPA, from environmental groups and protestors.

The belief that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change is the driver for today’s energy policy.
Based on a supposed “consensus,” politicians, and the nonelected bureaucrats they appointed, have, and are, making risky investments with taxpayer dollars (think Solyndra, et al); subsidizing “alternative” energies such as wind and solar that are not effective, efficient, or economical; blocking access to resources that are abundant, available, and affordable—which raises gasoline prices and punishes those who can least afford it; and regulating America’s most cost-effective electricity out of commission. The increasing energy costs are hurting all of America—individuals and industry—and our competitive edge.

Roger Helmer, a member of the European Parliament, offered these comments regarding wind energy and the entire green project in his presentation at ICCC7: “Wind plus gas back up results in virtually zero emissions savings. So, we are desecrating the countryside, we are wasting huge amounts of money, we are impoverishing our children, we are choosing poverty over prosperity—and after all that, we are not even achieving what we set out to achieve. This is madness, madness, madness writ large.”

Once you remove the manmade climate change/CO2 concerns, the foundation for expensive, intermittent “renewable” energy goes away—and there is a huge investment, emotional, ideological, and financial, in keeping the ruse alive.

In comparing the manmade climate change scheme to the European single currency, Helmer said: “Both of the projects are falling apart before our very eyes. But, as they fall apart, the true believers, especially the people with a financial interest—let’s not forget that these projects have attracted vast political and intellectual capital, but they’ve also attracted vast numbers of rent seekers and hangers on, and people whose jobs depend on these projects, and these people do not want to see them go away so these people are coming forward and—are thinking of every possible excuse which might explain what has gone wrong with the projects.”

No wonder there is a war. One side wants to “defend its findings,” while the other wants to “find the truth.”

While America is in an economic war, “advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers, is inappropriate.” In this election season, all candidates would do well to remember the fate of Al Gore and his many AGW supporters. Sensenbrenner offered these wise words on energy policy: “Going forward, we must continue to oppose bad ideas and continue to support technological development the only way it works—by allowing markets to determine the technological winners and losers.”

Echoing the war theme, Helmer offered encouragement in his closing remarks: “This is a battle that we must win. We must win it for America. We must win it for Europe. We must win it for our children and grandchildren. And, we must win it for all mankind. I’ll tell you why we will win it, because, we have two weapons in our armory that the bad guys don’t have. The first weapon is the truth, and the second weapon is the climate.”

Whether scientist or politician, policy analyst or media, one message that came through loud and clear at the ICCC7 is that we’ve come a long way in the climate change war, and we are winning, but we haven’t won yet! The climate change battle is at the center of global energy policy, and the countries that have the ability to develop their natural resources to produce cheap energy will be the victors.

Marita Noon

Marita Noon is Executive Director of Energy Makes America Great.

Climate Talks Hit Brick Wall Over Global Warming Hoax

2012-05-26T08:44:00.000-05:00

The attempt to blame rich "developed" countries for global warming (and the real joke -- climate change) and extort money from them is coming to an end. They say it is because nobody can agree on who is rich and who is poor. Could it be that nobody really believes the ridiculous, absurd, and scientifically, morally, and financially corrupt concept that fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide is causing global warming?

Hopefully this grand hoax championed by no less than Nobel Prize winner and genius Al Gore, is coming to an end. Billions if not Trillions of dollars have already been squandered. It is past due time to end this fiasco and stop the monetary bleeding. The world is facing far greater challenges.
Peter

Is China poor? Key question at climate talks

Is China a developing country? Key question unresolved in latest round of climate talks

By Karl Ritter, Associated Press | Associated Press – 12 hours ago

BONN, Germany (AP) -- Another round of U.N. climate talks closed without resolving how to share the burden of curbing man-made global warming, mainly because countries don't agree on who is rich and who is poor.

China wants to maintain a decades-old division between developed and developing countries, bearing in mind that, historically, the West has released most of the heat-trapping gases that scientists say could cause catastrophic changes in climate.

But the U.S. and Europe insisted during the two-week talks that ended Friday in Bonn that the system doesn't reflect current economic realities and must change as work begins on a new global climate pact set to be completed in 2015.

"The notion that a simple binary system is going to be applicable going forward is no longer one that has much relevance to the way the world currently works," U.S. chief negotiator Jonathan Pershing said.

Countries like Qatar and Singapore are wealthier than the U.S. per capita but are still defined as developing countries under the classification used in the U.N. talks. So is China, the world's second largest economy.

Finding a new system that better reflects the world today, while also acknowledging the historical blame for greenhouse gas emissions, is the biggest challenge facing the U.N. process as it seeks a global response to climate change.

"That is a fundamental issue," said Henrik Harboe, Norway's chief climate negotiator. "Some want to keep the old division while we want to look at it in a more dynamic way."

The U.N. climate talks are based on the premise that industrialized countries must take the lead on climate change by committing to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They are also expected to provide money to help poor countries grow in a sustainable way and to protect the most vulnerable nations from rising sea levels, droughts and other consequences of a warming world.

Disputes on how to categorize countries going forward was behind much of the procedural wrangling that slowed down the talks in Bonn. Delegates failed to agree on an agenda until the last day, leaving most of the work for a bigger summit in Qatar in November.

A separate dispute between developing countries delayed the appointment of officials to steer the talks. That stalemate was also unlocked on the last day.

The slow pace frustrated climate activists who fear that there won't be enough political will to rein in emissions to avoid dangerous levels of warming in coming decades.

"The talk here doesn't match the action that science says is required," said Mohamed Adow, senior climate change adviser at Christian Aid.

China's lead negotiator Su Wei told The Associated Press that the proposed new deal, which would have binding commitments for all countries after 2020, must be based on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility" enshrined in previous climate agreements.
"That means we still would continue the current division between developed and developing countries," Su said.

He said China is still a developing country because if you look at wealth per capita, it barely makes the world's top 100. More than 100 million Chinese live below the poverty line, which Beijing has defined as about $1 a day.

Still, Western officials say China's fast-growing energy needs and rising emissions mean it can no longer be off the hook in climate negotiations.
"We need to move into a system which is reflecting modern economic realities," EU negotiator Christian Pilgaard Zinglersen said.

