Journalist David Lindorff has found something about global warming that he likes. Based on his interpretation of the effects of global warming, he figures that the parts of the country that are home to vast numbers of conservative voters will soon be underwater or rendered uninhabitable by the ravages of global warming. Fewer conservatives, he reckons, is a "silver lining" to the dark cloud of catastrophic climate change.
According to Lindorff's post Global Warming Will Save America from the Right...Eventually, we can expect Florida, parts of Texas, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina to be flooded out in less time than Lindorff expects his two cats to live. He also gloats over his expectations that the midwest farmlands will suffer droughts that will empty out the breadbasket of America and all those pesky conservative farmers. The suffering caused by food shortages doesn't seem to upset him, I guess that is balanced out by the depletion of the people he considers most dangerous - those who don't agree with him. He also finds joy in the idea that conservative retirees will probably no longer have Southwest "right-wing" retirement communities to flock to.
When these citizens are displaced by climate change and are forced to move into other areas, Lindorff suggests some type of organized effort and gerrymandering to make sure they never again wield any political power.
The vitriol and decidedly unconstitutional suggestions made by Lindorff reveal more about him, liberals and the global warming alarmists than a million articles written by a conservative or even a climate skeptic ever could. His frustration obviously stems from the fact that the numbers of those who aren't buying into the global warming alarmism are increasing, and Americans are not as ready to commit economic suicide as he would like.
Luckily, none of what David Lindorff is clapping his hands in glee over is actually going to happen. Unfortunately, it is his type of fringe eco-liberal kooks who are constantly keeping the doom scenarios on the front page of papers and promoting policies that if enacted, will succeed where global warming will not - the destruction of the world as we know it.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Journalist David Lindorff has found something about global warming that he likes. Based on his interpretation of the effects of global warming, he figures that the parts of the country that are home to vast numbers of conservative voters will soon be underwater or rendered uninhabitable by the ravages of global warming. Fewer conservatives, he reckons, is a "silver lining" to the dark cloud of catastrophic climate change.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
No, you're not likely to see that headline. The press thrives on disaster, so you will never hear that any changes, if happening, are slow to manifest and that the ultimate extinction of man is not nigh.
Over 400 scientists, many of whom are former or current members of the IPCC have disputed the claims about global warming from the Goracle and the IPCC just this year alone. Still, the press seizes anything that even hints of global warming and runs with it, it's a media frenzy. And it's not hard to find stories about global warming, everything is caused by global warming - rain, snow, heat, cold, drought, flood - you name it, global warming must be to blame. There have many stories in the press regarding the UN conference in Bali, but how many stories were run about the 100 concerned scientists who converged on Bali to urge the conference attendees to stop endangering the world's economies by enacting policies that won't do a thing to stop climate change but may cause economic collapse and a shift in the balance of power?
That's basically what it's all about - power and money.
The UN is proposing a global carbon tax that should net the UN $10-$40 billion dollars a year. Al Gore is chairman and part owner of a business that sells carbon offsets and has made another $100 million from being the global warming spokesman to the world. So who are the parties with monetary interests in global warming?
The press doesn't report that average global temperature has been falling for the past five years, they don't report that a peer-reviewed study of the computer models being used by the global warming alarmists found that they are faulty and have been shown to be inaccurate.
They don't report that at the heart of the global warming agenda is a "redistribution of wealth" as advocated by the "Friends of the Earth" who attended the conference in Bali. And yet they laugh at Czech President Vaclav Klaus when he compares the global warming agenda to communism.
The press prints pictures of polar bears standing on an ice floe riddled with more holes than swiss cheese along with a story about polar bears drowning due to the ice melting but don't tell you that the picture was taken 3 years ago during the summer and that polar bears can swim more than 100 miles.
And they wonder why so many have ceased to believe their global warming hype.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
We all knew this was going to happen, didn't we? PETA has sent a letter to all the Republican and Democratic candidates that explains how we can solve the global warming problem. They contend that eating meat is much more harmful to the environment than all the planes, ships and SUVs in the world combined and therefore propose that a tax on meat-eating must be levied.
Here's how they explain it:
On behalf of PETA and our more than 1.8 million members and supporters, I'm writing to inform you of a proposal that would help stop global warming, reduce Americans' health-care costs, and bring much-needed revenue to the federal government: a 10-cent-per-pound excise (or "sin") tax on every pound of chicken, turkey, pig, fish, and cow flesh sold in grocery stores and restaurants.
That's right, a sin tax. Now, most states have no sales tax on food and a handful that do have taxes give some sort of credit or deduction for low-income families. Only seven states that tax food don't have any form of credit for low-income households. When Tennessee began to explore eliminating the sales tax on food earlier this year, one legislator recommended they replace it with a tax on pornography. They tax food but not pornography?
PETA states in its letter that meat consumption is the number one cause of global warming. They also contend that meat-eating is the cause of major illness and disease and therefore, we would be doing the American citizens a public service by discouraging them from indulging.
Frankly, I am a little sick and tired of the government regulating and taxing things for my own good. I am even more sick and tired of PETA. I wish they would stick to protesting Santa hats on Beluga whales in Japan and leave my hamburger alone.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The big news of the week has been the report of the WWF to the UN conference in Bali on dwindling penguin populations. There has been widespread coverage of this doomsday prediction stating that "the effects of climate change and overfishing" have caused the penguin population in Antarctica to seriously decline. You just know that if they could put the word "overfishing" in tiny little letters that they would. But more importantly, what climate change? The only climate change in Antarctica is that it is getting colder.
A lot is made of one habitat, the Western Peninsula. What isn't mentioned is that it is the only place in Antarctica that has experienced any warming or melting of sea ice. The truth of the matter is that Antarctic temperatures have been getting colder for at least the last 20 years and Antarctic ice is increasing.
Antarctica is huge, the fifth largest of the seven continents. The western peninsula is a very small bit of the whole continent, most of which has seen increased ice and falling temperatures which is inconsistent with the computer models of what should be happening if global warming were actually taking place at five times the rate of the rest of the world as is claimed by the global warming scaremongers.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Although diary farmers and steak lovers alike have taken a hit from the global warming crowd over the greenhouse effect of bovine flatulence, scientists are waxing enthusiastic over kangaroo digestive emissions. According to them, kangaroos have a special bacteria in their digestive system that keeps their farts devoid of methane, making them more environmentally friendly.
