Weather & Climate Facts

Climate Change "science" is Bogus

2011-08-02T21:00:00.000-07:00

Two significant pieces of recent research seems to have discredited two of the bedrock tenants of global warming and climate change. First a recent study by NASA contradicts the notion that carbon dioxide traps heat within the earth’s atmosphere. Satellite readings reveal that far more heat escapes into space from the earth than the bogus climate change models have, for years, been claiming.

Climate change forecasts have for years predicted that carbon dioxide would trap heat on Earth, and increases in the gas would lead to a planet-wide rise in temperatures, with devastating consequences for the environment. But NASA satellite observations discredit this notion dramatically.

“There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer -- basically a big thermometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” he said. The planet isn't heating up, in other words.

James Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at conservative think-tank The Heartland Institute, wrote at Forbes that the meaning of the new research is clear-- and it compromises what he called a "central premise of alarmist global warming theory. Real-world measurements … show far less heat is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict," Taylor wrote.

Many of us have been saying for years that computer models are worthless, if only because they are always, in every case, way, way off, they aren’t even close. This writer, and others, have charged for some time that models, due to their awful record, should not be used at all in the climate change debate.

Polar Bear Baloney

And not surprisingly, a leading climate scientist, whose report in 2006 of drowning polar bears in Arctic waters galvanized the global warming movement -- and was highlighted in Al Gore's Oscar-winning climate-change documentary -- has been suspended, over the accuracy of his observations.

Charles Monnett -- who manages as much as $50 million worth of climate research on Arctic wildlife and ecology -- was told on July 18 that he was being put on leave pending an investigation into "integrity issues," according to a letter posted online by the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which is questioning Monnett's suspension. In other words, just like the bogus hockey stick graph, his research is bogus, or at best it is significantly exaggerated.

In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming. According to investigator Eric May Gleason was asked his thoughts on Gore referencing the dead polar bears. Gleason said none of the polar bear papers he has written or co-authored has said anything about global warming.

Not surprisingly, the polar bear “research” turns out to be bogus as well. This phony “scientific research” relating to climate change is becoming all too familiar. It’s past time to shut off the spigot of taxpayer money being poured into phony research designed to prop up a flailing and increasingly unscientific climate change culture.

Temperature and Global Warming

2011-04-29T09:54:00.000-07:00

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) claims to have evidence that paeloclimatic data shows higher levels of CO2 causes an increase in global temperatures. But D.H. Rothman conducted a comprehensive analysis of CO2 in rocks, volcanic and metamorphic degassing, etc over the past 500 million years. Rothman found that “the CO2 history exhibits no systematic correlation” between CO2 and increased temperature. In fact, he found the opposite, that the highest CO2 levels occurred when the earth was relatively cool.

And Rothman made other observations; 1) temperature did not respond at all to the change in CO2, 2) rather when CO2 rises, there is a steady decline in atmospheric temperature, 3) the geologic record “refutes” the CO2 induced global warming hypothesis, 4) the data “argue for a decoupling between global climate and CO2.” 5) The earth’s air temperature always rises well in advance of the increase in atmospheric CO2, 6) there is a 400 to 1000 year lag between rising air temperature and increased CO2 content.

Rothman and a wide assortment of other scientists confirm that “CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system.” Somehow the IPCC have fabricated not only the science, but the conclusions regarding the relationship between C02 and global temperature. Al Gore has been lying to us all. The “science” he references is completely false. What is alarming is the Al Gore and IPCC “science” is not just off a bit, but the data and research supports the complete opposite conclusions.

The “hockey stick” graph that Al Gore so famously used in his deceptive movie came from a young Ph.D by the name of Michael Mann, from the University of Massachusetts. And President Clinton jumped on this hockey stick graph as justification the government should intervene to cut carbon emissions. However, two Canadian scientists by the name of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick requested Mann’s data and research so they could check his work. Mann, knowing he had fabricated the science was reluctant and slow in making his “research” public. Ultimately, the two Canadians obtained the data and the methodology used by Mann. “They found the data did not produce the claimed results due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.” In other words, Mann is either a very bad scientist or intentionally manipulated the data to show what he wanted it to show. In short, the hockey stick graph is a myth. Sadly, trillions of dollars and years of work have been expended in defending false science.

The Canadians made several other damaging conclusions as well; 1) the warming of the 15th century exceeds any warming in the 20th century, 3) there is nothing unnatural about the planet’s current temperature, and that whatever warming occurred during the twentieth century was likely caused by the recurrence of whatever cyclical phenomena created the greater warmth of the 15th century.”

It is also now an accepted truth among the climate change lemmings that the warming over the latter part of the 20th century is unprecedented. But based upon the synthesis of real world data presented by Fred Singer Ph.D, and Craig Idso Ph.D., D. H. Rothman, and many others, that claim is completely false.

Greenpeace Founder Exposes Global Warming Farce

2011-03-21T16:12:00.000-07:00

Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore, but who has had enough of Greenpeace radicals, and left Greenpeace, has come clean about global warming. To put it bluntly, he knows global warming is a fraud.

"We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer world we can produce more food." Something I’ve been saying for years, and anyone who understand botany and life on this planet knows, warmer is better—for everyone, for all living things. Moore was asked who is promoting man-made climate fears, and what are their motives?

"A powerful convergent of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue." But, says Moore, dissent is growing: "There are many thousands of scientists' who reject man-made global warming fears...It's all based on computer models and predictions. We do not actually have a crystal ball, it is a mythical object." Indeed!

And I'll be you won't find stuff like this in the mainstream press. Reporting something like this would make them look pretty dumb since they have excitedly told the world a completely opposite story--with a straight face.

More "climate" baloney

2011-01-25T09:43:00.000-08:00

Maybe you saw the U.N.'s weather announcement that 2010 was the warmest year on record, "The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization's top official. But anyone with even elementary understanding of weather and climate, knows this is nonsense. Here are five good reasons some scientists are skeptical of these claims.

1. Where does the data come from? They gather readings from land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, and satellites. 70% of the earth is covered by water, but there are very few buoy’s to provide temperature data. And because nearly all remote sensing stations have been eliminated and replaced by metropolitan locations. Anthony Watt on his SurfaceStations.org website states that 61% of the stations used to measure temperature are less than 10 meters from an artificial heating source—a big no no. Further, meterological “experts” manipulate and "normalize" the data. If this was a football game, they would normalize the score, and the real score of 28 to 14, would be normalized to be 22 to 19, or some such nonsense. You can’t “normalize” the data, it is what it is. It is the naïve public who are being manipulated

2. There's less ice in the oceans. Or more. Or something. The WMO report notes that Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record. In fact, the overall sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, "the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice." So where’s the love for Antarctic ice growth? Somebody has an agenda here.

3. El Niño has been playing havoc with temperatures. Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average (if you believe the “manipulated” and “normalized” data), the report points out, calling these measurements "the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records." The WMO notes that warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic.
Of course temperatures are up, it's El Niño, stupid.
"El Niños cause spikes up. La Niñas drop it down." "Why have we gone up overall in the past 30 years? Because we've been in a warm cycle in the Pacific," he said. "But the tropical Pacific has cooled dramatically, and it's like turning down your thermostat -- it takes a while, but the house will cool."

4. Besides, it's getting chilly. 2010 may have been a warm year, but 2011 has been off to a very cold start -- and may be among the coldest in decades.
"December 2010 was the second-coldest December in the entire history dating back to 1659," noted Steve McIntyre, a climate scientist and the editor of climate blog Climate Audit. He bases his claim on data from the longest continuous record in the world, kept by The Met Office, the U.K.'s official weather agency. No doubt, the December data was “normalized” to eliminate its “chilling” effect on the global warming data.
"If we look at the last 30 years, then the coming 30 years will cool back to where we were in the late 70s," he said. "Look at it this way. Suppose you didn't have a scale until 3 weeks ago. Every day for the last 3 weeks you weigh yourself and you are 175 or so. One morning you are 175.1 How much weight have you gained?" You're the heaviest you have ever been, right? "If you weren't weighing yourself before, or were using a different scale, can you really say this is the heaviest ever?" he asked.

5. Forecasts are often wrong. Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. In 2000, a scientist with the Met Office's Climatic Research Unit declared that within ten years, snowfall would be "a very rare and exciting event." Tell that to the people on the East Coast, or North Carolina, or Alabama, or…London, which was buried in snow and cold for weeks in December 2010, that nearly brought the country to a standstill.
And in 1970 at the first Earth Day event, one researcher predicted that the planet would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. Ok, so the whackos are in charge.

The following predictions were posted previously, but seemed to fit with the above really far out predictions.

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers.

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century…and the platte River is definitely not dry.

3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.

4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
If temperature data is not “normalized” it is difficult to find that global warming has occurred at all. Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:

5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
Air quality has actually improved since 1970. And the earth’s atmosphere has an amazing “cleansing” capacity.

6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.
Uh, no! And "Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich and his “tribe” of scientists all support each other, no doubt, but their predictions make them look rather foolish.

7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets." Prophets, yes; scientists? No.

8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970
How a nut case like Ehrlich can garner so much respect inside the scientific community, and out, is a question for another time, but he’s a “respected” scientist, and people believe him, just like people believe the so-called climate scientists currently running around telling us the sky is falling.

Environmental Predictions Not Even Close

2010-12-31T05:55:00.000-08:00

The following is an edited version of an article by FoxNews on December 30, 2010

Some climate scientists and environmental activists say we're one step closer to a climate Armageddon. But what’s the truth? What's the track record of those most worried about global warming? Decades ago, what did prominent scientists think the environment would be like in 2010?

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers. North America, Europe and Asia (China and Russia) all experienced record setting cold and snow at the end of 2010
2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
That may be in doubt, however. Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century.
3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
As of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center. Ok…and we continue to believe this guy?
4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.
5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
Air quality has actually improved since 1970.
6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.
"Present trends didn't continue." Of course not, they never do, yet these guys continue to get press for their beyond absurd predictions.
7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970
Well, I think you get the point, these prophets of doom from the environmental culture, so want things to go very, very bad, that they believe their own imaginations. Science? This isn’t science. This is beyond silly. These environmental leaders could be less credible if they tried. Sadly, U.S. and global policies are often based on these outrageously wrong predictions.

Environmentalism a huge job and business killer

2010-10-27T15:04:00.000-07:00

Top U.S. Physcist says Climate Change is a scam

2010-10-10T16:37:00.000-07:00

Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming/climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…And it is doubtful you saw anything about Hal Lewis' resignation, or his resignation statement, in the mainstream press.

Carbon Footprint Scientific Nonsense

2010-09-23T20:32:00.000-07:00

"Arguments made about saving the planet are basically ridiculous, even if naively well intended. All the blather about "carbon footprints" is scientifically nonsensical. It's not a matter of tree hugging. If you're paying more for something than necessary, you're mis-allocating capital. You're destroying capital. That's a real crime against humanity." Doug Casey

Liberal Environmentalist Debunks Global Warming

2010-07-28T12:47:00.000-07:00

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.” “It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else,” Rancourt, who has published peer-reviewed research, explained in a June 8, 2010 essay.

“the global warming myth is a red herring. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” Rancourt said. Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he asserted.

Rancourt's dissent on man-made climate fears has not set well with many of his fellow green friends. “When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me — they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines, editors,” Rancourt explained to Climate Depot.

Rancourt bluntly examines why his fellow environmentalists are wrapped up in promoting climate alarm: “They look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet — a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks.”

Rancourt also openly expresses his hostility for former Vice President Al Gore's 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”: “I felt ill walking out of the theatre. It's terrible. It does not respect the intelligence the viewer. The film does not acknowledge people can think for themselves at all.” Rancourt lamented how “environmentalists could just gobble this up and agree with [Gore's film] in a non critical fashion.”

Gore “strikes me as someone working for someone — as someone who will financially benefit from this. He does not give me impression of someone who genuinely cares about environmental or social justice,” he said.

Rancourt spared no mercy for the embattled UN IPCC. He said that the scientists are “named by governments, they are scientists who accept to serve a political role. Their mission is to write a report” that “is meant to be used by government.”

Rancourt is also very critical of proposed global warming carbon trading or cap and trade: “Someone is going to make a lot of money from these schemes.”

But it is his fellow University professors that Rancourt has the least amount of patience with: “They are all virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals.

“You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming.”

This entire process “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent,” according to Rancourt.

"Climate Change" Temperatues Are Bogus

2010-06-17T09:55:00.000-07:00

NOAA Deception
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has made some surprising and indefensible statements of late; including this one, “Accuracy, with respect to global temperatue readings, doesn’t matter. The temperature reading itself is not important.” So what’s the issue here? At issue is 1) what are the real temperatures being reported? 2) are these temperatures accurate? 3) what policies are driven by global temperatures?

NOAA has five classes of climate measuring sites. The best sites, categories 1 and 2, require the site to be placed over grass or low local vegetation. According to section 2.2 of NOAA’s Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook:

The most desirable local surrounding landscape is a relatively large and flat open area with low local vegetation in order that the sky view is unobstructed in all directions except at the lower angles of altitude above the horizon. For categories 1 and 2 there can be no artificial heating sources within 100 meters (330 feet). For the lower quality stations 3 to 5 there must be no artificial heating source within 10 meters (33 feet).

The integrity of the site as a reliable climate measuring station is completely dependent on these criteria. Is the government adhering to its own standards?

More Research
In a landmark 2007 research project to determine the quality of the United States climate measuring network, meteorologist Anthony Watts set out to get some answers. He recruited more than 650 volunteers to photograph the climate stations around the country.