In the early 1950s, China accounted for just 2 percent of global emissions while the U.S. accounted for more than 40 percent, according to Climate Analytics, a climate research group based in Potsdam, Germany.
Today China's share of global emissions exceeds 25 percent, while the U.S. share has fallen toward 20 percent.
China and its supporters reject blame for stalling the climate talks, saying it is the U.S. and other developed nations that are unwilling to live up to their obligations to cut carbon emissions.
The U.S. refused to join the only binding accord to limit emissions — the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — partly because it didn't include China.

Seyni Nafo, spokesman for a group of African countries in the climate talks, noted that the U.S. also said that joining Kyoto would harm the U.S. economy. Years later, the U.N. climate effort still has little support in the U.S. Congress, which includes outspoken climate skeptics.

"We are hoping that they will get on board this time, which is not a given," Nafo said.

Methane Release And Global Warming

2012-05-23T00:55:00.000-05:00

Ok, this is ignorance taken to its maximum. We all know what permafrost is; frozen soil, and it traps naturally occuring methane gas below it from escaping. When the soil warms and thaws, this gas escapes and goes into the Earth's atmosphere. Hello? This has been going on for millions, billions of years. Glaciers advance and retreat. The oceans rise and fall. The sun sets and rises. This has all been going on long, long before us evil human beings began burning fossile fuels.

So let's not be afraid of methane, that gas which we use to heat our homes and cook our food, scare us. Don't let them blow smoke up our....bums.......
Peter

May 21, 2012, 7:18 am

Popping the Cap on Arctic Methane

By JUSTIN GILLIS

Josh Haner/The New York TimesKatey M. Walter Anthony, the lead author of a new paper, examining a methane seep in Alaska.

Methane held underground by caps of Arctic ice is bubbling out as a warming climate causes those caps to melt, researchers report in the journal Nature Geoscience.
The paper offers some of the strongest field evidence yet that a melt-back of land ice can release methane.

Removing an ice cap seems to work a bit like popping the cap on a bottle of soda, allowing pent-up gas to escape. In an interview, the paper’s lead author, Katey M. Walter Anthony of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, said that this mechanism has probably been at work since the end of the last ice age, some 10,000 years ago.

“We’re not necessarily saying this is a new source, so much as it’s newly discovered,” Dr. Walter Anthony said. “And at the moment, it’s not a huge source.”
The discovery raises concerns nonetheless.

The study implies that as human-induced greenhouse gas emissions warm the planet in the coming century, the retreat of land ice throughout the Arctic will send extra methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas itself, so such additional emissions, if large enough, could function as a feedback that would accentuate the warming.

The new mechanism may sound similar to one that I described last year in an article focusing on other work by Dr. Walter Anthony on the frozen lakes of central Alaska. But the two methane sources are not the same.

As that article explained, old organic material is locked up across much of the Arctic in frozen ground called permafrost, much of which dates back to the last ice age. As these shallow deposits thaw in today’s warmer climate, bacteria are converting the carbon into methane and carbon dioxide, both of which are escaping into the atmosphere.

The new paper describes a different type of deposit known as a geologic reservoir, in which methane gas has been trapped underground for a long time, thousands or even millions of years. Atop those deposits, land ice – in the form of permafrost, glaciers or ice caps, which are collectively known as the earth’s cryosphere – has helped to keep the methane sealed underground. But now that the ice is melting, the gas can escape.

Dr. Walter Anthony and her husband, a researcher named Peter Anthony, found the leaks by flying over Alaska and hiking across Greenland, looking for spots where methane from deep in the earth was bubbling vigorously enough to create holes in the ice cover of frozen lakes.

They believe they have identified 150,000 seeps in Alaska alone, and they approached a fraction of them from the ground to take gas samples. The Alaskan seeps were often near the margins of retreating glaciers or thawing permafrost. In Greenland, the seeps tended to be concentrated around the margins of ice caps that have been retreating over the past 150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age.

The big question raised by the paper is exactly how big this flux of geological methane will become in a warming climate. “As the cryosphere degrades further, it could be a really big source,” Dr. Walter Anthony said.

Still, new findings about Arctic methane must be interpreted with caution.
Researchers in recent years have repeatedly found additional sources of methane in the Arctic, and additional ways for it to escape from underground or from the sea. Writers of news articles and blog posts have often leaped to the conclusion that these fluxes are new, instead of just newly discovered, with some write-ups carrying headlines like “Arctic Armageddon.”

Experts say the published science on this issue does not merit such panic, at least not yet.
It is true that the level of methane in the atmosphere has begun to rise in recent years, for reasons science cannot fully explain. And researchers are definitely concerned about that increase.
But data from monitoring stations in the two hemispheres suggests that the increase is not coming from the Arctic. Some of it could actually be coming from increased human production of natural gas with the drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing (natural gas is mostly methane).

Edward J. Dlugokencky, who monitors global methane emissions for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in an e-mail that the available information “does not exclude the possibility of future increasing Arctic emissions resulting from Arctic warming, but it is strong evidence that it is not happening yet.”

Many experts do believe, however, that the situation is urgent in a scientific sense. They say we need a much better handle on where methane is coming from today and where it could come from in the future, so as not to be caught off guard by potentially nasty surprises.

The End Of The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

2012-05-17T13:09:00.000-05:00

The following article details how the concept of man-caused global warming (and climate change) should be dead and buried. It won't be of course, because there are too many people whose reputations and livelihoods depended upon (they must save face) and still do depend on promoting this gigantic, terrible hoax. Indeed, there are entire college departments offering degrees in "climatology", "environmental science" or "climate science". That means for this charade to end there must be a lot of inertia to overcome, and a lot of government funding to be terminated. That is just not going to happen very quickly.

If this climate "research" had been done by private business, it would have gone bankrupt and died long ago. Instead, it serves as a prime example of how government involvement in research and development leads to corruption, breeds incompetence, and wastes an ungodly amount of taxpayers money. Will we learn from this? Maybe, a little bit, for a little while, but the same thing goes on in any endeavor that becomes political, which by definition, everything does when government "support" is involved. Think solar energy (Solyndra), or wind power, electric cars, and a host of other activities. Those of us who seek the truth about these things must be ever vigilant. A quick scan of past articles posted on this blog alone illustrates how long and difficult battle it has been to reveal the truth about global warming. We will however keep up the good fight, for truth, justice and limited government involvement and real, honest science.
Peter

The Death of the Hockey Stick?