Scientists in Queensland say they can isolate this bacteria so that it can be introduced into feed for sheep and cattle so that their digestive systems will get a tune-up, utilize the food they eat 10 to 15 % more efficiently and not produce the flatulence that contributes to global warming.
There was no indication that scientists worry that the bacteria in kangaroo digestive systems would cause any trouble for the cows and sheep who have never before encountered this bacteria. It might be worth investigating before there is a plague of "jumping cow disease" or something similar.
Since kangaroos are in plenitful supply, some scientists recommend that people just eat more kangaroo and forget about lamb and beef entirely.
Monday, December 3, 2007
The cry of the global warming alarmists has always been that it is our selfish, excessively consuming ways that are destroying the planet. Now, along with our gas-guzzling vehicles, our failure to recycle toilet paper and our addiction to plastic, our society is harming the environment by having too many divorces. That's right, divorce causes global warming.
This story in The Times singles out the statistics on the US, one of twelve countries studied. The researchers from Michigan State University found that divorced households used 73 billion more kilowatt hours of electricity in 2005 - electricity that could have been saved if the marriage had been saved.
A divorce means two households instead of one and double the housing needs and energy usage. But it isn't just divorced people who are lussing up more natural resources. The study says that those who selfishly remain single in one-person households are the biggest consumers of energy, land and household goods. Singles consume 38% more products (they have more disposable income to buy them), 42% more packaging (all those frozen TV dinners), 55% more electricity (for the microwave, presumably) and 61% more gas (they can afford it) per capita.
So, in addition to increased taxes on fuel and energy, maybe the government should consider a divorce tax or a stiffer tax penalty for being single. Perhaps they should re-consider the law banning polygamy - after all, the more people in a household the better and monogamy means only one household per every two adults. Polygamy could incorporate many families into one household, thus conserving precious resources.
There were no statistics on how much energy was used in the completion of this study nor on the environmental effect of the hot air created as a result.
Friday, November 30, 2007
What do Chantal, Erin, Gabrielle, Ingrid, and Melissa all have in common with Jerry? No this isn't a dating compatibility test. All these names belong to storms that some say didn't deserve names, that is, they weren't really tropical storms.
The above storms may have reached winds of 39mph, but the central pressure, which is another measure of the intensity of a storm, would have classified them as just depressions and not tropical storms.
There appears to be a rush to name storms these days, according to Neil Frank, a former director of the National Hurricane Center. Interviewed for this story in the Houston Chronicle, Frank said "This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six."
Chantal is the cluster of clouds off the U.S. east coast in the top right side of this satellite image
There has already been an effort underway to prove that there weren't more storms that we didn't record due to the lack of technology, now there is the current effort to make sure we record more storms than ever. This will allow the global warming alarmists to quote the false statistics as proof that global warming is increasing the number of tropical storms and hurricanes.
But we can see where this is going. To argue that we didn't miss storms before the advent of satellite technology so that the historical numbers are not underestimated, and then to argue that the use of said technology is exactly what is allowing us to name more storms than ever before is the kind of logic-bending and science-skewing that goes on all the time in the name of global warming proof.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The AP is again reporting on global warming. This time they are citing Jakarta's Environment Minister, Rachmat Witoelar's declaration that global warming is at least partially to blame for the current flooding situation in that city.
If I were the environment minister, I would seek to blame global warming myself. The city is plagued with garbage that clogs sewage systems as well as unbridled construction and development of areas that previously served as water catchments. Add to this the fact that 40% of Jakarta is below sea level and that the government did not repair a broken sea wall and you start to get the picture. Rapid deforestation of areas for more development have destroyed natural breakwaters between the sea and the land. What a relief for the environment minister to have global warming as a popular scapegoat, an excuse that will not be questioned, especially as the UN climate change conference which will be held in Indonesia next week will find it extraordinarily convenient to their purpose.
Jakarta has always experienced annual flooding during the time of the wet season, which runs October to February. Last February, flooding from torrential rain caused rivers to overflow and 60% of Jakarta was underwater. There is rarely a year without flooding. Did the AP article mention that it is raining in Jakarta right now? No.
This photo is not of Jakarta today, it's from last February. Flooding like this has happened many times in the past and gets worse as the drainage problems are not dealt with. Flooding was as bad in February 2002, and in 1996 and so on. However, last February, global warming wasn't to blame as "Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar said the main reason for the flooding of Jakarta was the elimination of water catchment areas following the construction of large numbers of buildings."
The truth is that sea levels haven't risen. Land mismanagement and the failure of the government to stem deforestation, rampant construction of buildings in water catchment areas and devise a system for proper waste disposal has led to a crisis in the drainage problem. For Jakarta, flooding is inevitable, with or without global warming.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
One of the predicted consequences of global warming is that hurricanes and tropical storms will become more frequent, more intense and more deadly. In fact, they contend that this is happening now. But hurricane experts like Chris Landsea explain that storms go in cycles and that poor data on the number of tropical storms prior to the development of technology to track them, leads many to underestimate the number of these storms. To add to the global warming alarmist's misery, is the pitiful number of hurricanes over the last two years.
So, what to do about the missing data that's needed to support the contention that global warming is causing increased hurricane activity? Why supply it, of course. Hence, this report out of Penn State that claims that the estimates of tropical storms prior to the advent of airplanes and radar and satellites have not been undercounted. They have a computer model that tells them so.
The computer model tells them that they haven't underestimated the number of storms prior to 1944, and supports the theory that storm activity has increased due to warming oceans. This becomes less surprising when you realize that Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center, and associate professor of meteorology at Penn State, is one of the three researchers who released the report in the current issue of Geophysical Letters.
Mann, as you probably know, is the inventor of the famed "hockey stick" graph. His graph featured prominently in global warming propaganda until it was proved to be inaccurate. In order to show a global average temperature that was consistent until it suddenly shot up due to human industrial activity (thus forming the hockey stick shape) it was found that the computer model dismissed any temperature data that didn't fit the hockey stick shape. Gone were the "little ice age" and the medieval warming period - deleted from history.
