Global Warming Trends

Global Warming Boosts Sex Trade

2009-05-28T07:52:00.002-04:00

Al Gore and company, meeting at the World Business Summit in Denmark to hammer out strategy for corporations to live up to their climate obligations may not have solved the world economic crisis, but they did give a boost to the local economy in Copenhagen.

According to local escort agencies and prostitutes, business was booming.

It's good to know that with the future of the world's economy and the survival of the planet weighing heavily on their minds, these guys were still able to kick back and relax. However, reports indicate CO2 levels in the city increased significantly due to heavy breathing.

Politken.dk

Al Gore's Preaches from a Global Pulpit

2009-05-26T13:31:00.004-04:00

Al Gore is preaching again, pushing the need for government regulation to stop the runaway global warming. But ahead of the world leaders meeting, he's meeting with the leaders of business, trying to get a jump on the coming changes. There's a couple of things wrong with his campaign, not the least of which is the utter lack of any global warming in the last several years. Today they are calling it "climate change" to avoid those who will point out that obvious fact, but the failure of their predictions to come true still hasn't changed their propaganda.

The predictions were that although global warming had slowed down a bit it was going to return like a house afire in 2009. That hasn't happened and so they pushed it ahead another ten years. That still doesn't look very likely so they are now calling for future dates that many of us will never see (and that Al Gore will never see, either, so he's pretty safe).

The truth is that Al Gore sounds like a televangelist trying to round up donations from believers.

Saying there remained time to act to avoid the direst consequences of global warming, Gore called for rapid action to stem the problem.

"We have to do it this year, not next year. Mother Nature does not do bailouts," the former vice president said.

While he preaches carbon and energy austerity, like the televangelist who is bilking his flock, Gore's house uses 20 times the energy annually of the average American. He jets around the world and travels in limos collecting his huge speaking fees while his company that sells carbon offsets makes him richer every time he gains a convert.

Gore hopes to get business executives of large corporations to push for a global agreement on environmental issues.

Our Deteriorating Media - Newspeak

2009-05-03T08:10:00.001-04:00

As more people become wary of the claims of the global warming alarmists, the term "global warming" itself is being phased out. We have already seen this in the quiet change to the more popular "climate change", used universally without reference to the fact that the change is for the cooler, not the warmer. But now, a marketing firm that specializes in environmental concerns, ecoAmerica, is urging that journalists and proponents adopt a new baffle phrase, "our deteriorating atmosphere".

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Read the entire article at the New York Times: Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus

As the environmental groups wage their peculiar war on modern society, they find that the focus of the American people soon shifts from what they perceive as questionable science and media hype to the real problems that they face daily.

The war is won with words, as the scare tactics begin to alienate people, they will lure them back with soft, kind words that promise a bright future. They are still the same policies that they screamed at us yesterday. Those policies will still have the same devastating effects. The climate change, warmer or cooler, is still beyond our control. But with a little doublespeak and help from the media, they still believe they can control us.

41% of Americans Believe Global Warming Risks Exaggerated

2009-03-12T10:38:00.002-04:00

Poor Al Gore. He stumps and preaches and spreads the word, but fewer and fewer Americans are coming up for the global warming altar call. In fact, a full 41% of Americans now believe that the media representations of the dangers of global warming are exaggerated.

This is good news, of course, for it indicates a growing sense of distrust amongst Americans for the pre-digested and pre-loaded opinion pieces that are presented as news on major media outlets. Considering all points of view and making up your own mind is once again becoming the norm.

For instance, in an article the other day on the AP, they hyped the certainty of impending global warming disaster. Accompanying the piece was a photograph of an iceberg floating in a sparkling blue ocean. The iceberg, of course had a large hole in the center, indicating its fragility. The caption however, reveals that the photo was taken in August of 2007. Imagine, an Arctic iceberg melting in summer.

It's not really about what they say, and definitely not about the headlines. Often, it's what they don't say. Another article stated that 2005 - 2007 were the hottest years on record according to "some measurements". They didn't tell you that those measurements were later proved to be faulty and that the hottest year on record was actually 1934.

So here's to the growing number of thinking Americans, to those who are tired of the hype and misinformation and prefer to make up their own minds. Without them, we wouldn't have an America today, and without them, we won't have one in the future.

Yo Yo Global Warming/Cooling

2009-03-09T15:24:00.003-04:00

Have you noticed that scientists who do not believe that global warming is man-made, all say pretty much the same thing? Sun activity, natural cycles and a coming cooling trend are the major themes, although each may vary a bit in their predictions.

On the other hand, global warming alarmists all tell a different story, and their stories and predictions keep changing. At first they said the below-normal cold temperatures and above-normal snowfalls that have plagued North America and Europe were directly caused by global warming. Then they decided that perhaps there was a La Nina event causing this cooling. Then they decided that global warming was going to return in 2009. Since it continued to get colder, they changed all that to global warming making a comeback after a decade of cold.

Despite the fact that a group of Japanese scientists have reversed their opinions and decided that global warming is not caused by man, the fear-mongers and power-mad global warming alarmists continue to warn us of the impending doom. The only problem is, they disagree on when that doom is going to be.

For instance, in this article in Discovery News we are told that some scientists, such as Kyle Swenson, are completely baffled by this cooling trend happening smack-dab in the middle of runaway global warming.

"This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one.".... Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years.

Thirty years of cooling is still considered to be a sign of global warming? How gullible do they think we are?

Pretty gullible, I would say, if you then read this article published only a day or two after the Discovery article.

There is a 50-50 chance the Earth's temperature will rise to a level of disaster over the next century, according to research from British climate scientists.

Even with heavy cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 3 percent a year from 2015, the chance of preventing the temperature rise from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2050 is no more than half.

The article is entitled "Only 50-50 Chance of Saving Planet From Warming Catastrophe, Scientists Say". Well, I have news for them. In the long term, the chances for saving the planet are exactly nil. Our sun has already lived a large part of its limited existence. The long term being in the area of a few billion years or so, but the point is the same. Some things are going to happen naturally. The temperatures will go up, they will go down, weather will go in cycles, just as the earth's climate has changed and is changing throughout its 5 billion year history. At some point, when our sun collapses into a white dwarf and the Earth is a victim of its expansion and increasing heat, then the notion that we could save the planet by changing out our light bulbs will be seen for the ludicrous self-importance that modern man tends to display. Or it would, if any humans still existed.