Posted By Rand Simberg On May 17, 2012 @ 12:00 am In Environment,History,Media,Politics,Science,Science & Technology | 74 Comments

source: http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-death-of-the-hockey-stick/?singlepage=true

People who have been following the climate debate closely know that one of the most controversial and key elements of the controversy is the so-called “hockey stick” — a graph of supposed global temperature over the past centuries that ostensibly shows a dramatic increase in average temperature in the last century or so (the upward swoop of the graph at that point is the business end of the stick, with regard to the puck). It vaulted its inventor, Michael Mann of Penn State University, to climate stardom, with associated acclaim and government grants, when he first presented it in the late ’90s. It was the visual basis of much of the hysteria in recent years, from Al Gore’s Oscar-winning crockumentary ^[1] to bogus reports ^[2] from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Unfortunately for those promoting the theory (and the potentially economically catastrophic policy recommendations supposedly supported by it), recent events indicate that the last basis of scientific support for the hockey stick may be crumbling. But to understand this, a little background is necessary.

Ultimately, in addition to Mann’s claim for the dramatic recent uptick (which we are supposed to presume was a result of the late industrial revolution and equally dramatic increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a result of the liberation of carbon from burning long-buried fossil fuels), Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England controversially declared, based on Eurasian data, that the well-documented Medieval Warm Period (MWP), from around 950 to 1250 CE — the European Middle Ages — didn’t actually exist.
This claim was important, if not essential, to Mann’s thesis, because his initial formulation only went back to 1400, the beginning of the so-called Little Ice Age. Critics of the theory thus argued immediately upon its presentation that it shouldn’t be surprising that the earth was warming now, given that we are still coming out of it, and that the medieval warming in the absence of late Carolingian SUVs and coal plants argued that the climate naturally cycled, with no need to invoke Demon Carbon. That is to say, to the degree that the hockey stick has a blade in the twentieth century, it would have another a millennium ago.

The theory has continued to take blows over the years since it was first presented. About a decade ago, a paper ^[1] was published by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunis claiming that there was good evidence that both the (still extant) MWP and current warming were driven by solar activity rather than carbon emissions. But these initial attacks were beaten back by the climate mafia (as we now know from the leaked emails ^[3] between Mann and his partners in crime in East Anglia from two and a half years ago). The real damage came when a retired Canadian mining engineer, Steve McIntyre, and a professor at the University of Guelph, Ross McKitrick, started digging into Mann’s methodology, and found flaws in both his statistical analysis and data interpretation, and published a paper ^[4] describing them in Geophysical Research Letters in 2005. They showed that Mann’s methodology would generate a hockey stick almost independently of the data input, by feeding it spectral noise ^[5]. Later, Internet satirist (and apparent statistician by day) Iowahawk provided a primer on how to create a hockey stick at home ^[6], using a standard spreadsheet program.

Defenders of the theory have long claimed that even if there are problems with Mann’s method or data set, we have independent results from other research, such as that at the CRU, that confirm it. But this was a point of contention. In addition to the unscientific behavior in attempting to silence critics and keep them from publishing, we also know that the climate “scientists” had been withholding data that would help to resolve the controversy (more unscientific behavior, because it makes it difficult or impossible to replicate claimed results, and behavior that continues to the present da ^[7]y by the University of Virginia), even in the face of numerous Freedom of Information requests, on both sides of the Atlantic.

To no avail, McIntyre had been requesting data for years from Briffa, who had claimed to have independent Eurasian tree-ring analysis that confirmed Mann’s results, from a data set called the Polar Urals (Mann’s work was based on ancient California bristlecone pine trees). Unfortunately, paleoclimatologists had discovered that the Polar Urals data didn’t actually support the disappearance of the MWP, so they were in search of another Eurasian data set that would, and they found one called Yamal, gathered and published in 2002 by two Russian scientists.

McIntyre had wanted to see it for years, and in 2008, utilizing a bylaw of the Royal Society, he enlisted their aid in forcing Briffa to finally start to release the data. Unfortunately, he still didn’t get enough, at least initially, to make any sense of it. But he did notice that, first, it had sparse data for the twentieth century and second, that it, unlike the typical treatment of such data sets, was not supplemented by any regional data — Briffa was using it by itself. When McIntyre did such a supplementation himself using other data (reluctantly) provided by Briffa, the twentieth-century hockey-stick blade completely disappeared.

That was where things stood in 2009, just before the so-called Climate-gate email and model leak. After that, the CRU actually started to pull down data ^[8] that had been previously available for years. It was clear from the emails that Briffa had been telling one story publicly and another privately as to his reasons for not including the devastating data, but the tide finally turned last month, when the University of East Anglia was finally forced by the British Information Commissioner to at least tell McIntyre which data sets were used in its results. Let’s let blogger “Bishop Hill” (aka Andrew Montford, who has written the book ^[9] on the subject) tell the rest of the story ^[10] (and read the whole thing for a detailed description of the deception):

The list of 17 sites that was finally sent to McIntyre represented complete vindication. The presence of Yamal and Polar Urals had already been obvious from the Climategate emails, but the list showed that Briffa had also incorporated the Polar Urals update (which, as we saw above, did not have a hockey stick shape, and which Briffa claimed he had not looked at since 1995) and the Khadtya River site, McIntyre’s use of which the RealClimate authors had ridiculed.
Although the chronology itself was not yet available, the list of sites was sufficient for McIntyre to calculate the numbers himself, and the results were breathtaking. Firstly, the URALS regional chronology had vastly more data behind it than the Yamal-only figures presented in Briffa’s paper
But what was worse, the regional chronology did not have a hockey stick shape — the twentieth century uptick that Briffa had got from the handful of trees in the Yamal-only series had completely disappeared.
Direct comparison of the chronology that Briffa chose to publish against the full chronology that he withheld makes the point clear:
It seems clear then that the URALS chronology Briffa prepared to go alongside the others he put together for the 2008 paper gave a message that did not comply with the message that he wanted to convey — one of unprecedented warmth at the end of the twentieth century. In essence the URALS regional chronology was suffering from the divergence problem — the widely noted failure of some tree ring series to pick up the recent warming seen in instrumental temperature records, which led to the infamous ‘hide the decline’ episode.
Remarkably, however, Briffa did allude to the divergence problem in his paper:

These [regional chronologies] show no evidence of a recent breakdown in [the association between tree growth and temperature] as has been found at other high-latitude Northern Hemisphere locations.
The reason for dropping the URALS chronology looks abundantly clear. It would not have supported this message.