So, is it surprising that Mann has now stated conclusively, based on a computer model utilizing storm data for the last sixty years (years that were after the increase in carbon emissions due to human activity) that he is quite sure of how many storms occurred before that time?
The problem, of course, is that no one can be sure of storms there are no evidence of. Prior to modern tracking methods, the only storms that were recorded were those that made landfall or were recorded by ships. One of the reasons that the Great Hurricane of 1938 caused so much devastation and took so many lives is that ships had put into shore, having had warnings of gale winds. No one knew the storm had intensified as it had, no one knew which direction it was tracking or that it was on a collision course with Long Island and the New England coastline. They didn't know until it slammed into the coast, washing away houses, buildings and 682 people.
On the other hand, had the storm tracked out to sea and eventually dissipated over cold North Atlantic waters, no one would have ever known that it was a raging, intense hurricane capable of such destruction. It would have been undercounted.
We are asked, nevertheless, to have faith once again in computer models, for computer models is pretty much all that is left to support the anthropogenic global warming theory. As hurricane forecasts disappoint with scarcer storms, *global average temperatures start to fall and Arctic ice melts are blamed on ocean current oscillations that are naturally occurring, it gets harder to shore up the theory that time will eventually prove wrong. I hope we can keep them from destroying the world before that happens.
*US satellite figures show temperatures have fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level
Sunday, November 25, 2007
If you were going to a UN conference to discuss climate change, could you pick a more beautiful spot than Bali? According to the UNFCCC the reason that Bali was chosen is because it has already experienced extreme weather events that signal the impending disasters that global warming is bringing. We are assuming they mean the high winds of a couple of weeks ago, due to a passing storm system. To my knowledge, there has been no evidence that the winds were caused by global warming. So there must be another reason for their choice.
Could it be the 31°C year-round temperature, beautiful beaches, local art and culture that draws them to this island paradise? No, for surely they would not suggest that serious-minded global warming-conscious leaders occasion the huge carbon emissions from jets simply for an island getaway. Which leads to another problem. Bali's airport doesn't have enough room for all those dignitaries' jet planes. According to this report at , the VIP delegations won't be able to park their jets at Bali's airport.
(11/3/2007) Tempo Interaktif reports that Angkasa Pura - the management of Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport are concerned that the large number of additional private charter flights expected in Bali during the UN Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 3-15, 2007, will exceed the carrying capacity of apron areas. To meet the added demand for aircraft storage officials are allocating "parking space" at other airports in Indonesia.
The operational manager for Bali's Airport, Azjar Effendi, says his 3 parking areas can only accommodate 15 planes, which means that some of the jets used by VIP delegations will only be allowed to disembark and embark their planes in Bali with parking provided at airports in Surabaya, Lombok, Jakarta and Makassar.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
As usual, while bemoaning the state of the environment and quaking in their political shoes should they not be perceived as doing enough about global warming, politicians like Barbara Boxer are closing their eyes to the substantial financial burden that legislation to adopt carbon mandates without enacting polices to increase domestic energy supplies will cause hard-working Americans.
At today's Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, several Senators called for more time to review and analyze the economic impacts of the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the chair of EPW, rejected such calls saying no more time or analysis was needed to mark up the bill (S.2191).Nov 15, 2007
Yet analysis of the Leiberman-Warner bill by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that energy costs for both consumers and employers will zoom. The hardest hit will be the working class, the elderly and the poor.
Here's an example:
*Higher natural gas use means natural gas prices are 41 to 53 percent higher in 2030 than business as usual projections.
*Electricity prices in 2030 are between 34 to 40 percent higher than business as usual projections.
in testimony before the EPW Committee last week, Dr. Anne Smith of Charles River Associates International said the Lieberman bill would cause welfare losses of $4 to $7 trillion between 2010 and 2050.
Al Gore's 20-room mansion uses more energy in one month than the average American does in one year. Be assured that he is among the few who will be able to continue this level of consumption if legislation like this passes. The rest of us won't be able to afford the little we manage to pay for now.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Department of Energy plans to spend $67 million dollars to pump carbon dioxide into rock formations in Utah as a way to contain the greenhouse gas and keep out of the atmosphere.
CO2 will be compressed and then injected 5000 feet below the surface into muddy layers of rock. Geologists know that these rock formations can hold C02; until 1979 they pumped CO2 out of a large underground pool of it to make dry ice and soda drinks.
Whether these measures will have any effect on the climate remains to be seen. What they will do is create a new industry. They will also raise the value of property in these areas. It's interesting that while the global warming alarmists are lambasting large corporations who, in their opinion, have become pollution-creating, climate-destroying creatures of greed, that there is plenty of money to be made from the scare and guilt-mongering of global warming theory. Everyone from the guy selling carbon offsets to neutralize your cat's carbon pawprints to new industries that promise to bury CO2 where it will never hurt you is bound to make a buck.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Gore's assertion that Katrina was fueled by global warming has been generally disputed and rejected by nearly all hurricane experts (as well as a high court justice in the UK). On top of that, the past two hurricane seasons have fallen far short of even average and have definitely not lived up to the predictions that the out of control temperature increases of global warming would increase hurricane frequency. Thus, it becomes harder and harder for global warming alarmists to find current evidence to support their dire pronouncements.
However, with a new twist on it, Katrina can still be a herald call to the global warming camp. A new study of NASA data shows that forests in the gulf coast were damaged by Katrina, thus diminishing their carbon-absorption as well as releasing the carbon dioxide they held into the atmosphere and ...(drum roll please) Ta da! contributing to global warming.
So if we can't blame the hurricane on global warming, we can blame global warming on the hurricane. It's all good.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
A NASA press release yesterday reveals that university researchers and a team from NASA have detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation that may be responsible for many of the changes in the Arctic currently being blamed on global warming. The reversal in ocean circulation is triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales.
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle. "While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic -- the Arctic Ocean -- circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," he added.
The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.
Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. "The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum," he said. "It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again."
Of course, the news being particularly damaging to the global warming propaganda machine, it comes with the warning that some computer models indicate that global warming might make these natural Arctic Oscillations stronger in the future.