The Gore Effect Hits Washington - Again

2009-03-03T11:25:00.003-05:00

This happens so often, it's becoming a tradition. Call together a bunch of people to descend on Washington to discuss, lecture on, protest or otherwise promote the theory of man-made global warming and you can bet they will be snowed out.

This last protest, aimed at shutting down Washington by demanding the closing of the Capitol Power Plant, which heats a number of government buildings, was particularly ironic. Many who had planned to join the protest couldn't get there because their flights were canceled due to the storm. Washington was pretty much shut down anyway - not due to the protest, but due to a March 1st blizzard that blanketed the entire east coast with snow and ice.

Even Nancy Pelosi couldn't make it due to a cancelled flight. Imagine, the Speaker of the House missing a chance to demand that government buildings be closed...

This latest debacle in the "climate change" agenda (remember, it's not global warming anymore, since the Earth hasn't warmed since 2001) is just another example of the famed "Gore Effect". The Gore Effect can be defined as:

The phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming.

Maybe it's not just irony, perhaps it's something more. Perhaps it's just Mother Nature having her best laugh at the people who claim to control her. I know I giggled.

Trees are Mountain Climbing in Global Warming Panic

2008-06-29T19:54:00.003-04:00

Plants and trees in the western Alps and northern Pyrenees are running scared from Global Warming according to this article in the The Guardian. With the headline Plants and trees head for the hills to escape global warming, they lead us to understand that trees are climbing mountains in an effort to avoid the rising temperatures.

A long discussion ensues regarding the migration of plant species moving to ever higher altitudes in response to global warming.

But the clincher is in the last two paragraphs:

Not all of the plants included in the study shifted to higher altitudes. Of those studied, 53, or nearly one third moved down mountainsides to lower land, the surveys revealed.

"Our results show that species displayed different rates of movement, behaving in a seemingly idiosyncratic way in response to climate change," Lenoir said.

So the truth of it is that over time, plant species become more and less plentiful at different altitudes. If at least one-third moved to a lower altitude, then they can't be affected by the increase of warmth at lower altitudes.

That of course is why it is then referred to as climate change, and to explain the data so it fits properly, plants are given human qualities such as being idiosyncratic and we are informed they are clambering over mountainsides willy-nilly in a panic over global warming.

Add to that the fact that global temperatures have been decreasing since 2001 and not a lot of this article makes any sense. It does however, catch the eye and convey a sense of panic and fear. Unfortunately, many will read the headline and never notice that the article fails to support the theory.

John Coleman on Global Warming

2008-06-18T08:39:00.000-04:00

John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel gave a new statement about global warming before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, once again calling GWT a hoax and a scam. In his statement, he says that the theory behind global warming is an attack on fossil fuels rather than based on accurate science.

In his rebuttal to global warming, Coleman explores the beginning of Al Gore's exposure to the theory and the eventual emergence of what we now hear described as runaway man-made global warming.

Here's an excerpt:

On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC.

Read the full article at KUSI, San Diego

Scientists Postpone Global Warming...Again

2008-05-03T17:42:00.002-04:00

It wasn't too long ago that global warming scientists were predicting that the current cooling trend would reverse in 2009 and global warming would return with a vengeance, making the next five years even hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record.

However, the climate hasn't cooperated and the trend towards cooling seems to be with us for a while. Therefore, they have changed their scenario, with cooling going on for the next ten years after which global warming will return.

The biggest concern for the global warming alarmists is that as the cooling period goes on year after year, it will be less likely that their predictions about global warming will be believed by a public that is already sick of the propaganda saturation in the media, the schools and now, even the churches.

It is, of course, a computer model that tells them that global warming will make a rebound. In fact, all of the global warming theory is based on computer models. As all of them have so far failed to be accurate, it is amazing that they expect people to accept the projections of yet another computer model that defies observable climate trends.

But perhaps the cooling trend explains the global warming media hype that shot out new and more gruesome predictions daily and continues to do so, all the while calling for action to be taken before it was too late. It explains the frustration of Al Gore at the lack of public concern about global warming - he needed them to believe before it got cooler.

But the truth is that it is already too late. It's too late to stop many of the ill-conceived and dangerous policies that have been put in place to combat global warming and it may be too late to undo the economic harm they have caused.

Global Warming Fears Fuel Starvation

2008-04-16T11:34:00.001-04:00

We've pointed out before that the rise of ethanol and other biofuels in response to global warming fears was not only not the right answer, not only not better for the environment but was morally reprehensible as farmers turned to growing crops for fuel rather than for food.

As prices rise and grain stocks fall to an unprecedented low, people are already starving. While rich celebrities parade their carbon offsets and whip up frenzy over global warming fears, those who struggle in poverty are paying the real price. No carbon offset will buy them food, no pretty speeches about environmental issues will feed the starving children.

Read Global warming rage lets global hunger grow.

Despite the Chill, UN Claims Warming Continues

2008-04-13T10:36:00.000-04:00

Despite that fact that there has been no warming in the last decade, and despite the fact that 2008 is predicted to be the coolest year worldwide since 2001, the UN has no intention of stopping the global warming propaganda.

WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said while there would always be both cooler and warmer individual years, the overall trend in temperatures is still upwards.

He stated that you must look at trends over a period of time. He is thus treating the last ten years as an insufficient length of time to observe cooling. Yet, with 1998 as the last year to show an increase in global average temperature and the well-documented concerns about global cooling as recently as 1975, only 23 years previous, the cooling has gone on for nearly half as long as the warming trend did.

It may be after 20 or so years of downward trends in global temperatures that the UN will pull out their new report that will claim they conquered global warming successfully.

Global Warming Didn't Kill the Frogs

2008-03-26T11:24:00.002-04:00

It appears that it may not be a solid scientific fact that global warming (or "climate change" as the propagandists now prefer as they morph their theo-climatology into a vehicle that can still be profitable even if the change doesn't turn out to be a warm one)is responsible for the recent disappearance of harlequin frogs.

The researchers who claimed the link blamed global warming for the re-emergence of a chytrid fungus. However, since then, other scientists have disputed the absolute link between the fungus and global warming, saying that the origin of the fungus and the way it kills amphibians remain unknown.

The two camps continue to dispute each other's findings, but the important point to remember is that what the IPCC has accepted as facts are not always settled points of science. The "facts" that are the underpinnings of the IPCC-backed global warming theory are constantly being disputed and in some cases, contradicted by real facts.