What they have found is astounding. A full ninety percent of the United States climate measuring sites do not meet the government’s own criteria for accurate temperature measurement! Again, that number is ninety percent.

This means that among numerous other violations, most climate measuring stations have artificial heat sources within 33 feet of the thermometers. Examples of these heat sources: buildings, roads, air conditioning vents, heat reflecting surfaces, stations located on top of roofs, in confined areas that restrict air flow, at waste treatment plants that generate heat, and on asphalt parking lots.

The Global Warming Bias
All of these influences introduce a warming bias to the measured temperature. Many of these warm biases were introduced in the last 25 years. During this time, a new generation of thermometers — the MMTS/Nimbus thermometers — were gradually installed across the country. These thermometers are hardwired to the weather station or building where the readings are recorded. Because of this wiring, the thermometers have been repositioned closer to heat sources. The older, more pristine locations were too far away to run the cables — there were too many things in the way like buildings, roads, and other infrastructure. The installers simply moved the thermometers closer to make the installations easier and more economical.

So NOAA now has climate measuring stations located much closer to buildings and industrial heat sources, over dirt, black pavement, cement, crushed stones, steel, shingles, wood, and other hard and heat-reflective surfaces. These violations of NOAA’s own criteria for accurate temperature measurement have gradually — and fully — corrupted the U.S. climate measuring network.

To state it bluntly, global temperatures have been deliberately manipulated to show a “global warming” trend, when in fact no trend exists. Virtually all remote sensing sites in the United States have been removed. These sites, located in forests, mountains, deserts, open fields, etc; have all been removed and transferred to urban areas. Urban areas are known to register higher temperatures than surrounding non-urban areas. So the warming trend was manipulated by simply moving sensing devices from accurate reading sites, to warmer locations (parking lots, concrete pads, etc). In the past, urban temperatures were discounted as being inaccurate and did not account for the foundation of global temperature reports. That has all now changed.

There is no global warming trend. There is a trend of moving temperature sensing stations into urban areas clearly compromised by artificial heat sources.

Actual Data Contradict NOAA's Phony Data
The actual temperature trend in the United States over the last 50 years, shows something quite different from what NOAA says. From 1960 to the late 1970s [two decades], the United States temperature was clearly falling. From that point on, there was a two-decade warming trend through the 1980s and 1990s. That warming trend ended in 1999 and there has been no warming since.

Not only did NOAA say the last 50 years was a period of warming, they said it was a “rapid warming.” This is a blatantly intentional distortion of what actually took place. The historical climate data show that the temperature only warmed for two of the last five decades!

In an attempt to “educate” the public about global warming, NOAA is working hard to deceive taxpayers about the quality of temperature measurement and the trend of temperature. The careers of many scientists and bureaucrats at NOAA depend on funding to study the “problem” of global warming. If global warming stops (as it already has), research projects could be canceled. The careers of high-ranking administrators could be severely compromised if they are blamed for “dropping the ball” on their watch.

The evidence says that to continue with funding and to legitimize NOAA’s research efforts, the myth that “temperatures have been rising rapidly” must be maintained through distortion and outright misrepresentation of the facts.

Beholden To False Data
Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” has been completely discredited. His data is faulty, his interpretation is flawed, and his conclusions are false. Still, faithful environmentalists continue to quote from this baloney science. Those making a living off of taxpayer supported “climate change research” are beholden to the theory. If they fail to “keep the faith” of climate change, their careers could be in jeopardy–wouldn’t want the truth to get in the way of someone’s career.

Many writers and researchers have challenged the myth of global warming, and more specifically, challenged the source of the data–urban placed temperatures sensing devices. Taking readings from a thermometer placed on an asphalt parking lot, near an air conditioning vent, and claiming global temperatures are rising is not only dishonest, it’s criminal. Naive citizens of the world are been manipulated, deceived, and forced to pay for this false nonsense. It’s time it ended.

Climate Change and Brainwashing

2010-04-23T19:25:00.000-07:00

I have argued for years that environmentalism is not about the environment, but about power. I’ve argued that global warming was not about global warming, but about power. And I’m still arguing that climate change is not about climate, but about a Marxist, totalitarian control over the lives of every person on earth.

A small think tank by the name of the Sutherland Institute, in Salt Lake City, has just published a study about the “educational” side of environmentalism.

The Sutherland Institute discovered a considerable educational presence. In Great Britain, they found that officials distributed copies of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” film, with clear instructions on how to direct the discussion to insure students support Al Gore’s claims and policy proposals.

“Green” Activists
The study clearly showed “green activists” are making significant inroads into the public schools–at all levels. “There are many advocacy groups whose specific mission is to make “environmental education” (EE) the focus of schools. These groups view EE not as one important part of a well-rounded education but as a thread that should weave through every facet of school life.” In other words, they want to make environmentalism as the foundation of all educational disciplines, or make all other subjects subservient to environmentalism.

The report continues, “Organizations like the Green Education Foundation and Edutopia collect, design, and distribute educational materials that teachers can use to advance EE in schools. The mission of Alliance for Climate Education (ACE) is “to educate, inspire and activate students to curb climate change and its effects.”ACE also provides resources for teachers and holds assemblies in schools using “hip talk, animation and jokes” to teach children their version of climate change and to sign them up for their “anti-consumption (Americans are to blame) cause,” often without the consent of parents.”

Ninth Grade Brainwashing
A ninth-grade text asserts that “Mounting evidence suggests that the rate of global temperature changes over the past 150 years is largely due to human activity.” This statement overstates the facts. Other materials go much further.

One school district has provided several worksheets that single out human activities as the cause of global warming and that raise “alarming” scenarios. One fear-inducing scenario predicts that too much CO2 in the atmosphere could cause the Earth to become too hot to inhabit, like the planet Venus.

Two textbooks recommended for Environmental Science and high school Advanced Placement (A.P.) Environmental Science classes, includes this statement by William P. Cunningham, “our actions are now causing global climate change” and “an overwhelming majority now agree that there are unmistakable signals of human impacts on the world’s climate.” Nothing about “theory,” nothing equivocal, no apology, just straight statement of “fact.”

Textbook Permiation
Another textbook contains the following quote by Richard T. Wright, “The Earth is in the midst of an unsustainable rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, the result of our intense use of fossil fuels. In short, we completely depend on a host of technologies that are threatening our future.” Again this is not presented as a theory, or even a controversial theory, but stated as fact and teachers are expected to “tow the party line” and teach this doctrine, whether it’s factual or not.

We could go on and on, but the point is this; environmental extremists, who care far less for the environment than they do for indoctrinating America’s young people into a Marxist style “green” youth corps, are very active in their religious zeal to spread the word about environmentalism. And these folks are not messing around, they mean business, they mean to convert this country into a socialist state, a one party socialist state, with complete and totalitarian control over the lives of every person.

Ten Myths About CO2

2010-03-09T12:39:00.000-08:00

MYTH 1: Increased levels of CO2 would prove harmful to life, health, and the planet.

FACT: CO2 is an essential component of life on this planet, without CO2, there would be no life here. Noted Agronomist Dr. Sylvan Wittier, who has studied crops and the effect of increased levels of CO2 on all plant life, states emphatically that increased levels of CO2 produces more growth (more food), more plant growth (trees, etc), and produces no adverse consequences. CO2 is not a pollutant and it’s intellectually dishonest to state that. From an agronomy standpoint, there is no known negative to increased levels of CO2.

MYTH2: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. However, the ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects") i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models used by your favorite environmental groups such as Greenpeace, which live up to the GIGO acronym — Garbage In, Garbage Out.

MYTH 3: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, about 96.5% is water vapor and clouds, with the remainder being trace gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O. CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. And then the human portion of that 0.037% is incredibly small. But isn't CO2 the most important of the greenhouse gases? Nope. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect. Water vapor is by far the most important and overwhelming greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts. CO2 is NOT a “powerful greenhouse gas,” as claimed by environmentalists. Water is the most powerful greenhouse gas, and CO2 and other trace gases are no more or no less “greenhouse” producing than is water.

MYTH 4: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.

MYTH 5: Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet!

FACT: The planet does not need saving from this mythical problem of CO2 emissions from cars, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round! — It is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

MYTH 6: Receding glaciers, the calving of ice shelves, and the shrinking of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. What you see on your television newscasts are images of the annual summer melt off, which happens every single year and is nothing new.

Global warming is not melting Mt. Kilimanjaro's alpine glacier. Temperatures at Mt. Kilimanjaro have been slightly cooling since at least the middle of the twentieth century, and those temperatures virtually never rise above freezing. Scientists have long known that deforestation at the base of the mountain is causing the mountaintop glacier to shrink, by reducing the moisture and resultant precipitation in mountain updrafts.

MYTH 7: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be gotten somewhat warmer last century, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. And now the western Arctic is cooling again. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

MYTH 8: There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT: There are literally tens of thousands of signatures from scientists worldwide on many petitions, ranging from the Oregon Petition Project, the Manhattan Declaration, all the way to the Leipzig Declaration which all state that there is no evidence for the man-made global warming theory nor is there any impact from mankind’s activities on climate. Many scientists are now dissenting against Al Gore and the IPCC and strongly believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time, expensive, dangerous and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said "The fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it. Of the scientists who support the climate change theory, many are on payrolls of government agencies and others are simply securing their funding. The consensus is clear: Man-made climate change is a hoax. Pro-global warming scientists spend great effort in attempting to control the dissemination of the information on this and related topics.

MYTH 9: It's never been warmer in the past.

FACT: We are in a relatively cool period and it used to be much warmer over countless periods in the past. Even just a few hundred years ago, the Vikings used to live in parts of Greenland without snow, and vineyards flourished in the North of London! There is nothing apocalyptic about warmer temperatures, in fact it's quite the opposite. In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year. Sensible people should be cheering any rise in global temperatures, there would be less death, less disease, and less suffering by the people who live on this planet.

MYTH 10: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no evidence that CO2 is a measurable driver of global warming, let alone the tiny amount released by humankind. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Upwards of 97% of the atmospheric CO2 comes not from man, but from the oceans, plants, and other forms of life.

Effectively, the man-made global warming theorists have put effect before cause — this completely debunks the entire global warming theory and shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile exercise! There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 has any effect on global warming or can cause "climate change". However, there is plenty of scientific proof that the Earth has been cooling while CO2 has risen, and that increased CO2 is very beneficial to our planet.

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Over 95 percent of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.

Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Without the “greenhouse effect,” there would not be life on this planet. The greenhouse effect keep temperatures moderate and livable. To demonize the “greenhouse effect” is also intellectually dishonest.

The biggest source of greenhouse gas is our oceans. Furthermore, animals and volcanoes produce so much CO2 that it completely dwarfs mankind’s insignificantly tiny emissions.

Some of the foregoing data is contributed by co2science.org

The Earth is Not Warming Afterall?

2010-02-27T18:42:00.000-08:00

Scientists have been forced to retract a paper that claimed sea levels were rising due to the effects of global warming, after mistakes were discovered that disputed the results. The study was published in Nature Geoscience and predicted that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century.

However, mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the results. "We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark. The fact is, there’s no evidence for that claim

After the firestorm of criticism called Climate-gate, the British government's official Meteorological Office has decided to give its modern climate data a do-over. At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world's climate scientists start all over again.

I don’t know about you, but a scientific organization, made up of scientists, and presumably some of the world’s brightest people...who can’t get the facts right? Who can’t calculate the data correctly? And who screw up the “time intervals” and mess up the “applied statistics?” If we didn’t know better, we’d think they were talking about an eighth grade Remedial Math class.

As so-called “climate change” scientists continue to trot out statements declaring the earth really is warming, that the past month was the warmest January on record, that the past year was the warmest on record, that the past ten years have been the warmest on record, blah, blah, blah. Reminds me of a guy standing shirtless in a blizzard, freezing, but the climate scientist is standing next to him saying, “it really is warm out here, it is the hottest day on record, it’s the warmest January ever...it really is warm out here. Trust me, I’m a scientist.” Ok, sometimes the “experts” really appear very stupid, irrational, and down right dimented, if they expect rational people to believe such nonsense.

If we were talking about anything but one of the environmental “sacred religious” truths, we would declare the whole lot of them nuts and completely ignore them for evermore. But, since this is environmentalism we’re talking about, and “sacred” leftist/liberal ideology, the media is “obligated” to continue the ruse and pretend the all-knowing ones are beyond reproach, and even worthy of Nobel prizes. But the man on the street, the people on the ground, those who actually live in this “environment” know better...they actually know what’s what.

No Global Warming Since 1995

2010-02-19T10:57:00.000-08:00

The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades. FoxNews.com 15 Feb 2010

It just gets worse and worse. Now we learn that data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing, and warming periods have happened before, which everybody knows.

The academic at the center of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Ok, his only job is to keep track of the information, and he can’t do it? And governments are making policy based on random, poorly stored and poorly indexed data?

Plus, Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests. Hmmm, ok, I’m gullible.
The data which he has lost, failed to file, failed to keep track of, or otherwise fumbled away, is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory, but he can’t produce the data and refuses FOI requests. I see a big problem here.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. Now there’s a shocker. The evil “deniers” have been saying this for decades, and because “they” said it, the leftist environmentalists dismissed the claim because it didn’t come from themselves?

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. There are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions, and other oppressive legislation.

Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics. Well, I for one, have been saying this for years. Add to this fraud, the “Tribal mentality” of the closed, global warming, science fraternity, and we’ve got one really big “scientific” problem.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now, because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. And throwing a handful of CO2 into the air and claiming it raises global temperatures, is complete nonsense anyway.