His emphasis.
And new results are coming out almost by the day. Earlier this week, McIntyre reportedly received ^[11]new Yamal data, which continued to confirm that there is no blade to the stick
What does this all mean? First, let’s state what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that we know that the planet isn’t warming, and it doesn’t mean that if it is, that we can be sure that it is not due to human activity.

But at a minimum it should be the final blow to the hockey stick, and perhaps to the very notion that bristlecone pines and larches are accurate thermometers. It should also be a final blow to the credibility of many of the leading lights of climate “science,” but based on history, it probably won’t be, at least among the political class. What it really should be is the beginning of the major housecleaning necessary if the field is to have any scientific credibility, but that may have to await a general reformation of academia itself. It would help, though, if we get a new government next year that cuts off funding to such charlatans, and the institutions that whitewash their unscientific behavior.

A fitting end for chief American global warming shyster and alarmist, James Hansen

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-death-of-the-hockey-stick/
URLs in this post:

[1] crockumentary: http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/al-gore-documentary.htm

[2] bogus reports: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers

[3] leaked emails: http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-the-science-is-unsettled/

[4] a paper: http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf

[5] feeding it spectral noise: http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/trc.html

[6] primer on how to create a hockey stick at home: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html

[7] continues to the present da: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/judge-adds-michael-%E2%80%98hockey-stick%E2%80%99-mann-uva-foia

[8] started to pull down data: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/whats-going-on-cru-takes-down-briffa-tree-ring-data-and-more/

[9] the book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate/dp/1906768358

[10] tell the rest of the story: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/9/the-yamal-deception.html

[11] reportedly received : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/mcintyre-gets-some-new-yamal-data-still-no-hockey-stick/

All "Environmentalists"....Read With Care

2012-05-16T11:55:00.000-05:00

The following article accurately sums up the sad state of affairs surrounding the entire sordid man-caused global warming fiasco. It has and is costing humanity dearly. Let's hope we wake up in time to recover. I have been preaching and pleading for people to listen to these truths for years.
Peter

The Greying of Green?

Posted By David Solway On May 16, 2012 @ 12:30 am In "Green" tech,economy,Elections 2012,Politics,Science & Technology,US News | 11 Comments

original here: http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-greying-of-green/

It has been reliably estimated by many researchers into the subject of “Global Warming” (or any of the other sobriquets by which it is known) that in fulfilling the draconian prescriptions of the Kyoto Accord or its successors, such as the United Nations IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, millions of jobs will be lost in the developed world, the quality of life in the industrialized nations will sink to substandard levels, and the inhabitants of the Third World will be deprived of the minimal immunities, comforts, and amenities to which they aspire.

Fiona Kobusingye, coordinator of the Congress of Racial Equality Uganda, has vehemently denounced the attempt to impose energy restrictions on African nations in the name of fighting global warming. “These policies kill,” she writes. As for the combustible Al Gore, he “uses more electricity in a week than 28 million Ugandans together use in a year.” Her conclusion: “Telling Africans they can’t have electricity—except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels—is immoral. It is a crime against humanity” (Townhall.com., July 29, 2009). Her article is a must read. Graced with common sense and logical reasoning, it is one of the best puncturings of the hot air balloon in the relevant literature.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the nonprofit National Center for Policy Analysis, would clearly agree. He correctly argues that recommendations based on “flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles” should be taken “into account before enacting laws to counter global warming—which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.” Such consequences are already in evidence. Benny Peiser, editor of CCNet science network, speaking at the Heartland Institute’s 2009 climate conference in New York, sounded the death knell of the green movement in Europe owing to huge costs and minimal results (Climate Realists, March 11, 2009). Environmentalist Lawrence Solomon quotes Spanish economist Gabriel Calzada, whose studies show that “every green job created ploughs under 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy” and that green jobs are proving to be unsustainable since the creation of even one such job costs $1 million in government subsidies (National Post, March 31, 2009).

These are costs that may be suffered in other, frankly ludicrous, ways as well. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in its 2008 Annual Report, published in 2009, jubilates over the replacement of motorized vehicles by “bicycle rickshaws”—which, it must be admitted, will certainly help to decongest metropolitan traffic. That it would reduce America and the West to Third World Status does not trouble UNEP overmuch. Perhaps that is the plan.

The much-ballyhooed T. Boone Pickens strategy of introducing large-scale windmill technology is now proving to be a similarly quixotic project, unsightly, land-consuming, bird-killing, neurosis-inducing, expensive and totally inadequate to its declared purpose of meeting even a fraction of our electricity needs. Alex Alexiev of the Hudson Institute has laid the cards on the table for all to read: green electricity bills are rising exponentially; Europe is gradually abandoning many of its green energy programs as cost-ineffective and injurious to both wildlife and human health; and, as of the end of 2008, American solar and wind-power stocks had lost 80% of their value (FrontPage Magazine, March 31, 2009). Rhode Island’s Public Utilities Commission has rejected a deal to build an offshore wind farm that would have entailed “hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs…” (The Providence Journal, March 31, 2010). New Zealand has repealed its carbon tax scheme and Australia’s opposition party is vowing to follow suit.

The writing is on the wall in majuscule ^[1]. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has closed shop, putting an end to its estimated $10 trillion carbon trading scheme. In August 2011, President Obama’s pet green project, the California-based Solyndra solar plant, filed for bankruptcy, costing the U.S. $535 million in wasted stimulus funds and 1,100 jobs (NBC Bay Area, August 31, 2011). Other such futilities are impending. The Beacon Power Corp, recipient of a $43 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy, has filed for bankruptcy after being delisted by the NASDAQ (Moneynews, October 31, 2011). The solar cell company Spectrawatt, recipient of a federal stimulus boost, and Nevada Geothermal, which profited from Federal DOE and Treasury Department subsidies, are on the brink of failure (FrontPage Magazine, January 26, 2012.) Ener 1, which received a $118 million stimulus grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to develop lithium storage batteries for electric cars, has filed for bankruptcy protection (Bloomberg Businessweek, February 2, 2012). This is bad news for the plug-in Chevy Volt, the president’s car of choice, which is beset with problems anyway; GM had to suspend production to cut inventory owing to anemic sales (Left Lane Online, March 2, 2012).