Backwards Science

2008-02-23T11:20:00.002-05:00

The future ain't what it used to be. That's the contention of Thomas Peterson who has set out to "debunk" the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Global warming ain't what it used to be either, with record cold and snow falling for the first time in decades worldwide (including snow in Baghdad for the first time in 100 years), it's hard to keep the focus on global warming. After all, people who are knee-deep in white stuff and shivering aren't a very receptive audience to the message that humans are going to turn the world tropical. They are likely to say "bring it on".

This is science in reverse. Peterson is not interested in the consensus on global warming or investigating skeptic scientists' views and research. He has been busy trying to prove there was no scientific consensus on global cooling and the fears of an ice age. Truthfully, if I were a global warming scientist, I think I would try to do something similar. After all, it does make them look a bit silly - always crying "the sky is falling".

Peterson claims that science even then was dominated by concerns about pollution and global warming, even though temperatures had been falling since the 1940s and scientists were concerned that pollution was the reason for cooling, not warming.

And if the sun is going into an inactive phase, as many scientists believe, then global cooling is the next phase on the climate agenda. If the earth continues to cool as it has been doing for the past seven years, eventually global warming will fade into obscurity. But the problem may be that we will be woefully unprepared for the cooler world, and the billions of dollars spent to keep it from warming up will have been wasted - when they could have done mankind some actual good.

The propaganda machine is already in place and preparing for this contingency as global warming alarmists begin to proclaim every climate event as a result of global warming, including the extreme cold. The fact that they are worried that they might be wrong is evidenced in such claims as global warming will lead to a colder Western Europe. They are prepared for anything, except admitting they were wrong.

Global Warming Not Cause of Ice Shelf Collapse

2008-02-09T10:53:00.000-05:00

In 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica collapsed, and global warming alarmists have used it heavily in global warming propaganda. Alarming the alarmists however, are the claims of some scientists that global warming had nothing to do with it.

The collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf had been predicted for decades. Scientists studying fissures, cracks and crevasses indicated that the ice shelf was in danger of collapse, and not from warmer temperatures.

As usual, warmer ocean temperatures are being cited as "contributing", simply because they are obliged to say so. But the warmer ocean temperatures as seen by the NOAA's AVHRR thermal infrared channel, are most likely the difference between what was formerly ice and now is ocean water.

Antarctica near the pole is actually colder and Antarctic temperatures have been steadily dropping for the last 50 years.

2008 Will Be Cooler

2008-01-08T09:12:00.000-05:00

Just reading the news about global warming can give you a headache. Take this story which blazes a headline 2008 to be in top 10 warmest years say forecasters. You then reasonably expect that the article will tell us how things will be warming up in 2008, but does it? No. The article then goes on to tell us that 2008 will be actually be cooler than the last seven years. This is a clear sign of global warming. Confused? Good, you're supposed to be.

The article stresses that it was very warm in the last decade but doesn't mention that there has been no increase in global temperature for the last seven years. They cite La Nina as a reason that 2008 will be cooler but don't worry, this doesn't mean that global warming got off track - it's going to get hotter, just wait for it.

The truth is that the average decline of temperatures over the last seven years and extending now into the forecasted temperatures for 2008 actually supports the beliefs of many climatologists that the warming period has peaked and "global warming" is pretty much over.

Global Warming and Social Engineering

2008-01-07T07:46:00.000-05:00

In the debate on global warming and the nuclear family, it has been suggested that the destruction of the extended family and divorce are contributing causes of global warming. The debate rages on and of course, I have contributed to the rage by pointing out that global warming is merely another vehicle for social engineering. Has the destruction of the extended family contributed to climate change?

I say "No". Read why here.

Russian Scientist Has Chilling Advice

2008-01-03T11:22:00.000-05:00

A Russian scientist has some chilling advice. Buy more fur coats, stock up on boots and mittens, there's cold times ahead. Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, interjects some cool analysis into the hot debate over global warming and its cause.

Dr. Sorokhtin examines the earth's climate over vast periods and believes that earth is unlikely to experience a catastrophic climate disaster. Explaining that the climate is much more complex than just the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, he discusses solar activity, the earth's axis gyration, oceanic currents and salinity fluctuations as just some of the more complex ingredients in the recipe for climate change. The hothouse theory was invented in the late 19th century by a Swedish scientist and Sorokhtin claims, its validity hasn't been seriously re-examined since.

Sorokhtin further puts forth the astonishing statement that carbon is actually good for plants. It would seem to be common sense, since carbon dioxide is essential to plant life, but Sorokhtin further gives the example of the increase in global farm yields in the mid-20th century.

Sorokhtin doesn't deny that we are in a warm period but says that it has peaked and there's no place for the mercury to go from here but down. He warns that the next ice age will be worst than the last, with ice sheets covering Europe as far south as Moscow.

But take heart, he doesn't expect that to happen for another 100,000 years.

Polar Bear Propaganda

2008-01-01T09:25:00.000-05:00

Yes, that's right. It's this photograph again. I have already written about the origins of this picture on this blog and exposed it for the benign nature photo that it is. Taken in summer, during a period of unusually heavy ice for the season, according to the dispatches of the crew of the ship from which it was taken. But this clip from ABC News in Australia demonstrates just how many media outlets (and Al Gore) have used this photo for global warming propaganda purposes, despite the fact that it does not depict the catastrophic scenario they describe. Most of what people know about global warming comes from the media - do they know that the media lie?

Global Warming Will Leave Only One Political Party

2007-12-27T16:01:00.000-05:00

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.

Millions of People Live Despite Global Warming

2007-12-26T20:11:00.000-05:00

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.

PETA Proposes Sin Tax on Meat

2007-12-18T23:44:00.000-05:00

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.

WWF warns of Penguin Decline

2007-12-12T08:39:00.000-05:00

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.

Kangaroo Farts Good for the Environment

2007-12-06T15:47:00.001-05:00

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.

Divorce Causes Global Warming

2007-12-03T10:42:00.000-05:00

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.

The Fix is in - Adjusting the Records to Fit the Theory

2007-11-30T11:35:00.000-05:00

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

Why is this important? Because the number of tropical storms that are named is part of the historical record. In order to show that there is increased storm activity due to global warming, you must have more storms. In the past, none of the storms mentioned above would have been given a name. Chantal formed outside of the tropics and wouldn't even have been classified as a tropical storm.

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.

Jakarta Floods Not Global Warming

2007-11-28T08:10:00.000-05:00

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.

Michael Mann's New Stick

2007-11-27T11:22:00.000-05:00

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

No Room in Bali for UN Jets

2007-11-25T10:01:00.000-05:00

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.

Poor, Elderly to Suffer Most from Global Warming Legislation

2007-11-24T12:54:00.000-05:00

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.

source

Offsetting Utah

2007-11-20T19:34:00.000-05:00

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.