This set of lies will cause untold problems with governments trying to solve non existing problems. Indeed it will.

“Socialism can really be defined today as environmentalism. This movement seeks to control all aspects of society, to dictate what people eat, what farmers grow, how we travel, build, work, cap and trade, and climate change. Essentially, all the advances towards socialism have occurred within the environmental realm.”

And this just in: “on Saturday, November 21, 2009, Weather Channel Founder files suit against Al Gore for fraud. 30,000 meteorologists are banding together to sue former Vice President Al Gore for fraud in perpetuating the global warming fraud.” Wow. Sanity is being restored...and so much for President Obama's "overwhelming evidence" assertion. Oops.

The Religion of Climate Change and its Rituals

2010-02-13T09:28:00.001-08:00

I have spouted for months about how the global warming/climate change extremists are very “religious” about their so-called “science,” and how their zeal is far more like religion than science. The science these people use is horrid, in fact it isn’t science at all, but more like religious in nature. I love how Michael Barone (writes for The Washington Examiner, Feb 4, 2010), puts this issue, and I’m passing it on.

“The secular religion of global warming has all the elements of a religious faith: original sin (we are polluting the planet), ritual (separate your waste for recycling), redemption (renounce economic growth) and the sale of indulgences (carbon offsets). We are told that we must have faith (all argument must end, as Al Gore likes to say) and must persecute heretics (global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers, we are told). People in the grip of such a religious frenzy evidently feel justified in lying, concealing good evidence and plucking bad evidence from whatever flimsy source may be at hand.”

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama alluded to "the overwhelming evidence on climate change," Suggesting that no one could reasonably disagree, then he threw a left jab (pun intended) at the skeptics by adding, "even if you doubt the evidence." The religious faithful of the Climate Change Church are closing ranks, and intend to purge all disbelievers and heretics from the discussion.

From the president on down, from the former vice president, to the faithful followers in the pews of the Democratic Party, belief is essential, because in this false religion there is little truth, bad science, and a whole of shaking their finger going on at those who disbelieve.

More Bogus Climate Change "science"

2010-02-08T16:56:00.001-08:00

The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage. The statement comes from a key 2007 report to the U.N., and asserts that by 2020 yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some African countries thanks to climate change.

This revelation follows a continuing trend of bogus claims, now being disputed, by this 2007 report. Earlier the IPCC retracted a claim, that was widely hyped, that the Himalayan glaciers could all melt by 2035. It turns out the glacier claim had no scientific basis, but was included in the IPCC climate change publication. And Dutch environment ministry spokesman Trimo discredits the U.N.'s climate change panel’s assertion that more than half of the Netherlands is below seal level. Dutch authorities explain that, in fact, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, not 55% as was claimed in the IPCC report. And the 26% is holding steady, not increasing, as climate models suggest.

The newest discredited claim comes from the IPCC's report on climate change, and is also repeated in its "Synthesis Report." That report is the IPCC's most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers.

The report states, "In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020." In a speech last July, Ban said: "Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years."

Speaking this weekend, Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's climate impacts team, said: "I was not an author on the 'Synthesis Report,' but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines."

This sort of claim should be based on hard evidence, said Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the U.K.'s department for environment food and rural affairs, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 to 2002. "Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature... I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report," he said. Wow.

The pattern is becoming all too clear. The U.N. IPCC is based not on science, but politics, it would appear. Authors are able to slip in single, undocumented sentences, not reviewed by other authors, or paragraphs are included making wild claims, but without scientific documentation. Even, completely unscientific data is included, such as the Himalayan glacier melting claim, which came from an outdoor enthusiast, that was quoted in a magazine–then it ends up in the IPCC report as scientific research. This is pretty bad.

It’s time for a complete review, and overhaul, of the U.N. procedures. Their credibility is shot, gone, down the toilet. Their science is not science at all, but political manipulation at its worse. And we should not forget that the entire thrust of the “global warming” hoax came from a single sentence slipped into the first IPCC report. I quote from a news report here, “In 1996 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, published it’s now famous report. The report was “approved” on November 30, 1995. But the only significant line in the 586 page report, a last minute change, made after midnight, with most of the delegates gone from the room, and without the knowledge of most of those who contributed to the report, stated “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”

The only problem? There was no evidence in their entire 586 page report to support that claim, and none of the other authors to that 586 page document had the opportunity to review the statement and either confirm or dispute the assertion. So a phony beginning by the U.N. leads to a string of bogus scientific claims, lacking peer review, that leads to governments around the planet making political decisions based on nonsense. And most governmental legislation is so draconian that, if implemented, would radically change life on the planet, from rich nations and poor nations alike.

It’s time for political leaders to admit they’ve been duped, and start basing their decisions on real science, common sense and truth.

What is Science? And Who is Qualified to Speak?

2010-02-03T19:29:00.001-08:00

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairperson of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has no training whatsoever in climate science. Yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B.

So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. Then we have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, who borrowed the statement from a mountain climber, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative. So, as it turns out, this “scientific fact” turns out to be completely bogus, yet was published as fact, and with the strength and substance of “science” behind it, when in fact there was none.

The same goes for dire predictions on Amazon rain forests. The IPCC maintained that there would be a huge depletion in Amazon rain forests because of [global warming] lack of precipitation. Needless to add, no Amazon rain forest expert could be found to back this claim. They depended, instead, on a report by a freelance journalist and activist, and now it has blown up in their faces as well.

So is there any good science to support global warming? Not lately. Most of the so-called “science” is a few years old, and now most of that is being called into question as well. “There is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.”

An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus. Says Dr Peiser, “The IPCC process by which it arrives at its conclusions lacks balance, transparency and due diligence. It is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years.

Sadly, government ideologues like President Obama cling to the global warming myth and ridicule the right for questioning it–and worse, he’s prepared to force through global warming based legislation even if it turns out to be a hoax. What kind of a president is that?

Another total lie has been that the Sunderbans in Bangladesh are sinking on account of the rise in sea level. The IPCC claimed that one-fifth of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. Well, it turns out this is an absurd, unscientific and outrageous claim. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (Cegis) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. Cegis has based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. IPCC has not retracted this claim. As far as they are concerned, Bangladesh is a goner by 2050, submerged forever in the Bay of Bengal.

“The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the "consensus" of 2500 of the world's climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.

We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN.” from The American Spectator, February 2, 2010

Environmental Doublespeak on Global Warming

2010-01-28T17:58:00.001-08:00

The following is from the latest report from the global warming religion.

“The Earth's surface temperature hasn't warmed as expected over the past decade.” Hmmm, the evil “deniers” have been saying this for years. And, “One study out earlier this month theorized that the Earth's climate may be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than currently assumed.” Hmmm again, “deniers” have also been saying this for a very long time.

“Water vapor, a potent, natural greenhouse gas, is "a wild card" of global warming, says the paper's lead author, senior scientist Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo.” Well, indeed. Water vapor is THEE greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not CO2. It’s nice for the scientific world to finally catch up with what everyone has known for a hundred years.

The report continues, “In the paper, Solomon and her colleagues found that a drop in the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere very likely made substantial contributions to the flattening of the global warming trend since about 2000." Now this is something, for two reasons: 1) the assertion that less water vapor causes the earth to warm. Every weatherman, every atmospheric scientist, and every high schooler knows the opposite is true. Less water causes the earth to warm, it lets in more solar radiation. 2) and it’s astounding that she admits to the “flattening of the warming trend,” during the last decade. According to the computer models the planet is to supposed to be accelerating near the boiling point by now.

The report continues, “The findings are "surprising," says Bill Randel, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who was not part of the study. He said it was surprising how big an effect such a very little change in stratospheric water vapor has had on the surface climate.” Translated, this means, we have no idea what’s going on, we’re supposed to be real smart people, but this dang atmosphere just keeps fooling us.

The humor continues, “Although it's known that water vapor in the troposphere increases as the climate warms, models do a poor job of simulating water vapor in the stratosphere.” To say computer models do a “poor job” is to heap high praise on them–they are absolutely worthless, and so far off the mark it’s surprising anyone continues to give them any credence at all.

More Falsified Data, A Disturbing Pattern

2010-01-25T14:13:00.000-08:00

The pattern here, is all too familiar. First we had Al Gore preaching to elementary kids his “An Inconvenient Truth,” based, he claimed, on solid, accepted, scientific evidence. The “truth,” as he put it forth had to do with the relationship of CO2 and global warming, among other things. It didn’t take long for “truth” to be revealed as a fairy tale, having little if any scientific basis. But his book and film are still quoted by environmentalists, and accepted by many as scientific truth.

Then we had the “hacker revelations” from the U.K.'s East Anglia University, which revealed that data was doctored, altered and made to appear more dire, presumably to influence political decisions relating to environmental policy.

Now, we have yet another revelation regarding the IPCC and bogus data. Rajendra Pachauri of the IPCC, “faces fresh controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters, including hurricanes and floods, and for a separate section of the report that warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s." And now yet another, an oft-cited "fact" in his panel's 2008 climate change report -- that the Himalayas were on track to melt by 2035 -- was sloppily copied from a magazine interview with a single glaciologist in 1999.” Not only is the data wrong, it’s rather old as well.

“The IPCC based its claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny -- and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link was weak, The Sunday Times of London reported. The newspaper has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based that claim had neither been peer reviewed nor published at the time the U.N. panel issued its report.” (FoxNews.com) The long standing practice of having research reviewed by your peers was beginning to be ignored in the 1970s, then became significantly ignored by environmentalists who did not want their research to be reviewed because, well, it would be exposed. Now, today, the practice of having scientific research reviewed by peers is virtually ignored–especially by so called environmental scientists.

In 2008, when the report was eventually published, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses." But despite this change, the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. One would have to be blind not to see the intent here of influencing climate policy at the Copenhagen conference.

Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said in an interview. "The absurdity was obvious to anyone who had studied the scientific literature. This was not an honest mistake. IPCC had been warned about it for a year by many scientists." It may have been absurd, but not to the environmentally religious faithful, who eat this stuff up and proclaim in loudly, truthful or not.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that none of the wild, extremist environmental and climate change claims are true. They are so far out there, you’d have to be really dumb, or really brainwashed to even tolerate such nonsense. The pattern here, of pumping out extreme “scientific” conclusions, avoiding peer review, and of slipping in little “mistakes” to draw attention to the environmental position of global warming/climate change, draws into question the entire body of environmental and climate change conclusions.

Just as President Obama wants all his policies and legislation approved in a big hurry, before people have time to fully consider the legislation, Al Gore also campaigned for urgent action, immediate action, screaming “the debate is over,” so action could be taken before people figured out how bogus this whole global warming thing is. The science is not there, the facts are not there, and the implications here are very disturbing. We have been duped, and the brain washing continues. And, no, Mr. Gore, the debate is not over, but only begun.

What In The World of Global Warming is Going On?

2010-01-11T09:28:00.001-08:00

Reality is puzzling me, in fact it’s driving me crazy. I’m confused and befuddled. What in the world of global warming is going on? Here are a few snippets from the past few days, from various articles in the national press, on weather and climate.

The South is reeling all the way to South Florida, where the average high temperature this time of year is 76 degrees. Overnight temperatures are expected to be in the 30s there this weekend.

The weather, with temperatures forecast for the low 20s this weekend....

The deep cold was hurting wildlife. Almost 100 endangered sea turtles, which became lethargic in frigid water that shocked their tropically inclined systems, were found floating in the Mosquito Lagoon in eastern Florida

"I'll be 63 next month, and I don't remember a time when it's been this cold for this long," said Jerry Gentry, assistant manager of an Ace Hardware store in Nashville.

Sixty percent of the U.S. population will experience temperatures 15 to 30 degrees below normal at some point by Sunday night, said Weather Channel meteorologist Jim Wilson. The cold will be a "threat to pipes, property and crops," especially in the South, where record lows are possible each morning through Monday, he said.

By the end of this weekend, 180 million Americans will have shivered through a record-setting bout of arctic cold sweeping from the Great Plains and the Midwest to the Deep South.

“Britons shivered through the country's longest cold snap in three decades as icy weather maintained its grip on Europe.” USA Today, January 9, 2009

The weather has been brutal by Britain's temperate standards, and local authorities across the country are running out of salt and sand. A clutch of sporting events has been canceled — including five of the seven scheduled Premier League soccer games scheduled for Saturday.

“The main story in the South will be the bitterly cold, potentially record-breaking low temperatures that are forecast from the southern Plains to Florida.” USA Today Jan 9, 2009

“On Saturday night, a temperature of 35 degrees set a Miami, Florida record that had stood since 1970, said Joel Rothfuss with the National Weather Service.” FoxNews, 1/11/10

Snow fell in Orlando on January 10, 2010. No one can remember that happening.

According to NASA, the ten warmest years on record are, 1934 1998 1921 1906 1931 1999 1953 1990 1938 1939. Odd that no 2000 dates are on the list. Could it be because the earth is actually cooling again? In spite of all that CO2 the world is pumping into the atmosphere?

What I don’t get is, if the planet is warming, if the past decade has been the warmest on record, if CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, if the ice caps are melting...why are we only seeing record low temperatures all around the globe, year after year, instead of record highs? Logic would tell us that some record high temperatures should be showing up, and that winters should be moderating, with record warm temperatures being reported, at least somewhere on the planet. But no, this is not the case. Record low after record low is being reported from the United States, to Great Britain, to South America, and Australia. Something is wrong with this picture.