Because you're human it's important at times to have feel-good techniques to relieve your mind occasionally from the burden of being responsible for the impending destruction of our planet. When the UN's top climate official equates inaction on global warming to criminal irresponsibility, just driving your hybrid vehicle or filling the recycling bin isn't enough. It becomes even harder during this season of ultimate consumerism to assuage your feelings of culpability for the global warming that will soon engulf the planet and incinerate (or drown) the hopes for its future.
MBNA Canada Bank has come up with a solution that will fulfill your need for consumption of goods as well as the need to reduce your carbon footprint. Their new "green" credit card is the only environmentally sound way to do your Christmas shopping. For every $100 spent, they will buy 50 cents worth of carbon offsets. They do caution that they can't guarantee this will help the environment - since they don't know what consumers will be purchasing with the card, they can't say that their offsets will be sufficient.
Currently, this card is available only in Canada but it's sure to catch on. The Eco-Logique is sure to be a certifiable green hit with the most satisfying rewards system ever offered on a credit card.
Whether it actually helps the environment or has any impact on global warming is completely irrelevant. The card will make people "think" that they are helping the environment, and that's more important.
Monday, November 12, 2007
The causes of global warming are varied enough to lay a guilty charge at the feet of every man, woman and child on the planet, which makes it the greatest political opportunity of all time in terms of social engineering.
The newest culprit in global warming is obesity.. Yes, that's right. Fat people cause global warming.
Because the APHA (American Public Health Association) intends to link obesity with global warming, soon it won't just be people driving gas guzzling vehicles or corporations spewing pollutants into the air who will be under fire. Soon, just carrying extra weight will cause the fiery finger of global warming to point at you.
Already we have been informed that cars carrying fat people use more gasoline. More fossil fuel emissions, more global warming. Maybe one day cars will weigh the occupant with a cleverly installed scale built into the seat and reject those whose weight exceeds a preset limit.
But at least one leading environmentalist calculates that walking is more injurious to the atmosphere than driving. Exercise requires fuel, and for a human that relates to the amount of calories consumed. Chris Goodall, author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life maintains that food production is so energy-intensive that it creates more carbon emissions to provide those calories than it does to simply get in the car and drive.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, sounds off about the Global Warming scam at ICECAP. In the article Coleman says that because of "natural cycles and drifts in climate" that the next twenty years could as easily see a cooling trend as a warming trend.
Here's an excerpt:
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming...
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.
Read the full article at: ICECAP.us
Monday, November 5, 2007
If you haven't read John Christy's piece in the Wall Street Journal, you should. Christy explains that as a contributor to the IPCC report, he is also part winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. But Christy explains that he is just one of many scientists who don't see global warming as the catastrophic threat to life on our planet that Al Gore claims it is. The full article is open to subscribers only, but I did note they are offering two free weekks with if you sign up for a subscription. You can read an excerpt here.
It reminds us that there are other scientists, whose expertise and knowledge was sought out by the IPCC but whose bottom-line opinion on athropogenic global warming doesn't match that of the official opinion expressed in the Summary for Policymakers (which as we know, was edited and compiled mostly by bureaucrats and not scientists). Chris Landsea, prominent expert on hurricanes and North Atlantic hurricanes particularly, resigned from the IPCC (read his open letter to the IPCC here) when he realized that the official statements regarding increased hurricane activity being a result of global warming was not supported by the data. Had he not resigned, he could have had his own 0.0001 piece of the Nobel Prize.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The question used to be "Can Johnny read?" when society's focus was on educating children in the basics. Nowadays, it might be "Does Johnny recycle?". Probably not Johnny, though. In this politically correct environment, there are no male children. When was the last time you read a parenting article where the child was not referred to as "she"? More importantly, she would probably be named something more environmentally-conscious like "Ocean" or "Sky".
When your children get to school, they will be taught about the disappearing rainforest and thoroughly warned that the Earth probably won't be here long enough for them to grow up. But there's no reason to wait until they are school age, you can start
scaring educating your children about global warming and living the carbon neutral life while they are yet toddlers.
How about throwing them a low carbon impact birthday party as this Essential Baby article suggests? Just because you had toys as a kid is no reason to pass on your profligate ways to your children. Kids will grow up with a healthy conscience, knowing that you didn't allow them to have those environmentally-damaging, colorful, plastic toys that every other kid on the block and in their pre-school has. No kid wants to be responsible for the destruction of the planet his parents live on.
How about the parents who made their daughter a play stove out of an old beer carton? Is encouraging the consumption of alcoholic beverages preferable to allowing them to play with plastic toys? I am sure it's alright though, surely they teach her to recycle the bottles. Of course, if they wanted to be totally environmentally responsible, they wouldn't have children at all and stop littering the planet with more pesky humans that will lead to the earth's ultimate demise.
I agree with the idea that kids are better off with toys that do less and require more imagination. Encouraging children to supply the animation and creativity in playtime is greatly to be encouraged. But choosing toys that foster creativity should be for the child's development and not to satisfy and soothe the conscience of adult parents who have already consumed their share of childhood fun.
Monday, October 29, 2007
After incorrectly identifying the destructive power of Hurricane Katrina as a direct result of global warming, what Al Gore really needed was some bang-up hurricane seasons to back his claims and whip up public frenzy. Unfortunately for Al, that hasn't happened. No hurricane-strength storm made landfall in the US in 2006 and it appears that storm activity is once again going to fall far short of predictions for 2007.
Hurricane season is officially over on November 30, a date which soon approaches. September 2007 had the lowest tropical storm activity since 1977 and both September 2006 and October 2006 brought the lowest storm activity in 30 years. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity.
The forecast for both years was for a fairly active season and as nature refused to adhere to the forecast and failed to whip up storms that would fulfill the projections, there was lots of backtracking and excuses for the dull season. Everything from wind shear to El Nino and the lack of dust in the atmosphere was blamed for the relative quiet. Only Chris Landsea, in an article in National Geographic explained that hurricane seasons naturally fluctuate and that storms as intense as Katrina have happened many times over in history but we didn't have the technology to track or measure them as we do today.
In the commentary, he and colleagues write that firm conclusions on the link between global warming and hurricane intensity must wait until the historical hurricane record has been reanalyzed with modern methods.