Hurricanes Cause Global Warming

2007-11-16T08:57:00.000-05:00

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.

Arctic Oscillations to Blame, Not Global Warming

2007-11-14T20:01:00.000-05:00

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.

Eco Credit Cards for Environmentally Safe Shopping

2007-11-14T13:07:00.000-05:00

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.

Obesity Causes Global Warming

2007-11-12T13:28:00.000-05:00

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.

Weather Channel Founder Calls Global Warming a Scam

2007-11-08T10:45:00.000-05:00

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

Skeptic Talks About His Nobel Prize

2007-11-05T16:46:00.000-05:00

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.

Birthday Parties that Don't Cause Global Warming

2007-11-01T09:29:00.000-04:00

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.

This eco-friendly cake won't spew smoke from burning candles into the atmosphere

The most frightening thing about this article, is the violence in the language regarding the eco-horror toys that a child receives as presents, the ones that make his parents "cringe". We are told one toy "vomits" a catchphrase (it talks) when you "throttle" it (press a button on its neck). Strangling the toy is the bit that appears to appeal most to the adult author of this article. Being environmentally friendly seems to make people cranky.

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.

Hurricane Season Letdown for Al Gore, Again

2007-10-29T11:23:00.000-04:00

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.

Cat-astrophic Global Warming

2007-10-27T15:35:00.000-04:00

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.

California Wildfires Can't Be Blamed on Global Warming

2007-10-24T19:56:00.000-04:00

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.

Why is Bangkok Going Underwater?

2007-10-23T09:05:00.000-04:00

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.

James Hansen, Politics, Money and Global Warming

2007-10-21T14:46:00.000-04:00

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 WashingtonTimes
Source The American Spectator

Al Gore Debates Global Warming

2007-10-19T17:27:00.001-04:00

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.

Global Warming Doesn't Matter

2007-10-17T11:36:00.000-04:00

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.

Sabre-toothed Tigers went extinct in last global warming
Aren't you glad they did?

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.

NCPA

WSJ

Where Will Bossie Go?

2007-10-16T17:03:00.000-04:00

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?

Bill Gray Unimpressed by Gore Nobel Prize

2007-10-15T10:13:00.000-04:00

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.

Sea Level Rise and Global Warming

2007-10-14T10:28:00.000-04:00

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.

Klaus Surprised at Gore's Nobel Prize

2007-10-12T10:44:00.000-04:00

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."

Judge Finds 9 Errors in Gore Film

2007-10-11T15:05:00.000-04:00

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.

Global Warming Hits SimCity

2007-10-11T10:40:00.000-04:00

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."

Save The World - Eat a Kangaroo

2007-10-10T11:25:00.000-04:00

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.

Cows fart too much

Kangaroo meat makes an excellent substitute, they advise. By law, a percentage of the kangaroo population can be killed for the meat and leather industry, but many are killed illegally when they invade crops on farmland.

Greenpeace also recommends that people switch to chicken and fish and away from red meat entirely.

Dennis Avery on Chesapeake Bay

2007-10-08T11:18:00.000-04:00

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.

Bjorn Lomborg Takes a Cool Approach To a Heated Debate

2007-10-06T21:23:00.000-04:00

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."

Source

CNN Rob Marciano Tells Us What He Thinks of Global Warming - Video

2007-10-05T09:51:00.001-04:00

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.

CNN Meteorologist : "Definitely Some Inaccuracies" in Gore Film

2007-10-04T19:25:00.000-04:00

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.

UK Judge Rules Gore's Film An Inconvenient Bias

2007-10-03T21:13:00.000-04:00

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.

China Claims Credit for Curbing Climate Change Babies

2007-10-02T17:15:00.000-04:00

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.

Scholastic Publishes Global Warming Scare Book

2007-09-29T20:29:00.000-04:00

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.

Global Warming Cure: Pipes in Ocean

2007-09-28T10:04:00.000-04:00

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..

Report on Climate Change Prediction

2007-09-26T10:01:00.001-04:00

A seminar held earlier this year to discuss the validity of current scientific strategies, particularly computer modeling, which are being used to establish and evaluate the link between global warming and human activity has been detailed a report called Climate change prediction: A robust or flawed process? and published by the Institute of Physics.

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology spoke at the seminar and explained the limitations of climate models. He outlined why attempts to attribute global temperature rise to an increase in CO2 emissions were flawed.

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

Global Warming's Children

2007-09-25T22:28:00.000-04:00

There's been a lot of discussion in the news lately about El Niño (the little boy) and La Niña (the little girl). Each phenomena is being blamed on global warming, each is claimed to be more severe and long-lasting than in previous years and each is going to cause either drought or flood depending on where you live.

El Niño and La Niña alternate in cycles, El Niño lasts approximately two years but La Nina's span is shorter, not more than a year usually. El Niño signifying a warming of the waters of the Pacific and La Nina signifying a cooling of same. The phenomena has been recorded for at least 300 years.

Today I read in the Times Online that La Niña is going to change the world's climate. Just yesterday I read that global warming was making El Niño stronger in Australia and it has been in strong five year cycles for 30 years, due to global warming. Today they have changed their minds and it is no longer El Niño causing the drought in Australia, it's just global warming.

This is the news these days, ubiquitous stories about weather patterns, some already known to occur for at least 300 years (and probably occurring for thousands of years before man observed them at sea) and the implication that any weather - mild, severe, hot or cold is a direct result of global warming.

Is it possible that anyone knows more than a fraction of the equation of weather patterns and climate? Although their data and theories all clash and flip-flop, they are all shoved into a big box called "climate change" by the politically correct and "anthropogenic global warming" by the passionate activists.

I decided to look for these stronger El Niño patterns and I found this. This chart of the El Niño and La Niña occurrences since 1950 show that 5-year overlapping cycles occurred with regularity and some were hotter and some were colder than present.

If the global warming theorists don't watch out, they will find they have overplayed their hand. People can be moved by fear up for only so long. There is a saturation point where apathy completely takes over. A lot of people have reached that point already.

Klaus Dissenting Voice at UN Conference

2007-09-24T21:10:00.000-04:00

President Bush was not among the 80 world leaders present today at the UN's one-day conference on global warming. Instead, Bush will hold his own two-day meeting on Thursday and Friday, hosting representatives of 16 nations considered to be the big emitters of greenhouse gases.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California criticized the Bush administration for not doing enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions and stated that California was leading the way. "California is moving the United States beyond debate and doubt to action," he said. "I urge this body to push its members to action also."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada stated that his country was in full agreement with the need to halve carbon emissions by 2050 but indicated that it was important to respect the unique characteristics of individual nations' economies. "We are balancing environmental protection with economic growth," Harper stated.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus did as he promised to do by providing a solitary dissenting voice.