Abound Solar, which makes cadmium telluride solar modules to the tune of a $400 million federal loan guarantee, has laid off 300 workers, amounting to 70% of its workforce (New York Post, March 10, 2012). And now the electric vehicle battery company A123 Systems, beneficiary of $300 million in Obama’s Recovery Act funds and $135 million in state tax credits and subsidies, courtesy of Michigan’s former Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm, is about to go belly up—another instance, to use Michelle Malkin’s term, of a smart grid, crony-inspired “enviro-boodle” (National Review Online, March 30, 2012).

The reason for many of these failures in green energy-production companies is simple. As noted environmental consultant and author Rich Trzupek explains, the energy density of convertible wind and solar is risibly low and dispersed, which renders electricity-generating power plants, whether large or small, “the most inefficient, least reliable, and expensive form of power we have” (FrontPage Magazine, March 23, 2012). As happened in Spain, Europe’s bellwether country for climatophrenic ruination, Obama’s “solar alchemy,” which demonizes traditional forms of energy extraction and application, has become a recipe for an American economic debacle.

Finnish professor Jarl Ahlbeck, a former Greenpeace member and author of over 200 scientific publications, points out that “real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” Contrary to common belief, he continues, “there has been no or little global warming since 1995” (Facts and Arts, November 25, 2008). His findings have been supported by many other studies. To adduce just a few instances: geophysicist Phil Chapman, basing his results on careful analyses from major weather-tracking agencies, reports that global temperature is “falling precipitously” (The Australian, April 23, 2008); geologist Don Easterbrook, associate editor of the Geological Society of America Bulletin, Professor Emeritus at Western Washington University and former U.S. representative to UNESCO, is also convinced that recent solar changes suggest the advent of a new cooling cycle which could be “fairly severe” (GlobalResearch, November 2, 2008); and a new study conducted by three Norwegian scientists, Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum, indicates that the next solar cycle, which is imminent, will see a “significant temperature decrease” over and above the current decline (Climate Depot, March 7, 2012).

Moreover, as Robert Zubrin has decisively shown in his recent Merchants of Despair ^[2], there exists robust scientific proof derived from ice core data and isotopic ratios in marine organism remains that Earth’s climate is a stable system, (I've been saying this for years now, Peter) that CO₂emissions create surplus plant growth that in turn absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide, thus restoring climate equilibrium over the long haul, and that under cyclical conditions of global warming agricultural productivity naturally increases and human life immensely improves.

In a brilliant article for the Financial Post (April 21, 2012) analyzing the eleven logical fallacies on which the argument for man-made climate change rests, Lord Christopher Monckton, known for tracking and exposing scientific hoaxes, has effectively proven that the anthropogenic thesis has absolutely no basis, neither in fact nor in theory. So-called climate skeptics need nerves of steel to oppose the reigning ideology. It takes no less courage and perhaps even more for a climate “Warmist” to buck the trend, as culture-hero James Lovelock has recently done. Lovelock, who in his 2006 The Revenge of Gaia ^[3] prophesied the charring of the planet, now admits he had been “extrapolating too far.” Despite predictably hedging his bets and deferring catastrophe into the indefinite future, he avers that “we don’t know what the climate is doing” and disparages his previous work, including Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth ^[4] and Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers ^[5], as “alarmist” (MSNBC.com, April 30, 2012).

Nevertheless, the Global Warming meme continues to circulate in defiance of the accumulating evidence, which leads one to wonder who the real “deniers” are. In my own country of Canada, “Warmist” foundations are determined to continue issuing environmental fatwas, in particular to tie up state-of-the-art, economically productive oil pipelines in endless litigation. That such a move would impact national revenues and cost thousands of potential jobs is a matter of no concern.

But the problem does not extend only to adversarial institutions and fellow-traveling NGOs. In other respects, Canadian governing parties, on both the federal and provincial levels, have not yet caught on to the perilous, impractical and pixilated nature of the Green crusade. Unsightly, government approved wind farms, for example, are literally driving people crazy and adding steeply to electricity bills.

Despite being hyped by the left-leaning CBC News (May 22, 2008), solar energy installations and SpongeBob-looking photovoltaic panels disfiguring the landscape do not seem like a reasonable prop
osition in a country already burdened by a dark, six month winter, as the Ontario Power Authority will shortly discover. Government and industry supporters, to cite the enthusiastic CBC report, base their projections on the presumed success of the German model. But there is a slight hitch, namely, the German solar experiment is a possible “government boondoggle,” is “cost-inefficient,” ^[6] will soon be obsolete, and has become “debatable” (MIT Technology Review, July/August, 2010). Indeed, it is now being phased out (Slate, February 18, 2010).

And then we have the soon-to-be-mandated mercury-laden CFLs, an undoubted domestic hazard, that are replacing standard light bulbs. Like many of my fellow citizens, I am assiduously hoarding incandescents in my basement, enough to see me through at least five years of environmental madness. Perhaps by that time, Green may have greyed sufficiently to be put out to pasture. One can hope.

Carbon Capture Boodoggle

2012-05-08T23:32:00.001-05:00

A few more Billion Dollars wasted on the great global warming scam. Capture and sequester (store) carbon dioxide from burning coal.....what a completely ridiculous idea!!! This is the same carbon dioxide we exhale with every breath, the same carbon dioxide that gives us the fizz and carbonation of our soft drinks. And the EPA classifies it as a "pollutant". "Dirty" carbon they call it. Why? Because it causes global warming and climate change.......well guess what? It doesn't do any of those things. We've all been fed a gigantic lie. Fortunately the truth is slowly coming out.
Peter
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10164-duke-power-plant-boondoggle-to-cost-customers-plenty?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatechangedispatch%2FnkcO+%28Climate+Change+Dispatch+news%29

Climate Change Dispatch - Duke Power Plant Boondoggle to Cost Customers Plenty

www.climatechangedispatch.com

Waste More Of Your Money On Global Warming

2012-05-04T12:42:00.001-05:00

There are stupid ideas, and really, really, really stupid ideas. Investing in bonds to fund projects aimed at stopping "global warming" or climate change tops the list of dumb ideas. How anyone thinks throwing a few Million, or Billion, or Trillion dollars at trying to change the world's climate is laughable if it wasn't so sad and tragic. All it is going to do is further enrich amoral SOB's like Al Gore, George Soros, and a host of other one-world government advocates. Wake up people. They don't want to control the weather.......THEY WANT TO CONTROL YOU!
Peter

For those with money to burn, or flush......invest here.....