But even then, Landsea said, he expects the increase in intensity to be small.
"Theoretical and numerical models do suggest [hurricanes] will become more intense due to global warming, but by a fairly tiny fraction, about 2 percent for every degree Fahrenheit [0.5 degree Celsius]."
Moreover, much of the reason for the vast destruction of Katrina was the demographics, so many people living in a coastal zone prone to hurricanes and the fact that New Orleans lies below sea level.
"Scores of scientists and engineers had warned of the threat to New Orleans long before climate change was seriously considered, and a Katrina-like storm or worse was (and is) inevitable even in a stable climate."
Anyway, the 2007 season is another bust for Al Gore. Of course, the season isn't quite over with yet, and maybe nature will deign to hand Al a storm whose tales of destruction he can feed to a warming-hungry media and public. But as of today, it seems unlikely.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
There are few dire scenarios that haven't been linked to global warming but now and again, a clever cat-astrophe emerges. According to Monica Guzman's blog at Seattle Pi, animal shelters are filling up more quickly with stray cats, and it's possible that global warming is to blame.
The post includes this post from Dan Jordan, director of the Seattle Animal Shelter.
"A decade ago or two decades ago, when there were cold spells in the winter, a certain part of the cat population died off. But if we're not having those real cold spells, a lot more animals stay alive through the breeding season," Jordan said. He hasn't seen any data to back that up, but it's "certainly been discussed" among directors of other shelters, he said.
Did he really just say what I thought he said? Global warming is bad because not enough stray cats die on the streets due to the cold? Interesting perspective from a man who is dedicated to saving the lives of stray animals.
Of course, the post does admit that this year's number of stray cats brought in isn't any higher than last year. But let's not let facts get in the way of a really clever story.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The Drudge Report has unearthed a memo telling CNN reporters not to "irresponsibly" blame the California fires on global warming.
According to notes from CNN's Monday news meeting network president Jon Klein tells employees to use the California fire tragedy to "push" their "Planet in Peril" special, but warns reporters not to "irresponsibly link" the fires to "Global Warming."
Despite these instructions, CNN's report included predictions of more fires like the current California fire, saying that we could be in for a "century of fires, just like what we're seeing now" as a result of global warming.
Consider these facts from Reuters:
California's parched climate, often desiccated brush, and Santa Ana winds create the perfect recipe for wildfires..."Fire Season" officially begins in early summer and lasts through October, though officials say that as the state suffers through cyclical drought conditions, they consider the season to be almost year-round in Southern California.
Earlier today, CBS News announced that an arson investigation was being launched into the origin of the Santiago Canyon Fire, which they believe was deliberately set. A $50,000 reward is being offered for information leading to the arsonist. The Santiago Fire has destroyed homes and buildings causing the evacuation of 3000 people.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Associated Press article is accompanied by an image of a buddist monk carefully traversing a thin strip of wooden planking atop a dam, surrounded by the sea as the author proclaims that Bangkok is being submerged by rising seas. Soon, this could be the world, the story warns.
Bangkok is one of 13 of the world's largest 20 cities at risk of being swamped as sea levels rise in coming decades, according to warnings at the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change held here.
"This is what the future will look like in many places around the world," says Lisa Schipper, an American researcher on global warming, while visiting the temple. "Here is a living study in environmental change."
Environmental change, not climate change. The environment is changing. Bangkok is sinking. Some areas of Bangkok are already below sea level and its highest point is only 3.5 to 5 feet above sea level. The city sits on clay, clay that is being compacted by the haphazard water management of the bustling city and the fact that the natural drainage canals were filled in during the 1950s to make roads. Bangkok is sinking at a rate of 4 inches per year.
The article does admit that the sea level rise in Bangkok is about .1 inches per year, the same as the global average. As we have already discussed in a previous article, this rise is not above the normal expected increase. Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age, and there has not been any acceleration in that rate since the 1950s.
The sea level rise that they say will finally do Bangkok in is the "projected" rise of the IPCC, not any sea level rise that has been observed in reality. Regardless of sea level, Bangkok is sinking, its future depends on land management and finding new ways of draining the floods from monsoons and combatting the compacting the unstable clay of its foundation.
This fact doesn't stop oceanographer Anond Snidvongs from stating "There is no one single solution to respond to climate change", when it is clearly a change in the environment and not the climate that is leading Bangkok to disaster.
This AP article, and many like it appear often. Warnings of vast floods as a result of global warming, all with headlines and content designed to whip up fear and frenzy over something that has not happened and in fact, there is no evidence to assume will happen. Projections based solely on unproven computer models and speculation.
To read the response of two dozen scientists to the AP scare story “Rising Seas Likely to Flood U.S. History” go to this link.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The University of Montana is very excited about the special guest speaker they will host on Monday. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies will give a lecture entitled "The Threat to the Planet: How Can We Avoid Dangerous Human-Made Climate Change?"" at UM.
An interesting topic for Hansen who has changed his mind over the years about what drives climate and what the future threat to the planet might be. In 1971, it was a computer model designed by Hansen that led to a Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age.
The article entitled "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming" predicted that a new ice age "could be as little as 50 or 60 years" away. The article was found by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress and reported on by John McCalin in the Washington Times.
The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.
Investor's Business Daily also reported on the 1971 report, referring to the original article in the Post.
The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Hansen, who seems to have changed his mind about which impending doom is likely, having switched from global cooling due to aerosols to global warming caused by carbon dioxide, is often touted as a "whistleblower" and a critic of the Bush administration's policies on climate change. But what is not so well known is that James Hansen received $720,000 from George Soros' Open Society Institute in 2006. The goal of OSI is for transparency in all things, except their own dealings, which is why we didn't know of this funding until they released their 2006 report. Hansen is the man who accused global warming skeptics of being "court jesters" in the pay of big oil companies.
It was Hansen's climate data, later debunked by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit,that proclaimed 1998 the hottest year on record. After spotting the error in the way the data was compiled, McIntyre alerted GISS. When the error was corrected, it turned out the hottest year on record was 1934, a year that was quite a bit before the much-mentioned big increase in carbon emissions that took place after 1940.