"The hypothetical threat connected with future global warming depends exclusively upon very speculative forecasts, not upon undeniable past experience, and upon its trends and tendencies", Klaus told the conference.

Biodiesels Fuel Global Warming

2007-09-22T15:20:00.000-04:00

Well, this is not news to me as it's been reported before. A new study published in the journal Atmospheric and Chemistry and Physics proclaims that biofuels derived from corn and rapeseed produce more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels.

The study focuses on nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised.

The growing of corn for biofuel has already raised it's price to levels that reach into the pockets of the poor. In places like Mexico, where corn is a staple and provides 40% of the protein in the average diet, this has had disastrous effects. In addition to being responsible for higher corn prices and the conversion of land formerly used to grow food, now that it is finally official that the switch to biodiesels also will increase the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, will the environmentalists finally accept that turning food crops into fuel crops was a mistake?

Drought Makes Rainforest Greener

2007-09-21T10:08:00.000-04:00

Research by Scott Saleska of the University of Arizona found that tropical rainforests actually become greener and more lush during a drought. The research was done during a drought that coincided with the natural dry season in the Amazon in 2005 and results are being published in the September 21 issue of the journal Science.

An abstract of an article published in Geophysical Research Letters, March 2006, contains the following:

MODIS Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI, an index of canopy photosynthetic capacity) increased by 25% with sunlight during the dry season across Amazon forests, opposite to ecosystem model predictions that water limitation should cause dry season declines in forest canopy photosynthesis.

In other words, global warming models predict that the rainforest will be hit by drought and indicate that the rainforest will suffer from decreased rainfall but actual measurements show an increase in green vegetation during a dry period. The researchers believe that less rain allows the trees to receive more sunlight and to dig their roots further into the earth to get water.

Other articles on this subject:
Times Online
Fox News

Gore Warns Australia About Warming

2007-09-20T16:18:00.000-04:00

Al Gore is hosting some expensive lunches in Australia to sound the urgent call to action about global warming. The price of a seat costs $1000 but if you spring for the VIP package, which includes prime seating near the Goracle and a meet-and-greet with him, be prepared to shell out $25,000.

Gore is urging Australia to step up to the plate (pun intended) and ratify the Kyoto agreement, stating that the United States would find it "impossible" to withstand the pressure to ratify Kyoto.

Perhaps there is difficulty in reaching Australians on this issue since the southern hemisphere hasn't experienced any warming. Artic ice may be melting but south pole ice caps are growing and overall the Antarctic has experienced a cooling since at least 1975. In fact, it really should be called "northern hemisphere warming" rather than global warming.

Of course, we realize that Gore will buy carbon offsets to make up for the enormous amount of carbon emissions generated by his air travel to Australia. And from whom will he buy them? Why Generation Investment Management of course, a company partly owned by none other than Al Gore.

Global Warming Lawsuit Dismissed in California

2007-09-20T09:41:00.000-04:00

US Federal Judge Martin Jenkins dealt a blow to global warming activists in tossing out a lawsuit against 6 automakers, accusing them of contributing to global warming. The suit was brought by California's attorney general, seeking damages to offset monies spent by the state to deal with issues arising from global warming.

In his decision to grant the motion filed by the automakers to dismiss the lawsuit, Jenkins said the courts are not equipped to decide the complex issue of global warming.

"The Court finds that injecting itself into the global warming thicket at this juncture would require an initial policy determination of the type reserved for the political branches of government"

The suit named six automakers, claiming that vehicles produced by these six companies contributed 30 percent of the man-made carbon dioxide emissions in California.

The automakers named in the suit were Ford Motor Company, Daimler-Chrysler, General Motors, Nissan, Toyota and Honda.

California's Deputy Attorney General Ken Alex, is deciding whether to appeal the ruling.

Smells Like Mammoth Dung

2007-09-17T09:44:00.000-04:00

Sergei Zimov, chief scientist at the Russian Academy of Science's North Eastern Scientific station, reveals to the world a new danger, one that is destined to accelerate global warming beyond any predictions: mammoth dung.

Zimov points to melting permafrost and states that contained therein are layers of animal waste and other organic matter, which when exposed to the air will release tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the material decays.

Although the UN reported in June that there was no widespread melting of permafrost that could accelerate global warming, they aren't going to disagree that it is possible, probably because it sounds scary.

But Zimov is an expert, we know that from this excerpt from the Reuter's article:

Sergei Zimov bends down, picks up a handful of treacly mud and holds it up to his nose. It smells like a cow pat, but he knows better.

"It smells like mammoth dung," he says.

Nevermind that Siberia has lots of cows, the man's an expert - he has to be. I know I couldn't tell cow dung from the dung of a giant woolly elephant-like creature that has been extinct for thousands of years just by sniffing it.

But more importantly, this potential threat of tons of carbon being released into the atmosphere because of global warming perhaps belongs on the other side of the argument.

In his movie An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore displays a chart showing carbon levels and global temperature. Gore says the chart shows that carbon dioxide leads to global warming but experts have debunked this chart, stating the contrary, that carbon levels follow global warming, lagging temperature increases by as much as 800 years.

If the warm period being experienced in the Arctic is indeed causing strata containing organic material to be exposed, and the resumed decaying of this previously frozen material is going to cause an upsurge in atmospheric carbon dioxide, then it stands to reason that those who called Gore's chart into question are correct and carbon dioxide increases do follow global warming and not the other way around.

Mammoth dung, prehistoric goo may speed warming

Climate Change Didn't Kill Neanderthal

2007-09-15T12:30:00.000-04:00

In the sea of stories about climate change and the disaster it spells for modern man, one story at least gives hope.

Climate changes did not kill the Neanderthals.

It was originally thought that the Neanderthals all disappeared about 30,000 years ago but recent evidence that they may have survived until as recently as 24,000 years ago and lived contemporaneously with Cro Magnon (homo sapiens) led scientists to speculate that the disappearing ice shelves and drastic climate changes had been the culprit in reducing their numbers. But new evidence seems to point to the Neanderthals having died out before any of the big climate changes.

Actually, it most likely that modern man is the cause for the extinction of Neanderthal. Taller and superior thanks to evolutionary gifts, they simply took over, competing with Neanderthal over the same resources.