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ifc-debuts-green-bond-to-fight-climate-change-2012-05-04?link=home_carousel

IFC debuts green bond to fight climate change Thomas Kostigen's Impact Investor

www.marketwatch.com

The International Finance Corp. has floated a $500 million green bond to raise capital for climate-friendly investments around the globe.

Mr. Methane: Mr. Carbon's Evil Twin

2012-05-03T11:18:00.001-05:00

IDIOT OF THE WEEK

Mr. Methane, Mr. Carbon's evil twin. Courtesy: Geoff Chin
Geoff Chin, fourth-grade teacher in Kentfield, Calif.:

source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/teaching-climate-change.html

Yes, the same methane gas we heat our houses with, cook our food, and generate our electricity to do nearly everything else. This is an example of your tax dollars at work. Is this evil our just plain old stupidity?

Peter

PBS Promotes Lies About Climate Change And Global Warming

2012-05-03T10:38:00.000-05:00

If you have a strong stomach and can tolerate a lot of BS, read what some of the "teachers" in the following production from PBS have to say about teaching "climate change". Is it any wonder why we have such high youth unemployment with teachers like this?
Peter

How the political brainwashing of our children begins.......
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/teaching-climate-change.html

Climate In The Classroom: Teachers Share Their Stories

www.pbs.org

This week, the PBS NewsHour will report on one teacher's struggles to teach climate change in her Colorado classroom. This comes as the National Academies Press is preparing to roll out new national science standards for kindergarten through 12th grade. For the first time this year, new standards wi...

Comment:

Earth Energy Balance

2012-05-01T07:51:00.002-05:00

Very nice........of course there is an energy balance on Earth, or we would have burned up long ago. Man-caused global warming is a cruel myth and a lie.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120501

Clouds and Climate

www.nytimes.com

At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds, which have a huge influence on the climate.

The Dirt Behind The Drive To Stop Global Warming

2012-04-25T09:54:00.000-05:00

The huge man-made global warming scandal is being laid bare.......do we have enough space in our prisons for the perpetrators of the scam? The crime?....lying and "stealing" untold Billions of taxpayers dollars, often to enrich themselves, calling it "science" and destroying the world economy.
Peter

Lie, Cheat, Steal: Save the Planet!

John Ransom

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/04/25/lie_cheat_steal_save_the_planet/page/full/

Speaking of lies and the liars that spread them: In light of yesterday's column on the cottage industry of global warming hysteria and the slant they give the day's news, I got a nice email from the people at the Heartland Institute reminding me of the theft and alteration of documents from Heartland by hysterical warming apologist Professor Peter Gleick, a supposed ethics expert with the Pacific Institute.

I first covered the story as it was occuring in February, when Heartland reported the theft. Sinced then Heartland has published a list of websites and periodicals that abetted Gleick. I have have appended that list at the end of this column.

Gleick, who was chairman of the ethics committee at the American Geophysical Union, admitted that he recently stole some documents- and he may have forged others- from the conservative think-tank. But that’s all in a day’s work for a work-a-day climate warrior. The important thing isn’t the quest for the truth in global climate research, but, as Charlie Sheen would say, winning. With winning comes cash.

Because for some time it’s been clear, that in the climate debate, instead of actually accomplishing something worthwhile, all the attention will be on the winners and losers. And some losers in the debate are much bigger than others.

For example:
“In the field of climate science, when someone — especially skeptics — did something ethically questionable or misrepresented facts,” writes MSNBC, “scientist Peter Gleick was usually among the first and loudest to cry foul. He chaired a prominent scientific society's ethics committee. He created an award for what he considered lies about global warming.”

No word yet whether Gleick will create an award for forgery. I hear the pool of candidates isn’t deep this year since all of the forged data from Climategate has already gone pro.
The authentic documents stolen from Heartland were released by Gleick, along with some documents the Heartland folks say are forgeries.

The real documents were prepared by the think-tank to counter the global warming bunk that is being taught in US schools.

I know about the global warming hysteria that is taught at the elementary and secondary level, because my kids come home everyday and instead of telling me about how they’ve learned to read and write and how great George Washington was, they instead tell me that “transfer calculations indicate that strong gradients in both ozone and water vapor near the tropopause contribute to the inversion.” Ah, huh. I think neither they, nor their teachers, nor the authors, nor myself, knows what that means.
Still I hope the question is on the ACT. But I doubt it.
This is a very serious issue.
How serious?

“Heartland has not said whether any of the documents it unwittingly released were altered,” reports the LA Times, “and Gleick said he did not change any of the material he got. But several of the key points the purported strategy document makes are backed up in the material Gleick obtained from Heartland. Most notably, in a fundraising document, Heartland identifies one of its priorities as reshaping the discussion of climate change in K-12 classrooms.” Ohmygosh!
Well let’s just say that the Heartland Institute is in BIG trouble now.
How dare these right-wing troglodytes have a scientific position contrary to the United Nations Interplanetary Council on Wealth Transfer and Class Envy.
No, no. no. You can’t do that. Not under an Obama administration.

Yeah sure: The UN misspends our money on their sex scandals, mismanagement of programs designed to secure peace and prosperity and engage in habitual human rights abuses by a majority of the members states who make up the one-world-government to-be. But clearly, those problems aside, they have the skill to put together a group of scientists who can report objectively on the science behind global warming; especially the part where the remedies include:
1) You footing the bill; and
2) They get your money.
Don’t we mere mortals know that our puny powers of reason and deduction are impervious to the powers granted to the Society of Ethical Geophysicists by the government of the United Nations?
That’s why the scientist, Geophysicist Ethicist Mr. Gleick, is now being hailed by the director of research for Greenpeace, Kert Davies, as a “hero,” says the LA Times.

Most other commentary declaims Gleick's methods, while not-so subtly applauding his aims.
The Atlantic's Megan McArdle has had about the only rational response, concluding that Gleick is crazy:

And ethics aside, what Gleick did is insane for someone in his position--so crazy that I confess to wondering whether he doesn't have some sort of underlying medical condition that requires urgent treatment. The reason he did it was even crazier. I would probably have thrown that memo away. I might have spent a few hours idly checking it out. I would definitely not have risked jail or personal ruin over something so questionable, and which provided evidence of . . . what? That Heartland exists? That it has a budget? That it spends that budget promoting views which Gleick finds reprehensible?