UM professor Steve Running, a member of the U.N. climate change panel that recently received the Nobel Prize, says of Hansen:
"This guy's the oracle of climate science. He's like the Allen Greenspan of economics."
But be wary, University of Montana. As James Hansen tells you about this global warming threat to the planet, remember that not so long ago he believed in a quite opposite threat, global cooling. He has published erroneous data in support of his new theory and taken money from a politically motivated group to publicly espouse it. He may not be the man you think he is.
Source Investor's Business Daily
Source Investor's Business Daily
Source The American Spectator
Friday, October 19, 2007
Al Gore won't debate but that hasn't stopped the folks at DemandDebate.com. This film presents Al Gore's assertions about carbon dioxide and global warming in a clip from his film and then presents the other side through film clips of dissenting scientists.
Up for debate here is the entire premise for anthropogenic global warming, the carbon dioxide/temperature relationship.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Global warming, we are told, will affect the lives of every human being and species of animal, plant and marine life on earth. But according to Daniel Botkin in an article in the Wall Street Journal, there isn't much evidence to support the theory that global warming will be destructive. In fact, the evidence seems to point to the contrary.
He points out that over the last 2.5 million years the earth has undergone several dramatic climate changes and yet very few species have become extinct, the exception being large mammals from the last ice age, such as sabre-toothed tigers and wooly mammoths.
He also disagrees that global warming will increase the incidence of epidemics of some diseases, stating that global warming has not widened the distribution of diseases such as malaria and encephalitis and it is not likely to do so in future. He points to research done at Oxford University that supports this statement.
Botkin is president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Global warming theory has put vegetarians in a new position, an altar from which they can preach that not only is eating meat morally wrong, but also destructive to the environment. No longer do they have to try to convince people that slaughtering cattle for beef is inhumane, they are newly armed by global warming alarmist calls to halt livestock breeding and meat production. They can adopt the claims that cow flatulence and burping release large amounts of methane into the air, that they are destroying the ozone layer and adding to the greenhouse gases that will ultimately cause further global warming.
But say we all gave up meat-eating tomorrow? What of the millions of cows now on ranches and farms? We can't expect the farmer to continue to feed these massive grazing machines for no return.
Why don't we set them free? Well, aside from the obvious logistical problem of over a billion cattle set loose to roam the earth, can they sustain themselves after thousands of years of domestication?
Apparently, they can. Once loosed, cows, like nearly every animal, revert to a life-in-the-wild mentality. For example, they have been trying to hunt down a herd of feral cows in the Santa Monica mountains for several years. Once freed, these dull-witted creatures reach far down into their genetic memories and tap in to find a way to survive and the wits to elude would-be captors.
However, that presents another problem. Feral cows are hazardous to the environment. They eat nearly everything in sight and have been known to "walk down" trees to get to the tender top by bending it to the ground. They will eat shrubs, grasses and any low-growing vegetation available. In fact, feral cows are listed on the Invasive Species Specialist Group's website which says in part: "Unless well contained by adequate fences, cattle wander into native vegetation wherever suitable food is available. If unchecked this can result in the formation of feral herds roaming wild through extensive areas of country." Wow, go cows, didn't think you had it in you.
Feral cattle can severely modify native vegetation by browsing, crushing and trampling (Aston 1912; Wodzicki 1950). In native forests they invariably lay bare the forest floor and eliminate nearly all young trees, shrubs and ferns, until only a few unpalatable or browse-resistant species remain. In subalpine environments feral cattle open up clearings by breaking down and browsing low-canopied vegetation.
So, not even considering the economic impact of depriving those who raise cattle of their livelihood and even allowing for the number of cattle we might allow dairy farmers for those who will drink milk and eat cheese even if they won't eat the meat, we still would have to deal with millions of animals that cannot be turned loose, even if there were land available for them to live on. I have searched through dozens of vegetarian websites and have not found their answer to this problem.
Do we have a global barbecue as a final meat feast and allow humans to gorge themselves on steaks and hamburgers until the last cow is eliminated?
What I want to know is, if we can't eat them and we can't let them loose, what do the vegetarians propose we do with them?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Dr. William Gray, prominent meteorologist and hurricane expert (he was the first to fly into a hurricane to gather data) whose hurricane forecasts are taken into account by meteorologists, insurance companies and governmental agencies, has expressed dismay over the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC. Dr. Gray is one of many well-qualified scientists who are skeptical of the theory that Gore's movie and campaign highlight and which led to his award.
Perhaps skeptical is a bit of an understatement. Bill Gray has expressed his opinion that An Inconvenient Truth is based on faulty science. He calls it ridiculous and says "We're brainwashing our children".
Dr. Gray says statistics prove that there is no increased hurricane activity due to global warming and in fact, the real case is just the opposite, with a decline in the number of hurricanes in the latter half of the century. He believes the current warm cycle will relent and there will be a cooling cycle within the next several years. He realizes that his views make him an outsider, a branded denier, but at 78, with nearly 50 years in the field, Bill Gray remains a man of his convictions.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The headline from an Associated Press story that ran September 22, 200, proclaims "Rising Seas Likely to Flood U.S. History". But is it true?
Sea level rise is one of the most talked about catastrophic results of global warming predicted by the IPCC, Al Gore and a multitude of other global warming alarmists. Trying to find real information on sea level rises is nearly impossible as the first ten pages of results usually employ words like "projected" and "predicted" in the title of the articles.
The flooding of the world and the loss of islands like the Maldives are just that - predictions and projections. They are based on computer models whose accuracy cannot be tested and will not be known by anyone who is alive today and if they are wrong, certainly cannot be charged to those who made them, as they will also be long gone.
But what I wanted was actual data, real measurements of sea level rise - when it started, how much it has increased, etc. What I found was really rather surprising. It was not surprising that the current rise in sea level began after the last ice age. Global warming theorists tell us that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, but surprise - in reality, there is no proof of this.
Professor Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University, who has spent years doing observational studies, concludes that there is no sea level rise in the Maldives, islands that global warming theorists say will eventually be flooded over. He states that contrary to what is generally believed, sea levels dropped in the 1970s and have remained stable. He further states that the IPCC has relied too heavily on computer models and based on observational data (facts) he believes that a sea level rise of 5cm is likely by the year 2100. In other words, no discernible rise will take place.