More Cold Weather Just Keeps Happening

2010-01-04T13:07:00.001-08:00

The recent football bowl season offers an interesting, even significant, view of the nation’s weather, and of the falseness of global warming, if you will. Bowl games historically are played in warmer climes, and the thinking is that for those teams who have successful seasons, even in typically cold climes, they can be rewarded by playing in a bowl game, in a warmer climate. But this year, the weather in the host cities has not cooperated.

Bowl games are scattered all across the American landscape, from San Francisco to D.C., and from Houston to Detroit. But the majority of the bowls are scattered across the southern, more comfortable climes.

So how was the bowl weather this year? The Florida bowls, St Petersburg, Champs (Orlando), Capitol One (Orlando), and Outback (Tampa) bowls all experienced way below normal temperatures. And the Orange Bowl in Miami? it's the coldest Orange Bowl ever. The Las Vegas bowl was awful, freezing and windy. The Emerald Bowl in SF was the coldest in years. The Eagle Bank Bowl in D.C. was terribly cold, and near a record low temperature. New Orleans was below normal, as was Charlotte, NC, Nashville, Shreveport and Memphis. Fort Worth was way below normal, as was Atlanta, Georgia. Even New Orleans and San Antonio were “chilly,” and atypically below normal.

San Diego was nice, and normal, as was Los Angeles, but just about every other bowl hosting city was below normal, and many were at near record low temperatures. Games were spread out over a three week period, so it’s not like it was a one day cold event. And it wasn’t just bowl cities that suffered this cold.

Salt Lake City experienced the coldest December in nineteen years. Most of the west experienced a below normal December. One would think, in an era of global warming, that we would be seeing record warm temperatures, or relative heat waves at the bowl games, at least in cities that are typically warm during this time of year. But record lows should not be occurring, this contradicts the very foundation of the AGW crowd, namely that the planet is warming; in fact, it is cooling, throwing into question the entire CO2 premise.

On January 3, 2010, International Falls, Minnesota recorded its coldest temperature since 1979. Sioux Falls, S.D. also saw record cold temperatures on January 2nd, when temperatures hit 30 below zero, the coldest temperature since 1974.

Burlington, VT received 32 inches of snow the weekend following New Year’s Day, the heaviest snowfall ever recorded there, in 120 years of records. And freeze warnings have been issued for the entire state of Florida. Freeze warnings for Florida are rare but not unheard of. But freezing temperatures as far south as Miami is unheard of. Forecasts for the entire east coast call for even colder temperatures later this week (January 4, 2010).

So not only did Copenhagen, Denmark experience its coldest temperatures in decades during the U.N. climate change conference, the entire college football bowl season is bathed in the coldest weather in years. Where is all the warming? Where is it? Yes, global warming is real, it just keeps getting colder and colder. 2007 saw record lows recorded all over South America, and this year, record lows are being recorded across North America. At some point the global warming religious faithful are going to have to admit their scam and deception is a fraud, and give it up.
At some point, the environmentalists and politically correct weather scientists, politically correct politicians, and politically correct media, will have to admit to the fraud that global warming is, and give up the deceit.

Gore's Gaffes and Frauds Exposed

2009-12-28T12:34:00.000-08:00

In 1992 Al Gore was quoted as saying “I invented the internet.” Of course, Al Gore did no such thing, and he either has an exaggerated sense of his accomplishments, is delusional, or is dishonest. Gore has been the butt of jokes regarding this declaration ever since. And astoundingly, he made the statement with a completely straight face, the guy actually believed what he was saying.

In 2000 Al Gore, while running for president of the U.S. actually tried to manipulate the recount in Broward County, Florida. What he first tried to do is to tell the local election officials what votes to count, and what votes not to count, in order to throw the election for president his way. When that didn’t work, he went to court and convinced the Florida supreme court to count the votes his way, so he could win. Ultimately, George W. Bush had to go to the U.S. Supreme court to force a real recount, and count all the votes. Incredibly, Gore supporters have ever since accused Bush of stealing the election from Gore, when in fact it was Gore who attempted, but failed, to steal the election from Bush.

More recently, Gore took to the road visiting mostly elementary schools (those lacking sufficient education or knowledge to challenge his thesis) promoting his “An Inconvenient Truth” and displaying a power point presentation to lay out his theory about how the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to global warming, and thus, a long list of dire consequences result, such as melting ice caps, polar bear demise, rising ocean levels, drought, increased hurricane activity, etc. The only problem is, most of his presentation is false, as has been pointed out by numerous experts in the field. Primarily, that CO2 has little if any bearing on weather or global temperatures. His list of dire consequences are also bogus.

At the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009, the former vice president said new research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years, and he quoted the scientist who did the research. However, the scientist who did the research contradicted Gore by saying, "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I did not estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Gore obviously has difficulty telling the truth, yet government leaders and world figures continue to give him audience. Gore is guilty of exaggerating the truth, of fabricating the truth, of making up data, of falsely interpreting data, of putting words in the mouths of research scientists, of claiming credit for inventions he had nothing to do with, and the list goes on.

Regardless of the personality, the day that person’s dishonesty is revealed, who can then trust anything he says? We’re not talking about just being mistaken, or of having a differing opinion. Rather, Gore has a history of dishonesty, in a wide variety of venues. Why would he do this? He does it because he has an agenda, and he has a thirst for power. He believes the end justifies the means; say anything necessary to convince the public of his premises, and to elevate himself in the public view. His AGW campaign is only the latest of his charades to be exposed as a fraud. Amazingly the man is undeterred by his numerous failures, frauds and intellectual scams.

"Global Warming is a Religion"

2009-12-18T20:11:00.001-08:00

The president of the Czech Republic made some surprising statements today, refreshing, but surprising. He began by saying, “Global warming is a "new religion," not a science, he said.”

"I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature," said Klaus, an economist by training. "That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished."

Klaus says that many interested parties get "a lot of money and influence" by backing the idea of global warming and organizing the Copenhagen conference, as well as its predecessor the Kyoto conference. "Some of them are really just rent seekers who hope to get some money either for their businesses or for their countries," says Klaus. "Some of them are really true believers."

The president reckons that environmentalism, executed on the scale suggested by global warming adherents, is a "real way to stop progress, industrial progress…and this is something unfair."

"We'll be the victims of irrational ideology. They will try to dictate to us how to live, what to do, how to behave," Klaus said. "What to eat, travel, and what my children should have. This is something that we who lived in the communist era for most of our lives — we still feel very strongly about. We are very sensitive in this respect. And we feel various similarities in their way of arguing or not arguing. In the way of pushing ahead ideas regardless of rational counter-arguments." The man has a brain, can think, and has the courage to speak the truth. He has hit the nail on the head here.

"I lived in a communist world where politicians told us what to do," Klaus said. "I don't think politicians or presidents should suggest to firms what to do. That has always been a mistake."
Czech President Vaclav Klaus

Indeed. But there is some justice in this world. The Copenhagen conference, sponsored by the U.N., has the capacity to seat 15,000 people. There were 30,000 NGO (non governmental organizations) environmentalists, alone, credentialed for the conference. Fortunately only 300 got in during the key two day sessions where an “agreement” was to be voted on.

Does it really take 30,000 environmentalists to engage in a healthy discussion? Or, this mob needs to go get real jobs, and stop wasting taxpayer money. Still, further justice, not to mention irony, occurred at Copenhagen. The conference took place in mid-December, and while tens of thousands of delegates were waiting outside trying to obtain admission, the coldest weather in years descended on the city. How ironic, a global warming conference, but the weather refuses to cooperate, it’s just too dang cold, and many delegates gave up and went home...to warmer climes it is supposed. Like the science of global warming will not cooperate with this new relgion, neither will the weather–it just keeps getting colder.

How Wrong Can They Be?

2009-12-09T18:50:00.000-08:00

Rising Sea Levels?
Al Gore and the global warming alarmists tout the “fact” that sea levels are rising, will rise much higher and flood many low lying major cities. “Professor Nils-Axel Morner, a geologist from Stockholm University, said sea-level rise has also been exaggerated by the "climate alarmists" using computer models. He said observational data from lake sediments, coast lines and trees show sea levels have remained stable.”

Rising Global Temperatures
“Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, who said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity.” Many other scientists agree with Svensmark. Charlie Perry is a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and he agrees, as do many, more other scientists.

Record cold temperatures, record early cold temperatures, first snows in decades, largest snowfalls in decades have all been reported from South America, North America, Europe and Australia–and all during a period of global warming? One would expect to read of reports of record high temperatures, lack of snow, late arriving winters, and low snow packs. But no.

In New Zealand, “the site with the longest running warming trend just happens to be sitting in the middle of an Urban Heat Island. The car park asphalt at 6 meters away puts the station rating at CRN4, based on NOAA's site quality rating system used for their Climate Reference Network. I've found that the vast majority of historical stations in the USA have been affected this way:”

Polar Bears
“Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation,” according to Alaska state officials.

According to the May 16, 2008 World Climate Report, polar bears do not drown, they are powerful swimmers and can swim for hours, and often do. Further, they never venture too far from the ice. The notion that retreating ice shelves leaves polar bears stranded hundreds of miles from the ice is ludicrous and false. Al Gore’s graphic depiction of a polar bear “stranded” on a small piece of floating ice, was a complete fabrication. And oft published reports about four drowned polar bears seen floating two miles from shore, because of global warming and the loss of ice, was another fabrication, and an act of sabotage. The four polar bears had been tranquilized by “conservationists” in an attempt to garner public sympathy, and to galvanize the nation to take action against the adverse effects of global warming.

CO2
“Unravelled records of atmosphere, temperature and ice-cap formation 33.6 million years ago, when the Earth cooled from a greenhouse without ice caps, into something quite similar to our present day…Pearson's work contains a couple of remarkable results. First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days… Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle. If the Earth started a cycle of ice ages 33.6 million years ago while having its very carbon-rich atmosphere, and if the Earth showed cycles of ice-age activity when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level that it was in humankind's pre-industrial times, what new information must we incorporate into our present climate models?” Paul Pearson, Cardiff University

CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, some of the highest rates of CO2 occurred during some of the earth’s coldest periods. Most of this century’s small temperature increase occurred before 1950. And water vapor is a far, far more significant greenhouse gas than is CO2.

All Scientists Agree
“There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty.” Al Gore’s deceitful lie “the debate is over,” is patently false, and he knows it.

Global Warming is Bad
“Many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people's health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.” Dr. Sylvan Wittier, agronomist, and many other agricultural scientists agree with the “warmer is better” premise. The worst times in man’s history have come during “little ice ages” when disease, starvation, and death rates were at all time highs. Prosperity occurs when temperatures are higher. And you'd think liberals would want to do something about world food shortages; a warmer planet is how you do that.

Data Integrity
In light of recent revelations about “doctored data,” and the refusal by the climate change crowd to release the source of their research, or allow anyone outside their club to attempt to reproduce the data, it’s not surprising that much of that “research” is being challenged. “NASA also refuses to give out its data. NASA further refuses to explain mysterious changes in whether the warmest years were in the 1930s or this past decade. The British Met office, too, has been unable to release its data and just announced its plans to begin a three-year investigation of its data since all of its land temperatures data were obtained from the University of East Anglia”

Flawed Logic, Flawed Science
1. The earth is warming
2. Warming is bad
3. CO2 is causing the warming
4. Warming is harming the environment
5. Warming is causing species extinctions
6. Warming is causing ice to melt, and polar bears to die
7. Melting ice causes sea levels to rise
8. Rising sea levels will cause coastal cities to flood
9. Warming causes increased hurricane activity
10. Warming causes floods and droughts
11. Warming (AGW) is caused by man
12. Man must do something about the problem
13. Governments must legislate to stop CO2 pollution
14. Fossil fuel use must be curbed
15. Coal power plants must be eliminated
16. Automobile use must be curtailed and reduced
17. Americans must be heavily taxed to pay for the damage they’ve done to the planet

Each of the above positions is false, and can be proven. The earth is not warming, warming is not bad, CO2 does not cause global warming, sea levels are not rising, etc. It’s obvious that environmentalists have orchestrated an elaborate scheme to deceive the public, the voters, the politicians, the courts, and just about everyone else, in order to achieve their objectives, and those objectives have nothing to do with science. The recent revelations about doctored data is only the tip of the iceberg.

Research Secrecy
“Neither the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia nor the British Met are able to provide their raw data to other research scientists because of the confidentiality agreements that Professor Phil Jones at CRU entered into. Unfortunately, Jones did not keep records of those agreements and, according to the British Met, can neither identify the countries with the confidentiality agreements nor provide the agreements. Earlier this year the British Met wrote the following to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:

"Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept."

“However, professional meterologists are unimpressed by the claimed reasons for confidentiality. Research data used as the basis for scientific research needs to be disclosed if other scientists are to be able to verify the work of others," Mike Steinberg, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather.”

“It is not just the University of East Anglia that has been accused of massaging the data (what they called creating "value added" data). Recently, New Zealand has also had its temperature series from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) challenged. Still the NIWA continues to insist that the "Warming over New Zealand through the past is unequivocal." Indeed, the institute claims that the New Zealand warming trend was 50 percent higher than the global average. But the difference in graphs between what NIWA produced after massaging the data and what the original raw data showed was truly remarkable and can be seen here. As the Climate Science Coalition of New Zealand charged: "The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming."

Similar concerns have also been raised about Australian temperature data.” John R. Lott, Jr.is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics." “The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06̊C per century since 1850. We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.”

“Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.”

East Anglia University Emails
“I haven't read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.” Al Gore. “The most recent email, for the record, was Nov 12 this year [2009], and there were lots more of similar vintage.” Gore has been unable to tell the truth for at least the last ten years, and maybe his whole life. His “Inconvenient Truth” should more accurately be titled, “A Convenient Lie.” Can you imagine any other scientific discipline operating in this fashion, in secrecy, with obvious cover and with designed deceit?