When conservatives question global warming, we are lying, apparently. When liberals steal in the name of global warming, it can't be a sign of desperation, poor science or character. No; they must be crazy, with due respect to Ms. McArdle, who I believe is sincere .
I guess since liberals haven't yet embraced retroactive abortions, the next, best thing they can do is label someone crazy when they want to cut them from the herd, as they did recently with Media Matter's David Brock.
Skeptics- or rather, deniers, as we’d much rather be called- will point out that increasingly the public is distrustful of global warming science.
Despite a little bounce in the polls, 60 percent of US respondents to a Rasmussen survey don’t think that global warming is man made. “In a January survey of the top 22 policy priorities for the US,” writes Our World 2.0 “the public ranked climate change dead last, according to the Pew Research Center.”

“When government muzzles scientists for political reasons, it cuts at the fundamental principals of good science,” Stephen Hwang, professor of general internal medicine at the University of Toronto told Our World.

But when the doctors and scientists seek to muzzle the rest of us it’s all A.O.K.
And for some weird reason the public just doesn’t trust those scientists who are fully sponsored and funded by the UN, US, UK and other government grants, which in turn were funded by you.
By talking about it, you troglodytes just emit more carbon. Good going.
Your proper role is to just shut your big, fat mouth and fork over a carbon credit or cash equivalent so the truth-seeking can continue unimpeded.

For more information you can see the Heartland's website on the scandal at Fakegate.org.
In the meantime, here's a list of publications that Heartland says is a rogue’s gallery of organizations that are willing to invade people’s privacy in pursuit of an ideological campaign called “global warming.”

Please contact them – by commenting on the posts, emailing the bloggers or webmasters, even picking up the phone or writing a letter – to insist that they (1) remove those documents from their sites; (2) remove from their sites all posts that refer or relate in any manner to those documents; (3) remove from their Web sites any and all quotations from those documents; (4) publish retractions on their Web sites of prior postings; and (5) remove all such documents from their servers.

The following Web sites and blogs posted stolen and fake Heartland documents on their own servers:

February 14 – Heartland Insider Exposes Institute’s Budget and Strategy

DeSmogBlog
Mr. Brendan G DeMelle, editor
3000 Royal Centre
1055 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC V6E 3R3
email: editor@desmogblog.com

February 14 – Internal Documents: The Secret, Corporate-Funded Plan To Teach Children That Climate Change Is A Hoax
ThinkProgress.com
Mr. Brad Johnson
Center for American Progress Action Fund
1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005contact page
202/682-1611

February 15 – Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)
Huffington Post
Ms. Arianna Huffington, president & editor in chief
560 Broadway
New York, NY 10012contact page
212/245-7844

February 15 – Climate Denial Bombshell (Update)
Huffington Post
Mr. Shawn Lawrence Otto, blogger
177th Street N
Marine On Saint Croix, MN 55047-9760contact page
651-433-2982 or 651-433-3103

February 15 – Heartland burned by ‘DenialGate’ memos
Politico
Mr. John H. Harris, editor-in-chief
1100 Wilson Boulevard #610
Arlington, VA, 22209contact page
703/647-7999

February 14 – HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute’s Insider Reveals Secrets
Greg Laden’s Blog
Mr. Greg T. Laden
44788 265th Lane
Aitkin, MN 56431-4807
contact: greg@gregladen.com
218/678-2743

The following organizations have condoned the theft, quoted the forged memo, or are attacking the scientists and others whose identities were revealed by Peter Gleick. Urge them to stop, retract their comments, and apologize for the damage they have caused:

Pacific Institute
654 13th Street,
Preservation Park
Oakland, CA 94612
510/251-1600
510/251-2203 (fax)info@pacinst.org

Greenpeace
702 H Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20001
202/462-1177
202/462-4507 (fax)info@wdc.greenpeace.org

National Center for Science Education
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2688
510/601-7203
800/290-6006 (toll freee)
510/601-7204 (fax)info@ncse.com

350.0rg
155 Water St 6FL
Brooklyn, NY 11201
510/250-7860jamie@350.org

Forecast the Facts
Blair Fitzgibbon
202/503-6141media@forecastthefacts.org

Citizen Engagement Laboratory
2150 Allston Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
510/875-2135info@engagementlab.org

League of Conservation Voters
1920 L Street, NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
phone: 202/785-8683
FAX: 202/835-0491kate_geller@lcv.org

Prosecute Al Gore?

2012-04-17T14:06:00.000-05:00

Prosecute Al Gore?

Written by Don Surber, Daily Mail blogs | April 16 2012

Al Gore - Nobel Peace Price 2007
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So far this month, the public has learned that the Arctic is overrun with polar bears, according to a Canadian study. The poster child for fear-warmongering by junk-science global warmists not only survives but thrives.
Then an actual count of penguins found that there are twice as many Emperor Penguins in Antarctica than previously thought, a second study found.
Then, another study found that far from melting in 23 years as the Nobel Peace Prize-winning IPCC report predicted, the glaciers of the Himalaya mountains are doing just fine.
The time has come to investigate James Hansen, Michael Mann, Al Gore and other global warming stars for fraud. They lied. They manipulated data. They made false predictions of doom in their over-heated sales pitches. I know that Hansen and Gore made millions off these false alarms of ecological doom. We must now hold them accountable for false claims and the spreading of rumors.
(continued here)

Global Warming House Of Cards Collapsing

2012-04-12T23:20:00.000-05:00

The myth that is the concept of man-caused global warming and climate change is nearing its final, agonizing death throes. Prepare yourselves. This may also put a severe crimp in the Obama Administration's foolish investments in "alternative energy" such as solar energy, wind energy, geothermal, and biofuels, like the recently touted algae.

Research in these areas should continue, of course, just not so dishonestly financed by the Federal Government with taxpayer dollars. We must let the free market determine what is economic. The government is a proven failure at picking economic winners.

It seems like a lot of former NASA scientists agree. Do I feel vindicated after saying these same things for the last five years of playing with this blog in an admittedly amateurish, part-time, but sincere way? Yes.
Peter

50 Former Astronauts and Scientists Denounce NASA Stance on Global Warming

Written by Michael Suede, policymic | April 11 2012

NASA (Photo credit: Luke Bryant)

A group of nearly 50 very prominent NASA scientists and astronauts has issued a public letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., requesting that NASA stop supporting unsubstantiated claims of manmade global warming.

The letter reads in part:
"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."