Simon Holgate of Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK studied nine, continuous, century-long sea level records from around the globe. His research revealed that sea level rises were actually higher in the first part of the 20th century, before 1950 than they were in the second half. His research paper was published January 2007 in Geophysical Research Letters. He concludes that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual.
So when you get down to actual data, there isn't any acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, the seas have been rising for thousands of years at an expected rate. It is only computer models and projections that say otherwise, and without scientific evidence and solid data to back them up, these predictions are no more than computerized fortune-telling.
The AP story highlighted US historical sites that would soon be underwater and disappear forever. The article is based on these computer model predictions and not founded in real observational data. Why run a story like this if the data proves otherwise?
We know why.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Our favorite and most outspoken global warming skeptic, Czech President Vaclav Klaus has expressed surprise at the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore.
"The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct," the statement said. "It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace."
Klaus has been vocal about the current global warming activist agenda, expressing his belief that if pursued, it will "fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity". Klaus has previously compared environmentalism to communism.
"This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection -- similarly to the old Marxists -- wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world."
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A High Court judge in the UK, Mr Justice Barton, has issued his full ruling on Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, stating that the claims in the film are "exaggerated" and schools must warn children of the inaccuracies before showing it to them. All schoolchildren in th UK are shown the film in secondary school. A truck driver, Stewart Dimmock, took the case to court saying his children were being politically brainwashed.
The judge singled out nine specific scientific inaccuracies in the film which he said had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration":
Error: Gore asserted that a sea level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice sheets in the near future.
Judge: This is distinctly alarmist and will only occur after and over millenia.
Error: Low-lying Pacific atolls have already been evacuated.
Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
Error: The Gulf Stream that warms up the Atlantic would shut down.
Judge: Said it was "very unlikely" it would shut down in future, though it might slow down
Error: Graphs showing a rise in C02 and the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years showed "an exact fit"
Judge: There is a connection but "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"
Error: The disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was due to global warming,
Judge: It cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
Error: The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming
Judge: Insufficient to establish the exact cause (see our prior article on Lake Chad)
Error: Hurricane Katrina blamed on global warming
Judge: Insufficient evidence to show that
Error: Polar bears were being found that had drowned from exhaustion, having had to swim long distances to find the ice
Judge: Only four polar bears have recently been found drowned and that was due to a storm
Error: Coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming.
Judge: Separating the impact of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing and pollution, was difficult.
The latest entry in the SimCity series of games will incorporate global warming theory into its playing strategy. According to reviews, SimCity Societies focuses more on individual residents of the simulated cities and less on strategic planning to make the game more mainstream and accessible to more players. However, there is some planning you should consider in city building.
The game offers you a choice of power and energy sources for your city, but beware if you choose traditional cheap energy sources that emit high levels of carbon dioxide. You'll save money but your city will come under the cloud of climate change.
A city that spews carbon dioxide will be in ultimate danger of droughts, heatwaves and other natural disasters. Adding to the fun will be little warning facts about global warming to help guide you in making long-term decisions about your society.
What appears on the surface to be a more widely appealing, easier version of the SimCity series is, in fact, a piece of propaganda software, spreading the gospel of global warming to gamers (perhaps they fear they don't watch enough TV to be truly indoctrinated yet).
"With SimCity Societies, we have the opportunity not only to demonstrate some of the causes and effects of global warming, but also to educate players how seemingly small choices can have a big global impact," said Steve Seabolt, VP of Global Brand Development for The Sims Label at EA. "BP was one of the first major energy companies to publicly acknowledge the need to reduce carbon emissions and begin taking precautionary measures. As such, they are the perfect partner to help educate people on this important social issue in SimCity Societies."
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
While environmental activists worry about the polar bear, universally seen as the symbol of the Arctic (although polar bears show no sign of becoming extinct) - they are less concerned about Australia's wildlife symbol, the Kangaroo. In a newly released report, Greenpeace is advising red meat eaters that more kangaroos should be slaughtered and eaten, to save the world from global warming.
Cows and sheep burp and fart too much. The environmentalists worry about the methane produced by these herds of animals as well as carbon produced during the processing and shipping of these meats.
Greenpeace also recommends that people switch to chicken and fish and away from red meat entirely.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Over at Enter Stage Right, there's an article by Dennis T. Avery on his testimony before the Senate environment committee regarding the effects of global warming on the Chesapeake Bay (there aren't any). His report on what he tried to tell the senators and what they actually heard is enlightening as it highlights the unwillingness of "man-made warming enthusiasts" to hear anything that isn't on the official global warming theory talking points.
Of particular interest are the facts regarding the waters of the Chesapeake bay, which the alarmists fear will swamp the Chesapeake islands, but in fact, seem to be receding.
Go have a read, it's worth it.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Bjorn Lomborg has a novel idea on how to save the polar bear and it has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions. Lomborg suggests we stop people from shooting them.
He points out the fact that the polar bear population has actually increased since the 1960's, a statement that is borne out by a Canadian government survey. He states that is due, in part, to greater regulation on polar bear hunting and suggests that if we save the 49 bears that are shot each year that it would have a more significant impact on the polar bear population than any attempt at curbing greenhouse gases. Lomborg further states that there is no indication that the polar bear is in any danger of becoming extinct.
Lomborg is the Danish professor who won fame as the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and his new book, Cool It: the Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, has recently been published.
Lomborg also takes issue with the reports that global warming will cause deaths from heatwaves, pointing out that there will be tenfold fewer deaths from the cold than there will be from the heat. He states that the death tallies that the UN's World Health Organization's lays at the doorstep of global warming are due in large part to malnutrition and diseases such as malaria and diarrhea in developing countries.
Lomborg says his new book is an attempt to have a "cool and rational conversation about climate change."
Friday, October 5, 2007
Here's the video of CNN meteorologist clapping his hands at the news that a UK judge had ruled in favor of a father who protested having Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth shown to his children in school. The judge ruled that children must be warned that the film may contain factual inaccuracies before viewing the film.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Rob Marciano, meteorologist on CNN, clapped his hands and exulted, "Finally". He was referring to the news that a UK judge has ruled that children watching Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth must be told beforehand that the film contains factual inaccuracies.