Conclusions
Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Real science is never decided by a vote. In science, theories are put up and torn down, red in tooth and claw. If a theory is ultimately true, it survives. It doesn't matter if 9,999 climatologists vote in favour of global warming being man made and only one doesn't. If the 'outlier' happens to be correct - regardless of whether his colleagues listen to him or laugh at him - he is correct.”

Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston says, "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." Indeed.

How Weather Works

2009-12-08T20:55:00.000-08:00

In all the hype about global warming and climate change hysteria, lost is information about how weather actually works. Environmental alarmists would have us believe that temperatures and weather are almost solely affected by CO2 and carbon fuel use. But such is simply not the case. So how does weather work, and how does the planet warm and cool? If we understand this, even a novice can make sense of the current climate change debate.

The atmosphere is a marvel of a self-regulating phenomenon. Almost all familiar weather phenomena occur in the troposphere (the lower part of the atmosphere). If the earth gets too cool, there are fewer clouds, and more radiation from the sun reaches the earth, and the surface of the earth warms. If the earth gets too warm, more clouds occur, and less radiation from the sun reaches the earth, and the surface of the earth cools. Additionally, if an area of the earth warms, the warm air rises, creating an atmospheric vacuum, and it pulls cool air from the arctic (or antarctic) into that vacuum and cools the surface of the earth, and the atmosphere. Even beyond the troposphere, stratospheric winds, and radiation, all affect the weather and subsequent surface temperatures of the earth.

The jet stream operates at between 20,000 and 40,000 feet altitude, and is about two miles thick. The strong temperature contrast between polar and tropical air gives rise to the jet stream. The jet stream is two to four thousand miles in length, and affects weather in a variety of ways. There are actually several jet streams that function similarly around the globe. For example, if it moves south, it allows colder arctic air to move south also, if it moves north, it creates a high pressure area to its south and keeps colder air from moving south. Like the Gulf Stream, it is a huge mass of moving air that affects weather globally, and to date, no one has been able to predict the actions of the jet stream beyond a day or two.

Radiation from the sun is the biggest factor that effects weather. In it’s 100,000 year cycle through the Milky Way, the sun moves from a closer position to the sun, to a more distant position. At the earth’s more distant location, the earth experiences an ice age, and yes, those occur about every 100,000 years. Guess which end of the cycle the earth is at currently? That’s right, at it’s closest point, so temperatures are a bit higher. Over thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, changes in Earth's orbital parameters affect the amount and distribution of solar energy received by the Earth and influence long-term climate. And sunspots, which are also cyclical, dramatically affect earth’s weather, and temperatures. As sunspots increase, temperatures on the earth increase, when they decrease, earth’s temperatures also drop. Radiation from the sun is the single greatest, and by far most significant contributor to the earth’s weather, and global temperatures.

Volcanoes affect weather when they erupt by spewing millions of tons of ash and dust into the atmosphere. Winds aloft, including the jet stream, circulate these volcanic particles around the globe in a matter of days. These particles reflect and/or block the suns rays, causing the earth to cool. Large eruptions can affect global weather for several years, most last two to three years before the particles succumb to the pull of gravity, the effects of rain and barometric pressure changes, and fall back to earth. Temperatures then return to normal.

The oceans also affect the weather in a multitude of ways. If the water heats up sufficiently, it can cause such things as the El Nino effect. El Nino affects weather, not only in the eastern Pacific and the western U.S., but to a lesser degree, world wide. Warm, moist air moving over cooled land in coastal areas will cause fog to form, which reflects the suns radiation and cools the earth further. Clouds that form over the oceans and move over land will cause night time temperatures to be warmer than if the skies are clear. To a large degree, the oceans create the majority of the earth’s weather.

The Gulf Stream is a large mass of warm water originating in the Gulf of Mexico, that moves up the Atlantic coast of North America, across the North Atlantic, and past Iceland, England and Europe. The Gulf Stream influences the climate of the east coast of North America from Florida to Newfoundland, and the west coast of Europe. The climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be; and that this is due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream. It’s likely that portions of Northern Europe would be uninhabitable were it not for the Gulf Stream, it simply tempers the natural coldness of Northern Europe. Iceland, England, Scandinavia, possibly Germany, Denmark and other areas of Europe would be unattractive to live in, and unproductive agriculturally without the effect of the Gulf Stream.

Inspite of what some global alarmists claim, CO2 does not affect weather, or even local or regional temperatures to any appreciable degree, and its affect cannot be separated from all the other gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor. All the atmospheric gases (including water vapor) act in concert, all have similar properties, but water vapor is by far the largest contributor to atmospheric temperature fluctuations, dwarfing the effect of all the other gases, including CO2. The only reason CO2 is “picked on” is because it is a by product of burning carbon fuels. And carbon fuels are the bad boy of environmentalists, and the primary target of environmental policy. But at .003 percent of the atmosphere it’s almost comical to see environmentalists attempt to make intellectually sustainable arguments concerning CO2 and its affect on global temperatures.

It is theoretically impossible to make useful day-to-day weather predictions more than about two weeks ahead, imposing an upper limit to potential for improved prediction skill. And if you follow weather forecasts closely, it is rare for a two week forecast to go unchanged. “Updated” forecasts will usually occur more than once during that two week forecast period. Often, the two week forecast is completely wrong, inspite of all we know about the weather, satellites, monitoring stations, and highly educated weather scientists working to predict the weather. Thus pretending to predict weather years, decades, or centuries into the future is intellectually dishonest, it simply cannot be done. And anyone who claims to know what the weather will be in the future, beyond a couple of weeks, is being deceitful.

Climate Tribalism at Heart of AGW Deception

2009-12-03T14:45:00.000-08:00

"The scientists who developed the data on which EPA is basing its work have all but admitted that their data was corrupted and they have admitted to corrupting the very scientific process needed to ensure the integrity of the computer models on which climate predictions are based,” said Jim Sims, President and CEO of the Western Business Roundtable.

This revelation exposes only the tip of the iceberg of the great environmental coverup regarding global warming, from which governments, including this one, make policy, draft bills, and extract taxes from a deceived public.

Penn State’s Michael Mann told Reuters that “colleagues often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," And according to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged.

Judy Curry is a weather scientist who broke from the politically correct, and politically controlled AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) stranglehold, to expose other nefarious practices of the environmental crowd. She writes: Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally. As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit all critics.

The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be motivated by politics and their professional ego. After becoming more knowledgeable about the politics of climate change, I became concerned about some of the tribes pointing their guns inward at other climate researchers who question their research or don’t pass various loyalty tests.

Particularly on a topic of such great public relevance, scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them. Trying to suppress them or discredit the skeptical researcher is not an ethical strategy. All relevant and available data and metadata [should be] made publicly accessible.” Indeed.

So if climate change data has been manipulated and falsified to support a particular political agenda, how much other scientific data needs to be brought into question? How much other “research” has been closely guarded, doctored, and let out only to those who support their theories? A few scientific “tribal” research topics I have challenged for years come quickly to mind: 1) the theory of evolution, 2) the big bang theory, 3) dinosaurs, 4) carbon dating, 5) the age of the earth itself, 6) the entire body of environmental science, to mention just a few.

There is much about this expose that reminds me of Marxism, fascism, and other extreme controlling forms of government who attempt to hide the truth, manipulate reality and force a pre-determined outcome.

Geologists and archeologists push the age of all things so far into the past that no one is able to dispute their data, except of course, those of that “tribe.” The theory of evolution has effectively silenced all critics, not to mention attempts to have other theories taught or even discussed in public schools and universities. How’s that for an educational posture? The big bang theory has so many unanswered questions, failures of logic, and other issues, one has to wonder what “tribal” group manipulated this data.

Carbon dating has long been questioned by almost everyone, except of course, those “tribal” leaders who control and manipulate that data. Although carbon dating is accurate back in time
for only about 200 years, still, carbon dating is given credibility for dating bones, rocks, and other items back in time hundreds of millions of years. Yeah, right!

And there’s the entire body of so-called environmental research, everything from “carbon pollution,” global warming, water quality, forests, oceans, and mining issues environmentalists have fooled the public on for decades. I could probably think of several stronger terms than “tribalism,” to call what environmentalists are doing to the public, but Judy Curry coined that phase, and it certainly applies. Tribalism is alive and well in environmental research.

Environmental Deception Beginning to Surface

2009-11-23T15:53:00.000-08:00

After years of environmental deception and brainwashing, the truth regarding their methods and data are finally surfacing. I have insisted for years that environmentalists are not our friends, that they are deceptive, and have engaged in one of the most elaborate brainwashing schemes in the history of this country. At last, Al Gore’s “global warming” sham is being exposed for what it is, mostly lies and misinformation.

Hackers broke into an environmental computer and found an abundance of revealing emails, then posted them on a website for all the world to see. Emails spoke of efforts to "hide the decline" in global temperatures (amidst shrill cries by environmentalists that the earth is about to boil over).

The revealed data is being called a "smoking gun, and evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind.”

One email spoke of the problem of documenting global warming through tree-ring samples, but the warming trend stopped in 1960, and could not be established in tree-rings after than date, so emails spoke of the need to “hide the decline.”

The emails point to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, but environmentalist were not interested in the truth, or the science, on this issue, but of perpetuating the myth of global warming. Yet scientists like Kevin Trenberth, continued to tout the “integrity of these scientists."

Yet another email from the hacked files describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process: "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (peer review has virtually disappeared from the research community, so anyone can publish anything without any review, and claim it’s truthfulness). Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board?" In plain english they’re saying, we can’t really defend our position, so we need to stop peer review, squeeze out dissenting scientists, and be careful what we allow the editorial board to see. How’s that for great science?

In 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Al Gore's global warming film contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" and deceitful views.

Buoyed by the ruling, two Irish journalists -- Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney -- released a documentary in which they gather evidence outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In "Not Evil Just Wrong," they challenge the claims made in Gore's film and conclude that the film is not worth screening in schools because it is put for as an article of faith, not science..

In Gore's film, directed by Davis Guggenheim and released in 2006, the former vice president argues that humans are causing climate change, If humans don't act to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, Gore contends, the deaths caused by climate change will double in 25 years to 300,000 people a year, and more than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction in half a century. Now here’s some great science, he provides no supporting evidence or research showing either that 150,000 people a year die from global warming, or how a million species are going to go extinct as a result of man’s negligence. It stated, again, as an article of faith, not science.

The film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change, High Court Judge Michael Burton said, but the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

Just last month, McAleer publicly confronted Gore in a contentious exchange at an environmental journalist conference, where Gore was the keynote speaker and took questions from the audience.
When asked by McAleer whether he would do anything to correct the errors found by the British court, Gore said he wouldn't go through each of the errors. Gore mentioned that polar bears really are threatened. Phelim countered that the number of polar bears has increased and is increasing.

"You don't think they're endangered?" Gore asked.

"The number has increased," McAleer repeated, prompting the same question from Gore. "If the number of polar bears has increased, surely they're not in danger." Before McAleer could say anything else, he was interrupted by environmental journalists who said it wasn't a debate and shut off his microphone.

McElhinney, McAleer's filmmaking partner, said Gore, while doing research for his newly released book, "Our Choice," asked a scientist to dial back the science to fit his narrative. "So much for the inconvenient truth," McElhinney said. "He just doesn't like the truth." McElhinney said it's a flawed argument by environmentalists that there's a consensus that everyone agrees about the causes and consequences of global warming.

"That's not how science works," she said. "It doesn't matter if 99,000 people all agree about something and one person is right. Politics works like that -- a certain number of people vote for something and then it becomes true. But with science, it's the one person who tells the truth."

Gore and the environmental lobby has been dishonest from the beginning. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was not based on science, and has been completely discredited; yet, environmentalists still worship Carson and her book, and cite its faulty conclusions daily. The world is not dying, the earth is not being warmed by man produced CO2. CO2 is not a poison or a pollutant, but an essential minor molecule in the atmosphere. Polar Bears are not threatened or dying off, they are actually increasing in number. The Arctic ice shelf is receding, somewhat; but the Antarctic ice shelf is growing–and so what? Life is thriving and is not threatened. New species come into existence, and go extinct, all the time–so what? 95% of all species that ever lived on the earth are now extinct, virtually all of them became extinct before man even appeared on the scene.

Environmentalism is a scheming, deceptive religion that is not based on science, but on faith. It is an eastern religion based religion with it’s roots in Gaia and mother earth–not science. Its aim is not to protect the environment, but to eliminate most of the people who now populate the planet, and replace them with a handful of faithful, card carrying environmentalists who can spend their days looking out from their cave, over the earth, undisturbed by man.

This sham is long overdue for exposure, fortunately, the truth is coming out, as it always does.

Blasphemous Quotes

2009-11-02T07:48:00.001-08:00

"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

"Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p1 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)

"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." -- James Hansen, "Climate forcings in the Industrial era",

"Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require major advances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and (2) the so-called “feedbacks” that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase in greenhouse gases." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p1 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)

"Because climate is uncontrollable . . . the models are the only available experimental laboratory for climate. . . . However, climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p15 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)

"At this point in the debate, it is intellectually dishonest and borders on fraudulent to continue to maintain that there is any reasonable basis to fear a coming climate apocalypse. Yet the scientific establishment continues to grind out tortured "studies" to prove black is white. Those involved in this charade are doing lasting damage to science and the reputations of scientists. Hell, you are no different than the worst lawyers - you will say whatever people want you to say so long as you are paid." -- Fred Palmer, president of the Greening Earth Society.