Modern man survives as a species with no natural enemies, the species that adapts his environment to his needs, not the other way around. With all the self-flagellation on the impact of man on the earth, the cries of environmentalists that man is destroying the planet and will cause the extinction of half the species on earth, it is surprising that no one has thought to accuse him of murdering his cousin Neanderthal.

Maybe they aren't sure they want that side of the family living next door.

Concensus Found That Refutes Global Warming

2007-09-14T18:42:00.000-04:00

The co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Dennis Avery and Fred Singer, have compiled a list of 500 scientists who have published studies that disagree with at least one element of current global warming theory. They compiled the list through an analysis of peer-reviewed literature. According to their research, warm cycles happen with regularity, about every 1470 years, and moreover, they are good for us.

More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Avery, a Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute and Singer,a climate physicist, noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.

"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com.

Peat and Forests Slow Permafrost Melt

2007-09-13T20:13:00.000-04:00

A recent study at McMaster University indicates that global warming may not melt the permafrost as quickly as computer models have predicted.

About 42% of Canada is covered in permafrost - frozen soil that remains at or below 0°C for at least two consecutive years.

Studies using the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model have predicted that only a million square kilometres of the currently estimated 10.5-million square kilometres of permafrost would remain by the end of this century. But Altaf Arain, associate professor in Geography & Earth Sciences at McMaster, states that computer models have not figured in peat and vegetation.

Peat and vegetation in northern areas may help protect permafrost from the effects of climate change, according to Arain.

"A layer of peat above the permafrost acts as insulation by trapping air pockets, which reduce heat transfer and helps permafrost retention," he says. "Vegetation can also help slow the rate at which permafrost melts because it shades the ground."

The study, entitled Impacts of peat and vegetation on permafrost degradation under climate warming, was published in Geophysical Research Letters in August and also appeared in Nature Geosciences this month.

McMaster University

Czech President Compares Global Warming to Communism

2007-09-12T10:59:00.000-04:00

Czech President Vaclav Klaus has long been outspoken about his belief that global warming has become an environmental religion which threatens basic freedoms and resembles Marxism in its approach.

"Communism has been replaced by the threat of an ambitious environmentalism," Klaus wrote in response to questions from the US House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Klaus is a man who has lived under communism. He warns of the consequences of following a environmental extremism and its effect on poorer and developing nations that cannot afford new technology. He worries about the loss of freedoms for the individual.

"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."

Currently, Klaus is featured in an ad sponsored by The Heartland Institute that is running in major US newspapers. The ad shows Klaus challenging Gore with the slogan "Global Warming is No Crisis".

Klaus is scheduled to give a speech at the UN in two weeks and warns that they will be surprised by what he has to say.

"It will be a gathering of 'Gore-ites,' so they're going to be shocked that they invited me 'by mistake,' too. And I'm going to give a very tough speech."

An Inconvenient Drumstick

2007-09-09T20:32:00.000-04:00

PETA is planning a protest against Al Gore's dietary habits. When he arrives in Denver next month, members of PETA and other animal rights groups will convene to protest with signs depicting a cartoon Gore eating a drumstick and proclaiming:

"Too Chicken to go vegetarian? Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming".

"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.

Which only goes to prove that PETA is insane. Sneer if you will at Al arriving in private jets to talk about carbon emissions from SUVs, publicly jeer the man who tells Americans to change their light bulbs and cut down on energy consumption while running an electric bill 20 times higher than the average citizen, but to deny a man his fried chicken is inhumane.

Source - Telegraph.co.uk

US Geological Survey Predicts Polar Bear Extinction

2007-09-08T20:18:00.000-04:00

You gotta love these headlines. They shock and amaze but usually have little relationship to the actual facts contained in the story they run with.

Here's the latest:

Most polar bears could be lost by 2050

Yikes. The majestic polar bear, gone forever. But is that what the US Geological Survey actually says?

"Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately two-thirds of the world's current polar bear population by the mid 21st century," the report says.

Only 16,000 polar bears around the world are expected to survive through the end of the century in the northern Canadian Arctic islands and the west coast of Greenland, said the U.S. Geological Survey.

The World Conservation Union, based in Gland, Switzerland, has estimated the polar bear population in the Arctic now is about 20,000 to 25,000,

Okay, projected changes. But these are the same people who say the computer models are not showing the ice melting fast enough, so these projected changes are not those of the existing computer models, but of changes they project. And this will happen only if the ice melts as fast as they predict. Or will it?

The global warming people are telling us that the global temperature has been increasing in the last few decades and so by now, we should already be looking at dwindling polar bear populations. But according to a survey by the Canadian government, polar bear numbers are increasing.

The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.

Keep in mind that Canada now has about two-thirds of the world's polar bear population. The survey reported six areas as having stable counts, three areas as having decreased counts and two areas saw their counts increase. That doesn't sound like any shocking loss of population.

Yeah, but, yeah but...The polar bear first appeared on earth about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and the global warming alarmists are saying that they have never had to live through a period warmer than this. Really?

According to a 2000 report from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, temperatures on Greenland were higher than today at least once.

After the termination of the glacial period, temperatures increased steadily to a maximum of 2.5°C warmer than at present during the Climatic Optimum (4,000 to 7,000 years ago). The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice
Age were also documented in the record, with temperatures 1°C warmer and 0.5-0.7°C cooler than at present, respectively.

And from what we know of Greenland's ice core, we know that even when the temperature was a full 5° C higher, the ice did not completely melt. See prior story - Ice Didn't Melt on Greenland in Historical Warm Periods

As the temperature seems to be going up in the Arctic, and has been for several years while the polar bear population has been increasing, there is only one conclusion.

"There is a definite link between changes in the sea ice and the welfare of polar bears," Steve Amstrup, who led the research team, said.

Yep, there is. They seem to like it.

DiCaprio Film Bores Audiences

2007-09-06T23:31:00.000-04:00

Leonardo DiCaprio may still thrill female fans with his ice-blue eyes, but his environmental movie, The 11th Hour, has turned out to be the film equivalent of a sleeping draught as DiCaprio fails in his bid to out-scare audiences first traumatized by his enviro-mentor, Al Gore and his film, An Inconvenient Truth.

The film has done poorly at the box office, grossing only $417,913 from ticket sales in its first 18 days. Cinemas scheduled to screen the film will probably start to bow out and the mostly likely result will be a quick departure to the home-DVD medium.

The movie was criticized for its incomplete understanding of forest management and the impact that it can have on the environment by none other than Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. The film has even been panned by those who support man-made global warming theory.