As we reported yesterday, a concerned parent brought the case to court as his school-aged children were being shown the film that he considers political indocrination. In February, the government decided to require the film be shown in all UK secondary schools.
The CNN meteorologist said that there definitely are inaccuracies in Gore's film, commenting particularly on the claim that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming.
The story was reported by Paul Derkin at Business and Media Institute.org.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Many parents are distressed at the one-sided and slanted education their children are being given regarding the issue of global warming. Schools often present only one side of the climate debate, ignoring the scientific dissent and inconsistencies in the theory. One parent in the UK decided to do something about it.
Stewart Dimmock whose children are ages 11 and 14 was distressed by what he calls the indoctrination of his children at school in regards to global warming theory. The children were shown Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and given Climate Change Resource Packs. Mr. Dimmock claims the film "is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'".
Mr. Dimmock went to the courts with his complaints. A judge in the high court, Mr. Justice Burton, is due to rule on the case next week but has already declared that he agrees that the film promotes "partisan political views". His decision falls short of banning the film but will include the stipulation that schools must warn children that it represents only one side of the scientific debate and that they should consider other views.
In February 2007 the government decided to send Gore's film to all secondary schools along with two short films produced by the Department For Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding global warming and the carbon cycle.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
China is giving itself a chunk of carbon credits for having prevented the births of 300 million people since the institution of its one-child policy. Nevermind that the policy had nothing to do with global warming or climate change whatsoever.
However, the concept that human population must be controlled and curbed is a key issue for some environmentalists and a fervent campaign to eliminate the human race for others. Take Les Knight, founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. He wants to phase out the human race in order to save the Earth. Knight's website proclaims that humans "have evolved into a virtual exotic invader of Earth's biosphere as a whole, incompatible with undomesticated life forms."
In the current greening of the population control movement, fewer people=reduced carbon emissions and therefore a chance to redeem the earth from the global warming sentence that the human existence has imposed on it. It's a wonder that China isn't claiming credits for disallowing reincarnation without a government permit.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Children are increasingly being exposed to reports of the coming catastrophic climate change and the terrors of global warming. The emotional toll this is taking on young children is growing and parents may not know how to alleviate those fears or articulate the reasons that those fears are unfounded. It's a hard job to be the lone voice that tells them that everything they are studying in school about climate change is based on a falsehood.
To make matters worse, Inconvenient Truth co-producer Laurie David and cohort Cambria Gordon have written <>The Down to Earth Guide to Global Warming which uses a carbon dioxide/temperature graph to show children how man is effecting climate change but with the lines mislabeled, making the assertions of the book incorrect when it states that temperature follows global warming. Scholastic Books, who have published The Down To Earth Guide To Global Warming has had to admit that the graph is erroneous and will correct it, but the text saying that the graph proves anthropogenic global warming theory will be unchanged.
Children across the country regularly receive Scholastic book order forms in school. If they get an order form offering this book, it would serve as a great opportunity to talk to your children about global warming and the problems with the current theories.
For back-up, download and print the report from the Science and Public Policy Institute website that explains the errors in the book. But don't expect to be popular with teachers and the school. When my daughter explained to her teacher that she didn't believe what they were being taught about global warming, her teacher reacted in disbelief and behaved as if my daugher were committing a treasonous act.
From the SPPI report by Robert Ferguson:
What really makes the David-Gordon graph “amazing” is that it’s egregiously counterfactual. Worse, in order to contrive a visual representation for their claim that CO2 controls temperature change, the authors present unsuspecting children with an altered temperature and CO2 graph that reverses the relationship found in the scientific literature.
The manipulation is critical because David’s central premise posits that CO2 drives temperature, yet the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous that CO2 changes have historically followed temperature changes.
Case in point, on page 103 of their book, David cites the work of Siegenthaler et al. (2005). However, Siegenthaler et al. clearly state the opposite, that CO2 lags “with respect to the Antarctic temperature over glacial terminations V to VII are 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively, which are consistent with earlier observations during the last four glacial cycles.”
“Parents and teachers should be concerned enough to demand that the publisher, Scholastic Books, recall, pulp and correct the error before mores copies reach innocent children.,” said Ferguson.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Proposal: Install giant pipes in the ocean to stir up deep water and bring it to the surface, causing new blooms of algae to grow and suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to fight global warming.
That's the theory proposed by James Lovelock, author of the Gaia hypothesis and British scientist Chris Rapley. The Gaia theory states that all living organisms and their inorganic surroundings have evolved together as one living system and that this system regulates the Earth's climate, ocean salinity and atmospheric content so that everything is as Baby Bear announced, "just right". Because Lovelock believes the climate is self-regulating, he believes that this period of global warming will eventually pass and the earth will cure itself, but he warns that the last time this happened, it took thousands of years. His believes his proposal for pipes in the ocean will help the Earth heal itself.
Lovelock admits that his proposal could have serious repercussions for marine life by increasing the ocean's salinity. The proposal itself makes little sense coming from a man who believes that the earth is self-regulating and will rebound from global warming. Surely, any attempt to induce the system will result in chaos? Lovelock states that he doesn't believe that any efforts by man will reverse global warming, and it is too late for the cutting of carbon emissions to have any effect.
"I think we are almost certainly past any point of no return, and that global warming is irreversible, almost regardless of what we do in the conventional things, like following the Kyoto Protocol," he said.
Lovelock and Professor Chris Rapley, Director of the British Antarctic Survey made their proposal by way of a letter to the journal Nature..
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Prof. Lindzen noted that, according to the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers of the Scientific Assessment, we are already 86% of the way to the radiative greenhouse forcing associated with the doubling of CO2 and we have seen a change only of between 0.6 and 0.8°C in the past 100 years, which would be too small even if all of it were due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. (emphasis added)
Lindzen pointed out that the records of the Hadley Centre, show that there has been no warming trend in global average temperature for the past ten years.
"Attributing global warming to the rise in greenhouse gases has been reduced to an issue of religious faith modulated by policy relevance. Unfortunately, in my experience when politics enters the picture, science takes a back seat - even among scientists." Prof. Richard Lindzen
Read the press release
Read the full report