And why is all this bad science and deceptive writing and publishing going on? What is driving all this utter nonsense? Read on.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” -- Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)

The enhanced greenhouse hypothesis, while perhaps frightening, is poorly supported (we can't even agree on the planet's current temperature) and the issue, if issue it be, has been hijacked by natur über alles misanthropists seeking to ration energy as a means of suppressing humanity and by a curiously accommodating, apparently sensation-seeking media. So much noise has been made, so strident are the calls of impending doom that scientifically gullible politicians have thrown vast quantities of public money at study and abatement of a problem which is likely illusory and most certainly not as claimed by the eco-Jeremiads. The inevitable result of this misdirection of public funds has been the spawning of an entire industry dependent on continued hysteria to keep the grant torrent flowing and donation coffers full. Consequently we have a well-financed and supremely motivated industry, a three-M coalition composed of the Misanthropists, the Mistaken and the outright Miscreants (some would say Media), shrieking their tale of looming disaster from human development. Welcome to Big Warming. [From Junk Science]

Not everything is at it seams. The eco-fanatics are leading us around by the nose. Their agenda is a very perverse one, driven by eastern religion, with the commitment to undo hundreds of years of progress, technology, and advancement from the dark, dirty, and painful years of the past. An agenda determined to rid the world of several billion people, eliminate most of the world’s food supply, remove all electrical generating plants, stop all building, and drive the world back to the dark ages. And we are actually supporting this agenda with our hearts, our money, and our votes?

Calculating The Earth’s Temperature

2009-10-29T15:39:00.000-07:00

To calculate the earth’s temperature at any given moment in time is virtually impossible. Just consider the challenge. The earth’s temperature is constantly changing, it is never static; half the earth is in the sun, half in the dark, and the rotation of the earth causes that split to be forever moving.

Then there is the atmosphere itself. The atmosphere is the most fluid part of the planet, by far. The air is always moving, the jet stream is moving north and south while blowing west to east, constantly changing, from hour to hour. Clouds form and disappear, humidity rises and falls, winds pick up or go calm, hurricanes form, cold fronts move, warm fronts move, and barometric pressure also changes from moment to moment.

And then there are elements like volcanoes which spew millions of tons of dirt and ash into the atmosphere, almost overnight. This infusion of material into the atmosphere causes global temperatures to drop, almost immediately, for summers to disappear, crops to fail, and other consequences. Plus the influence of known temperature influences factors like the sun, and sunspots, and the ever changing closeness of the earth to the sun.

All of these factors, and more, affect the global temperature, and all of them are in constant flux. Then we consider the problem of measuring the temperature of the surface of the earth’s oceans. There are no permanent monitoring stations on the surface of the oceans; most oceanic weather and temperature reports come from ships, which are not stationary. Satellites are able to provide accurate, though some dispute this, temperature readings, but not over the entire globe at every given moment.

So what is the real temperature? For environmentalists to claim global temperatures are rising is more than a stretch. They are making this claim based, not on real, recorded temperatures, but on computer models, all of which have been shown to be entirely faulty and without merit. And if real data does show a temperature rise, so what? We know temperatures rise and fall, weather cycles, it is ever changing, so how can anyone possibly claim to know the global temperature?

And, of course, the presumption is that rising global temperatures are bad, which is also highly debatable. Rising temperatures mean more food production, more forest production, less starvation, more rain; and less severe, cold weather.

NASA’s website reports: “For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58 F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.” Interpretation? We really have no idea what the global mean is–but we will continue to pretend that we do. NASA goes on, “Don't get too excited about calculating Earth's precise mean temperature since radiative balance has yet to measured .” Interpretation? There are parts of the earth’s temperature variants that we haven’t begun to understand, let a lone calculate.

NASA continues, “The bottom line is that we do not know what the planet's current temperature is, although satellite-mounted instruments and Argo autonomous floats are giving us a better picture than we had before. We do not know what the planet's temperature was 100 years ago with any meaningful precision. We have no way of telling whether Earth will be warmer or cooler at the beginning of Solar Cycle 25 (SC24 is just sputtering to a start now and it is reasonable to guess Earth will be slightly warmer in the midst of the roughly 11 year cycle, although there is no guarantee).”

Pretending to know the earth’s temperature does not change the fact it is unknowable. But so-called scientists cannot be deterred by this embarrassment; they will still claim to know the temperature of the earth, even if they have to make it up–which is what they do. Computer models to the rescue...and continue to claim to know the earth’s temperature; and it will be what they say it is because they are the experts, and they know. We mere mortals are just expected to follow along, stay in line, and believe the all-knowing environmentalists who put forth this tripe..

Debunking CO2 Myths

2009-10-28T15:11:00.000-07:00

The eccentricity of the earth, or the distance between the earth and sun, varies over thousands of years in it’s travel through the Milky Way. But there is a one to one correlation between that distance, and temperature on the earth. The closer the earth is to the sun, the warmer the temperatures on the earth, the further away earth is, the colder the temperatures. This cycle, called the Milankovitch Cycle, is a 100,000 year cycle. At the bottom of each 100,000 year cycle, the earth experiences an ice age, at the other extreme of that cycle, the glaciers are gone, and the earth is at its warmest. Guess what end of that cycle the earth is currently in? Yup, the closest, and the warmest, and the earth will soon be cooling (probably already begun).

It is true that when temperatures rise, CO2 also rises. This is a result of several factors, more growth, more forestation, longer growing seasons, more kelp in the oceans, etc. But a well published chart shows this correlation has existed for at least the last 500 thousand years, and every cycle but the last occurred before man even knew what carbon fuels were.

This is the same graph that Al Gore showed all those elementary kids in making his case that when CO2 increases, global temperatures increase. He was lying, it works the other way around, and Al Gore knew it. Using Gore’s logic, the rising CO2 levels caused the earth to move closer to the sun. Not likely.

Here’s another view of CO2. CO2 makes up about 300 ppm of the earth’s atmosphere, that means that for every 1,000,000 parts of everything else in the atmosphere, 300 of those parts are CO2. So do your own tests. Let’s say you have a 1,000,000 gallon pool of water, maintained at 90 degrees; and of that 1 million gallons, 300 gallons of it is 95 degree Gatorade. Do you think the temperature of the pool of water will drop by removing the Gatorade? Not hardly, the quantity of warmer Gatorade is insignificant.

The climate change crowd are wont to blame global warming, as minuscule as it may be (and completely disputed by others), on man and his use of carbon fuels, etc. Man is the guilty party here, else why political action to stop whatever it is man is guilty of, so action must be taken to reverse the trend.

Water is also a greenhouse gas, in fact, H2O and CO2 have almost identical greenhouse properties, yet environmentalists want only to focus on CO2, why not H2O? There is roughly 100 times more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2. In my example of the pool of water, why would you try to affect the temperature of the pool by addressing the 300 gallons of Gatorade, and not the 1 million gallons of water? It makes no sense.

Weather is a function of temperature and pressure. The atmosphere responds to temperature and pressure, and it doesn’t care what’s in that atmosphere, H2O, CO2, or any other gas. When temperature increases, water vapor in the atmosphere increases, when pressure decreases, the water falls out in the form of rain, snow, hail, or dew. The atmosphere is a self-regulating marvel, it will not be over-heated, or under-cooled. Nearly all of the worthless computer models predict rising global temperatures as a result of an anticipated rise in CO2 levels, but none of these take into consideration real weather factors such as this. More total energy leaves the earth's surface in evaporated water than through thermal radiation. If the earth does start to warm, more moisture is sucked into the atmosphere, and when it rains or snows, more heat is radiated upward. When this water turns to rain up in the sky, that energy is released as radiation in the frequency of water vapor. So there is a huge source of radiation far above the surface of the earth that will skew the H2O readings at the top of the atmosphere and mislead many to assume that CO2 is far more effective in absorbing radiation than is water.

And since CO2 only adds the weight of the carbon in it’s molecule (the oxygen molecule is already there), the real addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is even less than environmentalists would have us believe. Global warming disciples like to talk about “feedback” from the CO2 in the atmosphere, but numerous experiments have shown that CO2 provides no more feedback than does H2O. And though there is variability across the earth, (deserts, mountains, etc), 70% of the earth is water and is the overpowering force on weather.

If someone with more education than you gives you a 500 page study, full of calculus and scientific terms you don't understand, that concludes a battleship can be lifted out of the water with a single strand of sewing thread, what would you do? Would you accept it as fact because the other person is "smarter" or apply your own education and your own common sense and state there must be an error somewhere in those 500 pages of calculations.

Thanks to http://www.globalwarmingtested.com/ for the foregoing data.

The Weather And The Environment

2009-10-26T08:17:00.000-07:00

Truth is hard to come by in any discipline, and when it comes to weather, it is particularly difficult to come by. But pearls of truth do exist, real, recorded observations are true; meticulously researched and appropriately peer-reviewed research can establish clear patterns, and dependable data. Weather is fickle and challenges even the very best, the most highly educated, and those with the longest experience.

Weather forecasting is a hazardous business, and largely futile and frustrating because the weather often will not cooperate with the forecasts. With all our technology, satellites, weather balloons, multiple reporting stations, computers, and the internet, weather forecasters still get blind sided by the weather: a cold front inexplicably stalls, local temperatures spike up or down while locales surrounding this area do not, micro bursts strike an area without warning and almost always without a prediction from the local weather forecasters. So when someone claims to predict what the weather will be 20, 40, or 100 years in the future, pardon me if I don’t believe it.

Truth becomes even more difficult when major contributors to what we know, engage in a well orchestrated effort to deceive, to skew the data, to publish only one side of the issue, or publish without peer review, and often without research. And worse, these same contributors go to great lengths to silence their detractors. Al Gore’s infamous “the debate is over,” declaration should be published in every textbook and printed on every editorial page of every newspaper in the world, showing the idiocy of such a closed minded statement. Gore only wished the debate was over, in truth, it was only beginning. If he can stifle the debate, then he wins the argument, if not, then the truth will come out and he will look rather foolish in the end.

The environmental cartel engages in every controlling, deceptive, and manipulative effort imaginable, in an attempt to limit what people know about the environment, and in this case, global warming. For example environmentalists really, really want global warming to be a really, really bad thing. They are more than “religious” about stopping growth, development, logging, mining, ATV trails, hunting, farming, driving, dam building, power plant building, and just about any other modern activity. It is their belief that the earth, all of it, should be left in its pristine state, undisturbed, and unused by man in any way. Just how they propose to do this with 6 billion people living on it they don’t say, but the inference is that most of those people need to go away, and only a few of the environmentally pure should remain to enjoy and protect the undisturbed planet.

In 1996 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, published it’s now famous report. The report was “approved” on November 30, 1995. But the only significant line in the 586 page report, a last minute change, made after midnight, with most of the delegates gone from the room, and without the knowledge of most of those who contributed to the report, stated “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” But no evidence of this wild claim was contained in the report, no studies cited, and no names attached to the statement. It was an editorial opinion slipped into a supposedly scientific document by the environmental authors.

The former head of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, said of the IPCC report, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to the IPCC report.” That is because there was no peer review of this outrageous conclusion.

Ironically, 1996 was the coldest year in a decade, but environmentalists are never deterred by contradicting data, their zeal is religious, and we are expected to simply accept their conclusions on faith. Sadly, the environmental movement has succeeded in controlling what goes into virtually every textbook in America, and have legions of true believers in the media who are more than willing to publish their deceptive conclusions.

CO2 levels increase in the fall and winter months, then decrease in the Spring and Summer months. Global warming alarmists want to use only the Fall and Winter numbers (increasing figures), and ignore the Spring and Summer declining figures, thus skewing the truth.

“There is no evidence that climate variability or hazardous events (floods, tornadoes, heat waves, frost, and even volcanoes) would be more frequent as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.” (Wittwer)

We are witnessing the greatest, orchestrated effort to deceive in modern history. The science is not there, the data is not there, and the debate is all one sided–the way environmentalist must have it in order to win their political battles. On a level playing field, with open debate, and a search for truth, environmentalism would look ridiculously stupid, and they can’t have that.

“The jet stream, which powers winter storms and which is forecast to become weaker with global warming, is getting stronger.” (Patrick Michaels, Professor of Envrionmental Sciences, University of Virginia.)

“Hurricanes are becoming weaker and the severe ones are less frequent.” (Michaels)

“The vast share of the planet’s small warming is in the coldest places in the dead of winter. The fact is there is no change at all in the area of the United States experiencing above normal temperatures, even as all climate models predict a dramatic rise.” (Michaels)

In virtually every case, environmental climate claims prove to be false. In nearly all supposed associations of global warming with dire and adverse world weather conditions, the truth proves otherwise. All climate models are worthless and should be dismissed out of hand. Polar bears can, and do, swim in Arctic waters for miles, they are never stranded on a floating piece of ice. The quantity of Arctic ice is actually increasing, the quantity of Antarctic ice is decreasing, so what? Weather cycles, it changes, then changes back, so what?

Is The Earth Really Warming?

2009-10-23T12:34:00.000-07:00

Despite Al Gore’s insulting declaration that “The debate is over,” the debate continues, and hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists continue to debate this issue and challenge the very heart of environmental issues. Here are some succinct observations from others on the issue.