The letter goes on to say: "The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements."
Read rest…

Environmental Brainwashing Of Children

2012-04-10T13:02:00.001-05:00

When one hears the question "How can anyone be so stupid as to believe Al Gore and the idea that mankind is causing global warming and climate change?" , we are rightly puzzled as to how this can be. Well, I think the following article helps explain why. It is not because anyone is "stupid". It is because our children and grandchildren (almost two generations) have been fed an endless series of distortions, myths, and outright lies about nature, Earth history, and our environment. We see evidence of this and its consequences all around us.

This does not give me good feelings about our public education system. Do teachers THINK about what they are teaching, or do they just read a script dictated by others? This is comparable to our unknowing, inexperienced but charming President, reading from his teleprompter. Do teachers have any control over what they teach? I thought that is why teachers teach, because they are "educated", not merely puppets repeating what someone in our government says they should say. How can they go to work everyday if they know they are being used to deceive and manipulate? To put it mildly, that is not very intellectually honest. Maybe teachers are not taught very well.
Peter

The Environmental Terrorizing of Children

Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs | April 09 2012

In many ways, the worst aspect of environmentalism is why Greens not only feel free to terrorize children with doomsday scenarios, but feel compelled to do so.

I have been reviewing books for some fifty years and with the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” in 1962 and books such as Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” have been offering scenarios intended to move people and governments to take action that, in retrospect, were based on bad “science” and absurd doomsday predictions.

If you were fooled by global warming, they are counting on you to be fooled again by "sustainability", their reworking of Marx’s communism in the form of a grandiose scheme to control all of the Earth’s bounty. In June the United Nations will hold a Rio+20 conference that will declare that governments exist to ensure "sustainable well-being and happiness." The Declaration of Independence offers the opportunity to pursue happiness. It does not guarantee it, nor does it suggest that it is government's job to provide it.

A key element of the Green’s endless indoctrination schemes has been to reach children, the most vulnerable among us and for this reason our schools have been turned into Green prisons where their version of the Earth is pumped into the minds of children here and around the world.

Their primary teaching tool is fear. Fear that the oceans will rise and wipe out entire cities. Fear that the rainforests are disappearing. Fear that entire species are being destroyed by the hand of man. Fear that the use of any kind of fuel, coal, natural gas, and oil is despoiling the planet.

I have reviewed books for some fifty years at this point and I could not put a number on the books for children that hammer home these and other terrifying themes. One crossed my desk the other day, “Our House is Round: A Kid’s Book About Why Protecting Our Earth Matters” by Yolanda Kondonassis and illustrated by Joan Brush. It has been called “the perfect children’s introduction to environmental issues” by Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
The author is not a biologist, a geologist, a meteorologist, or any other kind of scientist. She is a Grammy-nominated classical harpist. A harpist!

“Our Earth has gotten messy. What should we do?” she asks her young reader. What does she mean by “messy”? Her answer is that “cars, trucks, and factories make pollution, a kind of dirty gas or liquid that goes out into the air and into our rivers, lakes, and oceans.” This book is written for children age five to nine!

Imagine now what it must be like to be that age and be told that the air is polluted and the water is as well. This verges on child abuse.

“Pollution goes up into the sky and forms a blanket of gas that holds heat within Earth’s atmosphere. That makes our whole Earth warmer and leads to unclean air for breathing, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, and extreme weather patterns. Scientists call this warming of our Earth’s temperature CLIMATE CHANGE.”

It is a LIE. The Earth has been cooling for fifteen years.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a gas as vital to all life on Earth as oxygen is to the life of living creatures. Without it, not a single blade of grass or tree or the vegetation we call “crops” would not grow. Livestock and wildlife depend on that vegetation. If you are age five to nine, you likely are unaware of this.

This book and all the others that incorporate these lies are a form of psychological terror.
The same week I received “Our House is Round”, I also received “The Big Green Book of the Big Blue Sea” and “Earth-Friendly Buildings, Bridges, and More.” You could stack all the environmentally-themed children’s books I’ve seen and it would reach up several stories.

They are a corruption of geophysical and biological science. They have nothing to do with “saving the planet” and everything to do with distorting children’s understanding of the real world.
It does not matter that the Ms. Kondonassis thinks she is serving humanity. The great lie of communism is that it will create a collectivist utopia. In reality it has always depended on terror to maintain itself and it has failed wherever it has been tried. Environmentalism is its latest permutation.
It is the same reason that communism derides religion for its emphasis on life and morality.

I have devoted my life to freedom of the press, freedom to publish, freedom to speak out, and to urge participation in the life of the greatest nation on Earth, but some books like “Our House Is Round” are the worst kind of mental pollution.

Environmentalism, like all tyrannies, begins by indoctrinating children.
Editor's Note: In 1974 Alan Caruba was a founding member of the National Book Critics Circle.
Source

Pete'sPlace On Global Warming/Climate Change

Lies, Lies, And More Tall Tales About Global Warming And Climate Change

Global warming as real as Obama's jobless numbers, GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says

Climate Change Dispatch news

Follow The Money To Solar And Wind Energy......NO MORE PLEASE

Will The Debate On Global Warming/Climate Change Ever Be Over?

Landsat Joins Google Earth

Biofuels Lead To Food Crisis

Doomsday Environmental Fearmongers Will Not Go Away

Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists

Environmentalists Screw It Up Down Under

Dam their flood of mistakes

Big Brother Is Watching, And Listening...And Who Knows what Else?

Don’t Say That! Just Don’t Say It!

The More Science One Knows, The Less They Believe In Man-Caused Global Warming

Winning The War Over The Madness Behind The Myth Of Man-caused Global Warming And Climate Change

Climate "Deniers" Winning the War

By Marita Noon

5/28/2012

Marita Noon

Climate Talks Hit Brick Wall Over Global Warming Hoax

Is China poor? Key question at climate talks

Is China a developing country? Key question unresolved in latest round of climate talks

Methane Release And Global Warming

Popping the Cap on Arctic Methane

The End Of The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

All "Environmentalists"....Read With Care

Carbon Capture Boodoggle

Waste More Of Your Money On Global Warming

Mr. Methane: Mr. Carbon's Evil Twin

PBS Promotes Lies About Climate Change And Global Warming

How the political brainwashing of our children begins....... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/teaching-climate-change.html

Earth Energy Balance

The Dirt Behind The Drive To Stop Global Warming

Prosecute Al Gore?

Global Warming House Of Cards Collapsing

Environmental Brainwashing Of Children

How the political brainwashing of our children begins.......
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/teaching-climate-change.html