Big Mac Attacks Global Warming

2007-09-05T20:34:00.000-04:00

In Japan, the government's offer of a half-price Big Mac in exchange for a pledge to fight global warming created such a response that it crashed a government website. Applicants pledged to do such things as to take a minute off their shower times to help the environment.

In other news , doctors attending the meeting of the European Society of Cardiology in Vienna expressed concern about the possible increase in deaths from cardiovascular disease as a result of global warming. The experts state that people with cardiovascular disease are more likely to have exacerbated problems when there is a sustained period of hot weather and point to the recent increase in deaths during the European heat wave this summer.

But let's face it, hot weather doesn't cause heart disease, heredity and lifestyle do. In Africa, heart disease is nearly unknown in rural areas but the incidence of heart disease is rising in more westernized urban regions, mainly because of lifestyle and dietary changes. That is, the western diet is full of fat and cholesterol and is bad for your heart. So while being in a very hot climate when you have cardiovascular disease increases your risk of death, being in a hot climate doesn't cause cardiovascular disease.

Which brings me back to the Big Mac. This popular sandwich from McDonalds, with its 29 grams of fat, 75 mg of cholesterol and 1040 grams of sodium, is the epitome of the heart attack diet. It seems to run contrary to their stated concerns about heart disease and global warming to offer you something that will only increase your risk of dying should the planet heat up as they expect it to. Heat will kill you! Quick, eat a Big Mac and don't shower!

This is why I can't understand global warming theory. It's just too complicated.

Too Soon to Blame Global Warming for Felix and Dean

2007-09-04T21:18:00.000-04:00

Two Category 5 hurricanes, Dean and Felix have made landfall in the last two weeks. This is the first time in recorded history that two Category 5 hurricanes have formed in the Atlantic in the same season. The temptation is great to put the blame on climate change, but some weather experts, including some global warming theorists, say it is too soon to make that assumption.

"My guess is that the high intensities of Dean and Felix had more to do with when and where they formed and tracked than with global warming per se," said Kerry Emanuel, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of meteorology who has published ground-breaking research on the subject.

Many hurricane experts, former IPCC contributor Chris Landsea, say the Atlantic has entered a period of increased hurricane activity that may last twenty years. Felix and Dean both formed in an area of persistent high pressure and passed "over a region known to be a great hurricane intensifier," according to Robert Muir Wood, chief research officer at London-based Risk Management Solutions.

"There is no doubt at all that warmer sea surface temperatures lead to more powerful hurricanes: we can see this every time a hurricane moves over warmer ocean waters," said Terry Joyce, director of the Oceans and Climate Change Institute at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

"But to attribute both of these to global warming, after only two Category 5 storms, is ... premature."

Source

Times Atlas Changes Blamed on Global Warming

2007-09-03T08:46:00.000-04:00

The shocking headline reads "New Times Atlas displays effects of climate change" and the lead paragraph tells us that the latest edition of the Times Atlas has had to be mightily altered because of geographical differences brought about by climate change.

What are these great changes to our world that are so noticeable that the cartographers have had to re-draw their maps?

Well, for example, they cite Lake Chad in Africa, stating it is 95% smaller than it was in 1963. Did I mention that the last edition of the Times Atlas was published in 2003? Do you imagine that they haven't changed the Atlas in 40 years and are only just noticing Lake Chad? Hardly. Except it wouldn't be hype journalism unless you included things like 95% shrinkage of a lake, even if none of that shrinkage has taken place recently.

Satellite Images of Lake Chad

Aside from stating that sea levels have "strange effects" on the coastline, there are no other glaring geographical changes that are cited as being due to climate change, so let's examine Lake Chad, which we assume they meant to use as an example of how global warming is drying up water sources.

Lake Chad is the remnant of an inland sea. It has been shrinking and growing in cycles for about 13,000 years. It was at its largest around 4000 BC but studies of the sediment in the lake show it has nearly gone dry at least four times, around 8500 BC, 5500 BC, 2000 BC. and 100 BC. In the last century it nearly disappeared twice, in 1908 and 1984. It has been shrinking for the last 40 years due to increased population and increased irrigation in the area which has put a larger demand on the lake's water. In addition, overgrazing in the area has caused more desertification of the surrounding land. This may indicate that in recent years some of the lake's diminishing supply of water is due to human activity, but it isn't due to global warming.

If there is solid evidence of disappearing lakes or eroded coastlines, if global warming has taken a great toll on the geographical makeup of the Earth, why are these not reported, especially in an article that proclaims that global warming has necessitated changes to the Times Atlas? I can only conclude that this evidence must not exist.

Less than Half is Not Consensus

2007-08-30T15:42:00.000-04:00

The scientific "consensus" of opinion on man-made global warming boasted by the IPCC seems more and more tenuous by the day. The list of skeptical scientists with impressive credentials grows by the day while fewer and fewer people are falling for the media hype. Even the hype has slowed down as the media fails to inspire a sufficient level of panic in average citizens.

Now Daily Tech's Michael Asher reveals in his blog that less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory. Recent research into the peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science revealed some surprising figures.

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

While the IPCC claims that the Fourth Assessment report was the work of thousands of scientists, in actual fact what has been reported in the media is only the Summary For Policymakers which was written by bureaucrats and political advisors.

Greenpeace Founder Critical of 11th Hour

2007-08-29T16:24:00.000-04:00

Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, has some harsh criticism for The 11th Hour, Leonardo DiCaprio's newest edition to the Global Warming film library of scare tactics. He says that DiCaprio and ~~co-conspirator~~ collaborator Tzeporah Berman are overlooking important facts about forests and global warming.

"As a lifelong environmentalist, I say trees can solve many of the world's sustainability challenges. Forestry is the most sustainable of all the primary industries that provide us with energy and materials. Rather than cutting fewer trees and using less wood, DiCaprio and Berman ought to promote the growth of more trees and the use of more wood."

Moore says that cutting old trees doesn't make them release carbon - rotting and burning do. He further states that young trees are more effective in sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. Use of more wood would encourage the cutting of old trees, management of forests and the planting of young forests that do a better job of removing carbon from the atmosphere.

Read the article in The Vancouver Sun

Polar Ice Clouds Due to Global Warming

2007-08-26T22:56:00.001-04:00

Here's an important bit of speculation about climate change and global warming. Polar ice clouds may be a symptom of climate change, according to Associate Professor Richard Collins of the University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

The reasoning goes something like this: carbon dioxide causes heating in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere so these icy clouds could be a result of global warming.