1. There is no trend in the global satellite temperature record since 1979. (Robert Davis, Professor Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia)
2. Although models suggest a global warming (since 1880) of 2-5C, observable data cannot even show a .5C increase in temperature; and anything less than .5C simply show negative feedback. (Richard Siegmund Lindzen Ph.D. (b. February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT.)
3. The determination of the globally averaged temperature is virtually impossible (Lindzen)
4. None of the three standard observable calculations indicate any significant temperature change since the mid 1800s. (Lindzen)
5. The earth’s current average temperature (15 degrees C), is close to the “black body” temperature (the temperature without any greenhouse warming). (Lindzen)
6. For most of the planet, temperature records are very sparse, particularly before 1900. Large ocean basins, desert regions, and mountainous areas are limited in their long term historical temperature records. (Robert Balling, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology at Arizona State University)
7. Since 1751, Europe has warmed by only .5 degrees, and most of the warming occurred between 1890 and 1950, no warming has occurred in the most recent half century. (Balling)
8. Recorded data show some warming has occurred during the colder months of the year, and cooling has occurred during the warmer months of the year. Some scientists choose to ignore the cooling months and report only on the warming months. (Balling)
9. The period of rapid warming in Europe between 1890 and 1950 corresponds precisely to a time when solar sunspots rose most quickly. (Balling)
10. Europe has not experienced warming over the past 55 years. (Balling)
11. Europe represents less than two percent of the earth’s surface, nonetheless, climate models predict substantial warming in Europe. (Balling)
12. There is no evidence to support the prediction for substantial warming in the future. (Balling)
13. Predictive climate changes derived from computer simulations are far from accurate and may be deceptive. (Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Professor of Horticulture)
14. Global satellite readings of temperatures over the earth show there has been no warming. (Wittwer)

Lindzen, Balling, Davis and others observe that in the United States, weather stations in remote areas have been systematically removed and placed near urban areas. Urban areas are known to give higher temperatures than non-urban areas, so the data is now skewed. Further, these scientists report that satellite readings show no temperature increase over the past 30 years. This has caused environmentalists to challenge the use of satellite readings because they tend to dispute the claims of the global warming alarmists. Environmentalists claim that if the surface temperatures are rising, then the satellite readings should reflect that, but they don’t; calling into question the accuracy of surface readings.

Is Global Warming & Elevated CO2 A Good Thing?

2009-10-21T13:21:00.000-07:00

The blind assumption of environmentalists, many politicians, the media, and educators is, global warming is bad, it’s terrifying, and we must act to stop it or we will all die...ala Al Gore; and if they're right, they have the leverage to enact the draconian governmental actions they seek. But when science looks at the data and the reality of a warmer world, what do they find?

1. Over the past 80 years, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have risen from less than 300 ppm to over 360 ppm. During this span, food production has risen by five-fold. (Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Professor of Horticulture)
2. The rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are very favorable for the production of food. (Wittwer)
3. History reveals that for food production, warming is better than cooling. (Wittwer)
4. Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a decidedly beneficial effect on crop production, and an increase in water-use efficiency. An increase in CO2 actually causes a water conservancy benefit. (Wittwer)
5. Rising CO2 levels increase food production, forestry output, and biological productivity, with an improvement in water-use efficiency. (Wittwer)
6. A warming trend would increase the lengths of the growing seasons, encourage farmer adaptations, and favor the introduction of new technologies and cultural practices. (Wittwer)
7. There is a near one to one relationship between increased atmospheric CO2, and increased food production. (Wittwer)

“Cooler conditions are not beneficial to the residents in Europe. Cooler European temperatures have resulted in the worst of conditions, famines, plagues, starvation, suffering, and social unrest. It is painfully clear that the costs of cooling in Europe far outstrip the cost of regional warming. Global warming would have been more than welcomed by the inhabitants of post 1300 Europe.

From approximately A.D. 900 to 1300, temperatures in Europe were about 1 degree or more above the levels observed there today. This was known as the Little Climatic Optimum. The agricultural productivity and the agro-economy of Europe flourished.” (Robert Balling, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology at Arizona State University)

Wittwer declares the following: “There is currently a blind spot in the political and informational systems of the world. This is accompanied by a corruption of the underlying biological and physical sciences. It should be considered good fortune that we are living in a world of gradually increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.”

Real Data Dispute Global Warming Hype

2009-10-06T21:05:00.000-07:00

If global warming is really occurring, that is, a consistent upward trend world wide to warming temperatures, one would expect some of the prophetic declarations, by weather scientists, that are supposed to accompany warmer temperatures, to begin to show up. But they aren’t.

Let’s review the global warming predictions, those events we should be seeing when temperatures rise world wide:
1. Increased hurricane activity. It hasn’t happened. There is actually a decline in the number of hurricanes, and few of high velocity and destructive power. The 1950s was the peak decade of hurricane activity, mostly level since then, with no trend.
2. Higher, high temperatures world wide. No high temperature records have been set on any continent in the past thirty years. In the U.S. there have been no record high temps in any state in the past fifteen years, and the majority of the high temps all occurred before the 1950s.
3. Increased droughts, and of longer duration. This is a strange prediction since as temperatures rise, the air holds more water, and historically, produces more rainfall. Predictably, there is no increase in droughts worldwide.
4. Increased tornado activity. There were more tornadoes during the 1960s, than any other decade since records have been kept. Again, the trend simply is not there.

Here’s an overview of U.S. locations, their highest record temperatures, and the date. All locations represent the record high for that state:
1. Lake Havasu City, Arizona, 128 degrees, 1994
2. Greenland Ranch, CA (Death Valley), 134 degrees, 1913
3. Orofino, Idaho, 118 degrees, 1934
4. Keokuk, Iowa, 118 degrees, 1934
5. Plain Dealing, Louisiana, 114 degrees, 1936
6. New Bedford, Mass, 107 degrees, 1975
7. Moorhead, Minnesota, 114 degrees, 1936
8. Laughlin, Nevada, 125 degrees, 1994
9. Steele, North Dakota, 121 degrees, 1936
10. Pendleton, Oregon, 119 degrees, 1898
11. Camden, South Carolina, 111 degrees, 1954
12. Seymour, Texas, 120 degrees, 1936
13. Saint George, UT 117 degrees, 1985
14. Ice Harbor Dam, Washington, 118 degrees, 1961
15. Basin, Wyoming, 115 degrees, 1983

There are no record temperatures in the United States since 1994. This contradicts the accepted trend by so-called experts in the field. It is noteworthy that only computer models show an increased trend in high temperatures, the actual recorded data do not show any such trend. Indeed, the majority of extreme temperatures, wind, drought, rainfall, and other extreme weather phenomenon occurred during the 1930s, long before Al Gore and the anthropomorphic climate change brainwashing campaign began.

Even on a regional basis, the American Southwest, the area of the U.S. with the highest overall temperatures, reached it’s peak during 1994, but has returned to normal since then. Los Angeles’ worst heat wave occurred during August and September of 1955.

Weather can be sliced up in a variety of ways, and one must be aware of what is actually being reported. There is the overall record high for a given date, the highest average temperatures for the entire year, or for the summer period, or for a given “heat wave” period of the summer.

One must also be aware of what has happened in the United States over the past two or three decades, with regard to weather stations and weather reporting. It is well understood that temperatures in and around large metropolitan areas are higher than the surrounding agricultural or thinly populated areas. Nearly 70 percent of the earth is water, and there are no permanent weather stations on any of the oceans of the earth. During the past two to three decades monitoring stations in remote areas have been eliminated and new monitoring stations established inside large metropolitan areas. This “trick” skews the data. We are no longer comparing orange to oranges, and there is no valid comparison with data gathered prior to the removing of these remote stations. This practice has artificially warmed the earth; it has not really warmed, but the additional reporting from within the densely populated areas skews the data upward–thus the feigned panic by environmentalists that something must be done to reduce CO2 levels, and reverse the “trend” of world wide warming.

This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst, essentially faking the data so political decisions can be made in your (environmentalists) favor. So even though the world is not really warming, the “experts” have created the appearance that it has, and will make policy based on that falsehood.

Sunspots, Not CO2 is Cause of Climate Change

2009-09-23T21:07:00.000-07:00

Charlie Perry is a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, received a Ph.D in physics and astronomy at The University of Kansas. He also has spent time as a meteorologist.

Perry does not subscribe to the CO2 theory of global warming, rather, he believes firmly in the effect of sunspots as the source of global warming, and global cooling. A sunspot, Perry explains, is a location on the sun's surface that is cooler than the surrounding area. When there are more sunspots, the sun's surface becomes more dynamic and an opposite effect takes place, releasing more heat and energy when other parts of the sun become hotter.

A solar minimum is when the amount of spots on the sun is at a low and the reverse is true for a solar maximum. The complete solar cycle is about an 11-year process. Perry says the current solar minimum could continue into 2010.

"There's a fair chance it will be a cooler winter than last year," Perry said. There is a feeling from some in the scientific community the Earth may be entering into a grand minimum, which is an extended period with low numbers of sunspots that creates cooler temperatures.

Perry said there’s evidence the Earth's temperature may be slightly decreasing, but local weather patterns are much more affected by the jet stream than solar activity. However, Perry said snow in Buenos Aires and southern Africa, the best ski season in Australia and a cooler Arctic region are some of the evidence for a cooling period. So, Perry said, sunspots may have a far greater impact on weather than previously thought.

Perry is a proponent of the cosmic ray and clouds theory as opposed to the CO2 global warming theory to explain recent global warming trends. The cosmic ray and clouds theory was first put forth twenty years ago by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, and his been accepted by the scientific community until the less defensible CO2 theory emerged recently.

In a July 2007 issue of Discover magazine, Svensmark said the theory is simply that solar activity can alter the amount of clouds in the atmosphere, which affects the temperature of the Earth. More clouds mean a cooler Earth because more of the sun's heat is being reflected. Fewer clouds equal a warmer Earth.

Perry says data indicates global temperature fluctuations correlate to a statistically significant degree with the length of the sunspot cycle. Longer cycles are associated with cooler temperatures.

Johan Feddema, acting chair and professor of geography at KU, studies global warming. He is skeptical of any one phenomenon being the direct cause of global warming because there are so many climate variables that factor into global temperatures.

The CO2 theory is so thin, and contradicts most other theories regarding weather fluctuations, it's difficult to imagine how the CO2 theory gained any traction at all. Credit must go to Al Gore, and his now discredited "An Inconvenient Truth" film which environmentalists pushed blindly around the globe, much like Silent Spring was blindly accepted a generation ago.

Climate Change Scientists Backpeddaling...FAST

2009-09-10T10:31:00.000-07:00

The New Scientist, a staunch global warming advocate, is making a fast retreat from its previous "certainty" that global warming would continue unabated unless governments across the globe acted fast, and act radically. Numerous global warming models had shown with great certainty that the earth is in trouble, that all the ice is going to melt, oceans will rise, flooding all the world's seaports, and that we will all be driven to oblivion--mostly by Americans who use more fossil fuels than anyone else, and pump carbon into the atmosphere, creating this disastrous condition.

Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany, and one of the authors of the IPCC report that got everyone worked up about global warming, said, "Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter, we could be about to enter one or two decades during which temperatures cool." Hmmm. And one of his collegues said, "In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year," said Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office. Frankly, I'm not convinced anyone know anything about 2050 either.

Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be due to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades.

Well, this is absolute heresy, and this is all the "critics" and "naysayers" have been saying for the past few years, and been ridiculed for it by the eco/left. It's not like environmentalists are the only ones who know anything about the weather, or who have access to real data. But it gets better.

Eric Berger, the science editor for the Houston Chronicle writes, "For a long time now, science reporters have been confidently told the science is settled. That the planet is warming and humans are unquestionably the primary cause. We've been told to trust the computer models -- the models which show a markedly upward trend in temperatures as carbon dioxide concentrations increase. And I've trusted the scientists telling me this. When An Inconvenient Truth came out I believed the movie to be scientifically accurate.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the end of the world: hurricane activity on the global scale is near historical lows. And the Earth seems to have stopped warming.

This, despite the fact that some of the country's leading climate scientists say there is unequivocally a link between major hurricanes and climate change. And despite the fact that other leading climate scientists predicted 2009 or 2010 will go down as the warmest year in recorded history. Either prediction, if true, would be alarming. Yet both of these predictions seem to be off." Indeed, way off.

And Richard Black, the Environmental writer for the BBC writes, "The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted."

It's difficult not to look upon the "climate change" crowd with complete disdain, not to mention distrust, because it is this "natural climate cycles" issue that critics of global warming have been spouting about for years. Warming and cooling cycles are part of the earth's weather, they have been occurring forever, so far as we can tell, and for Al Gore and the environmental extremist crowd to ridicule the critics for bringing up this little "inconvenient truth," and then turning around and admitting it is really happening (duh), discredits the entire notion of global warming as a man caused event.

Apparently, (since I have no way of counting the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere), CO2 is on the increase, and has been for decades, if not millennia; yet, the uncooperative global weather has the gall to stop warming. And for a highly educated and respected scientist like Richard S. Lindzen, MIT, Cambridge, MA, to state matter of factly that CO2 is a minor atmospheric constituent, (.003%) and as such it’s variations are not important, must really stick in the craw of Al Gore and his cronies.

Because increasing numbers of "skeptics" are coming out of the closet, and because even the environmentalists themselves are having to admit their folley and falseness regarding global warming; this brings into question the entire premise, not to mention "facts," of global warming.

Cooling is Still Warming

2009-08-26T07:04:00.000-07:00

The logic of the GWBC (Global Warming Brainwashing Crowd) is astounding. According to data from the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala., the global high temperature in 1998 was 0.76 degrees Celsius (1.37 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average for the previous 20 years. So far this year, the high has been 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit), above the 20-year average, clearly cooler than before.

Indeed, real, recorded data show 1998 was the peak warm year, and every year since has been cooler than 1998. But that doesn't deter the folks at GWBC. David Easterling, chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. states, "These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability, It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."

So according to him, even when temperatures are cooling, they are still warming, and it doesn't matter if global temperatures cool for a couple of decades, we must remember, the earth is still warming. Ok, I guess I follow that. The point is, these guys are drinking their own cool aid, they're going to argue for global warming even when the earth is cooling.

John Cristy the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, declares, "Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous, and our policy makers need to know that . . . We really don't know much about what causes multi-year changes like this."

Of their own admission, there are climate variations they don't understand; but they go to great lengths to reassure us that the earth really is warming--even when it's cooling, or that variations are irrelevant because the earth really is warming--even when it's cooling.

The GWBC must maintain their position, and argue, no matter how irrationally, that global warming continues even when it's cooling, because the underlying theory to global warming is that it is caused by man, by fossil fuels, by industrialization, by driving SUVs, and that it has reached critical mass, that if we don't act immediately, there will be no changing it later.

So when the earth actually shows a cooling trend, these so-called scientists get apoplexy and start to hyperventilate because the underlying theory of man caused global warming is drawn into severe question--and they can't have that. The theory must stand even if the facts do not.

Global Warming, The New Intellectual Religion

2009-08-02T18:05:00.000-07:00

Ian Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University in Australia--and an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me. It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behavior is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behavior -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behavior. Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's history.

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.

There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.

So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come. [An edited account of an editorial in the Vancouver Sun, July 29, 2009]

But if Al Gore, President Obama, and a brainwashed Congress have their way, they attempt to legislate against global warming, and tax mankind back to the stone age, doing far more harm than good, as is typical of political intervention. And since this is truly a "religion," it must be accepted on faith (science certainly doesn't defend it very well), the "preachers" of this new religion must be revered and blindly followed, for to disagree is heresy. The punishment for heresy is exclusion from the church, denying publishing rights, refusal to be heard, and public scorn in the modern press.

Could we [they] be wrong about global warming?

2009-07-15T16:12:00.000-07:00

"Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong?" This from USA Today, one of the nation's fine, liberal newspapers. To admit this publicly is astounding. Scientists and weather experts by the hundreds have been screaming to be heard on this issue for years.

The article goes on, "In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," says oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

Theoretical, computer models should all be thrown away, far far away; they are utterly worthless. I'll put it more strongly, these models are being used to deceive us, to manipulate the data, to make it appear something is happening, that is not really happening. The other, ugly, side of this issue is that global warming is being driven by radical environmentalists who want complete power over our lives--and it has nothing to do with the environment, it has everything to do with power. The sooner we wake up to this fact, the safer we will be.

Deniers Popping Up Everywhere

2009-06-30T18:11:00.000-07:00

The list of scientists, experts, and governments now lining up as skeptics on global warming/climate change, is growing. The central issue is this: 1) man is causing global warming (primarily through the use of fossil fuels), 2) carbon is the cause of global warming . Actually, carbon accounts for only .003% of our atmosphere, carbon's contribution, if any, is minuscule and irrelevant. But true, born again environmentalists have for decades sought ways to limit growth, reduce the use of carbon based fuels, and get man to live more caveman like; you know, stop using air conditioning, build smaller homes, drive less, fly less, eat less...well, you get the idea.

But despite Al Gore's absurd declaration that "the debate is over," ever increasing numbers of scientists, experts and governments, not to mention the general public, are fighting back and showing how silly this whole global warming thing really is. And if you're a meteorologist, the notion that man can affect the weather is quite silly.

Here is a partial list of the new "deniers:"
1. In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming.
2. the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role.
3. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted.
4. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
5. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.
6. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief.
7. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history."
8. Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion."
9. A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
10. Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming.
11. Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence."

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

This information came from an editorial by KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL, in the Wall Street Journal.

Global Climate is NOT Changing

2009-06-23T10:40:00.000-07:00

The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it misrepresents his own research and that it wrongly concludes that climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters.

Dr. Roger Pielke, is a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, and he sends a blistering criticism of the IPCC, and the White House position on Climate Change.

Dr. Pielke contrasts these reports’ conclusions about trends in natural disasters with the some quite different findings last year by the federal Climate Change Science Program. Dr. Pielke summarizes some of its less sensational conclusions:

1. Over the long-term, U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.
2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.
3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation . . . there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile).
4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms
5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters.
6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.

Do those benign trends seem surprising to you? “Until the climate science community cleans up its act on this subject it will continue to give legitimate opportunities for opponents to criticize the climate science community.”

Record Low Highs in West

2009-06-11T08:13:00.000-07:00

The Western United States is experiencing an extended period of record low, high temperatures. Temperatures in Utah are ten degrees, or more, below normal, and have been for the past three weeks. It's the middle of June, and temperatures, statewide (all western states are experiencing similar, cooler temperatures) are unseasonably cool. Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Wyoming, Montana and other areas of the west are experiencing unusually cool temperatures for this time of year. This, in view of the fact that last year in Utah, the winter and spring experienced record cold.

The global warming alarmists are so far off the mark, it's difficult to give them any credibility at all. Temperatures, currently, are tracking at the 1980 level, not the record warm temperatures projected by popular computer models, which have proven to be totally worthless, and way, way off the mark.

No Record High Temps in 35 Years

2009-05-06T15:31:00.000-07:00

No continents have set a record high temperature since 1974. This is not even remotely consistent with claims that current temperatures are unusually high. Quite the contrary.
Below is the recorded data/continent/temp/year. From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/are-record-temperatures-abnormal/

Continent	Temperature	Year
Africa	136F	1922
North America	134F	1913
Asia	129F	1942
Australia	128F	1889
Europe	122F	1881
South America	120F	1905
Antarctica	59F	1974

All high temperature data, record warm temperatures, etc, come from computer models--not real recorded data. It is from these models that the president, congress, the EPA, and all the environmentalists get all riled up about. But these computer models always come out way high, they do not reflect reality. Essentially, computer models are worthless, except for propaganda purposes.

Global Warming Data and Facts

2009-03-24T13:40:00.000-07:00

From Richard S. Lindzen, MIT, Cambridge, MA

Richard Siegmund Lindzen Ph.D. (b. February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The following are some of his observations and conclusions:

1. CO2 has been increasing since the early 1800s, well before the industrial revolution
2. CO2 is a minor atmospheric constituent, (.003%) and as such it’s variations are not important.
3. Increased CO2 also stimulates the growth of vegetation
4. As far as we know, there is no direct adverse effect of CO2 on human beings.
5. Although models suggest a global warming (since 1880) of 2-5C, observable data cannot even show a .5C increase in temperature; and anything less than .5C simply show negative feedback.
6. [Global Temperatures] The determination of the globally averaged temperature is virtually impossible.
a. Temperatures vary widely even over short distances.
b. Two thirds of the earth’s surface is water, and we have no permanent monitoring stations over the earth’s oceans. Observations come from ships, which are rarely in the exact same spot when reporting, nor do they present a controlled reporting environment.
c. There is also “natural variability” from year to year, regardless of CO2 increases or decreases, so the cause of variability is subjective, or unknown entirely.
d. None of the three standard observable calculations indicate any significant temperature change since the mid 1800s. (Possibly a quarter of a degree)
e. On the basis of the records available, the best estimate for the global temperature change that has occurred over the industrial period, does not significantly vary from zero, suggesting that current models are exaggerating expected warming.
f. Data suggests it was warmer prior to 1880, than afterward.
g. The major sharp increase occurred prior to 1940, after which, temperatures dropped, causing experts to predict an ice age. In 1960, temperatures began a slight increase.
h. There is clearly variance in the record on all time scales.
i. The absence of any significant trend in the contiguous 48 states, leads to the suspicion that all the trends in the global record may be spurious.
j. Since 1978, satellite soundings over the 48 states correlate excellently with the land based thermometric record.
k. Computer models do not even accurately simulate present day regional variations, calling into question their global variations.
l. About the only thing the models agree on is that warming temperatures will be greatly exaggerated in polar regions. Observations show that the arctic is not warming, but cooling.
7. [Green House] Given the data alone, we would have little basis for alarm regarding the greenhouse effect. The alarm, instead, comes from theoretical considerations.
a. The earth’s current average temperature (15 degrees C), is close to the “black body” temperature (the temperature without any greenhouse warming).
b. All models showing a doubling of the CO2 level, both in the past, and at present, fail to reveal any significant green house effect. These models also predicted a warming effect, over the past 100 years, in the polar regions; however, the predictions are contradicted by the observed cooling in polar regions.
c. [Models]The remarkable thermodynamic characteristics of water, lead to its acting as nature’s thermostat. Yet, the major numerical models all give water a positive warming effect, showing that the effect of doubling CO2 to be much less than the models predict.
d. Water is a far more important green house gas than CO2.
e. Although the green house absorption is primarily important above 5km (from the surface of the earth), greenhouse models attribute it at all levels of the atmosphere. Ignoring the fact that convection and lower cloud formation significantly reduces the green house effect above 5km.
f. Global warming leads to drying of the upper atmosphere above 5 km (as opposed to moistening which occurs in most models) and leads to the elevation of the altitude at which convected heat is deposited, producing negative, rather than positive, green house effects.
g. Consistent with past data, models should predict a warming effect of only a few tenths of a degree.
h. The current state of our understanding of climate hardly justifies a consensus over the response of climate caused by the theoretical doubling of CO2.
8. If there is any single major impediment to understanding climate, it may very well be the lack of capable scientists.
9. It is difficult to imagine any practical action that will make much difference to the final outcome (of climate).
10. Large changes in CO2 emissions (20-40%) will, at most, reduce warming by a fraction of a degree.

Global Warming Belief fades...

2009-03-17T14:20:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON (AFP) — (USA Today) More Americans than at any time in the past decade believe that the seriousness of global warming is being exaggerated, a Gallup poll showed Thursday.

Forty-one percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they are doubtful that global warming is as serious as the mainstream media are reporting, putting public skepticism about the hot-button issue at the highest level recorded by Gallup.

Gallup's 2009 environment poll, which surveyed 1,012 adults by land- and mobile phone line between March 5 and 8, also showed that Americans ranked global warming last out of eight environmental issues that respondents were asked to give a score to based on their level of concern about the topic.

And a record high 16 percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they believe the effects of global warming "will never occur."

The poll results suggest "that the global warming message may have lost some footing with Americans," Gallup analyst Lydia Saad said.

"Americans generally believe global warming is real ... (but) most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue," she said.

Does President Obama, or Congress, know or even care that global warming is the biggest hoax of the century?

Cold is the big news

2008-12-18T09:06:00.000-08:00

Cold weather, record cold, record snows...in warm places, is more the news in the past two years than any "warming" news. Odd how Al Gore could be so wrong, and so many scientists, who practice the "global warming" religion could look so foolish.

Still, the bigger news is that government leaders, university professors, and corporate adherents to the "global warming" religion, continue to act as though the earth really is warming, which it's not, that CO2 continues to be the boogeyman of the climate, which it's not. This is truly frightening. If our actions are not based on facts, on science, on logic, reasoning and intelligence--then on what are they based? The religion of environmentalism, with Al Gore as it's prophet.

But this religion is crafty and a chameleon, it changes to keep itself alive. So now it's "climate change", so that no matter what the climate does, it's a problem for them to solve, a problem for the environmentalists and their cronies in the government to "deal with", taxing, making policy, and putting themselves forth as the "saviors" of the planet.

This planet is not dieing, man could not kill it if he wanted to. Life is not endangered, it is thriving. New species of life are being discovered every day. For every species that is "endangered" or found to be extinct; dozens of new species are discovered. Life cannot be stopped, it cannot be killed, it cannot be eliminated. Life is as eternal as matter, light, water and electricity--it cannot be created or destroyed.

Alternative Fuel Cars

2008-11-26T07:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.alternativefuelcentral.com/

There is No Evidence that Carbon Emissions Cause Global Warming

2008-09-11T18:46:00.000-07:00

A recent public "recanting" by a scientist in Australia is worth noting. Dr. David Evans worked for five years for the Australian Greenhouse Office helping to design a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol.

Dr. Evans makes four key points in his "recanting," and he writes that "(n)one of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them."

"The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it."
"There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None."
"The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980)."
"The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect."

Long Term Temperature Predictions

2008-08-17T18:33:00.000-07:00

The bottom line is that we do not know what the planet's current temperature is, although satellite-mounted instruments and Argo autonomous floats are giving us a better picture than we had before.

We do not know what the planet's temperature was 100 years ago with any meaningful precision.

We have no way of telling whether Earth will be warmer or cooler at the beginning of Solar Cycle 25 (SC24 is just sputtering to a start now and it is reasonable to guess Earth will be slightly warmer in the midst of the roughly 11 year cycle, although there is no guarantee).

And we're making policy on this kind of uncertainty?

Carbon Dioxide Not to Blame for Warming

2008-08-14T13:30:00.001-07:00

"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.

Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.

Record Cold in 2007

2008-08-14T13:27:00.000-07:00

In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.

University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

2008-08-14T11:56:00.000-07:00

In November 2007, the weather forecast for the western United States for the upcoming winter and spring was to be "warmer than normal, and drier than normal." In fact, the weather for the western United States was significantly colder than normal and much, much wetter than normal. In addition, the cold, wet spring weather lasted far longer than normal and ended only in mid-June 2008. How could the highly educated, and experienced experts in the field have been so wrong?

The weather "experts" got caught up in the politics of weather and the constant brainwashing about "global warming" and just knew the world would continue to heat up. Not only was the western United States colder and wetter, neither did the rest of the world warm either. In fact global temperatures have not risen since 1999.