The article goes on to say that these clouds were first noticed in the Arctic sky in the 19th century and have become more prevalent since.

My question would be, since no one really began to explore the north pole before the 19th century, how could anyone have possibly recorded them prior to that? And since there are more explorations of the Arctic now than there were in the 1800s, wouldn't that explain the increased sightings of these clouds?

The beauty of global warming theory is that nearly anything can be examined in such a way as to prove a link to climate change. The ability to use logic is not necessary, in fact, it's a definite hindrance.

source

Polar Bears Can Swim

2007-08-24T16:20:00.001-04:00

Animals have always figured heavily into global warming theory. The polar bear, of course, because he is the symbol of the great icy north. If you want to grab someone's attention, there's no better way than to show a photo of the majestic polar bear, stranded far at sea on an ever-shrinking ice floe. I am sure you have seen this picture.

This photo was distributed widely across the net with accompanying articles that would have had you believe that these polar bears stepped upon an ice floe, and before they knew it, the ice floe had drifted out to sea, melting beneath their paws. The truth of this photo is that it was taken a couple of years ago and had nothing to do with polar bears being stranded at sea, these are just two polar bears who stopped off on an ice floe to rest from their swimming and have a look about.

Yes, polar bears can swim. They can swim as much as a hundred miles offshore in search of food, and regularly do so.

This photo was taken in 2004 by members of the Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project during late summer. The cruise was delayed due to unusually heavy ice for August according to the dispatches from the crew. The original caption to the photo says "Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves".

So why does this photo with the accompanying heart-wrenching captions such as "polar bears stranded on melting ice" appear suddenly in articles across the globe?

Aw, c'mon. You know why.

Moose Commit Suicide Through Climate Change

2007-08-21T22:08:00.000-04:00

Animals have been at the heart of the global warming controversy since the beginning.

The cow was the first to be targeted in the name of climate change. Bovine burping and flatulence have been blamed for everything from destroying the ozone layer to an increase in global warming. Worse, those who eat beef are called environmental criminals, for beef must be transported and processed, causing even more harm to the environment. No cheeseburgers if you want to be green.

And now there is a new scapegoat, or should I say scape-moose. Moose are the current focus in Norway, where it is the national animal. Norwegian researchers claim that moose contribute 2100 kilos of carbon dioxide per year through perfectly natural means.

Like the much-maligned cow, the moose, through no fault of its own, is a great purveyor of methane as a result of the bacteria in its stomach. Methane is at the top of the list of dangerous greenhouse gases. Even with the annual moose hunt season, the moose population will still be at about 90,000 in Norway.

Because moose meat is not found in every supermarket and they are not being raised for slaughter, as are cows, it is not as simple as vilifying anyone who eats moose and forcing the world into vegetarianism. It is going to be harder to solve the moose problem.

Or is it? According to Science Daily, global warming is going to kill off the moose. As temperatures get warmer, moose ticks multiply which make moose ill and die. Moose also get lazy in the warm and forage less, rest more. What's worse, as moose numbers begin to dwindle, wolves will have no moose to eat and they will also become extinct.

So perhaps the problem will take care of itself. Moose cause global warming, warm temperatures decimate the moose population and so the cycle is broken.

The whole story reminds us of the elasticity of global warming theory. Now, it is responsible for moose suicide.

Protestors Pose Nude on Glacier

2007-08-19T15:11:00.000-04:00

On the Aletsch glacier, high in the Swiss Alps, famed photographer Spencer Tunick awaited nearly 600 volunteers in his next project.

Tunick is famous for his "living sculptures" - groups of nude people posed around landmarks, like Grand Central Station in New York.

But this time, Tunick was working with Greenpeace to highlight the dangers of global warming. All the volunteers would strip nude and pose on the glacier to call attention to climate change.

According to Swiss glaciologist Andreas Bauder of the Zürich-based Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), "The Aletsch has been receding steadily over the past 150 years".

I've got news for him. The glaciers all over the world have been retreating for thousands of years, ever since the last ice age. That's what makes it possible for us to live on as much of the earth as we do.

The combination of people willing to participate in Tunick's "modern art", and the media attention given this stunt highlight more than global warming dangers. It highlights how ridiculous the protest is.

Why would you have hundreds of warm human bodies lie down on something you don't want to melt?

The Hottest Years Were 1930s

2007-08-16T22:03:00.000-04:00

Now that NASA has conducted a full review of the climate data in the US, and admitted that 1998 was not the hottest year they had records for, they are scrambling to keep the findings from being used by climate skeptics.

The new list of thetop ten hottest years contains 4 years from the 1930s and only 3 from the last decade. As the rise in carbon emissions is considered to begin around 1940, this data can be unsettling to the anthropogenic climate change theorists.

The director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies is downplaying the recent discovery saying "The figures have slight significance for U.S. temperatures, but the U.S. only covers 2 percent of the world's surface, so there is very little significance globally."

Funny, they found it very significant when they thought the data proved their theory.

1934 Hottest Year on Record in US

2007-08-14T21:27:00.000-04:00

First there was the admission by NASA that there was a flaw in their climate calculations and that having conducted a full review of the data, the hottest year on record was NOT 1998 as previously proclaimed by global warming alarmists, the hottest year on record in the US was actually 1934. The early 1930s were the period of the catastrophic dust storms that turned American prairie lands into The Dust Bowl.

The flaw in the data was found by none other than Stephen McIntyre, the same guy who pointed out that the famous "hockey stick" graph was erroneous and produced by a computer program that was designed to exclude any data that didn't fit the hockey stick shape, thereby eliminating the medieval warm period and the subsequent "little ice age" that occurred between approximately 1650 and 1850. Leave it to a Canadian to know his way around a hockey stick.

Then comes this little gem of information from The Washington Times' John McCaslin in his "Inside the Beltway" column.

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

Global Warming - Himalayan Connection Melts

2007-08-12T23:14:00.000-04:00

US researchers announced recently that a study of Asia's brown clouds shows that they cause as much warming as greenhouse gases. According to the study, the brown haze is a mixture of light absorbing aerosols and light scattering aerosols which cause the atmosphere to warm while causing the Earth's surface to cool.

The vast brown cloud originates from the dung and kerosene burning stoves used in many parts of Asia.

Although scientists previously thought that only carbon dioxide and other, lighter greenhouse gases could travel across the Earth, they now say that these aerosol clouds are capable of going half-way round the earth in a week.

This warming is now being blamed for the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas, according to news reports released this August.

The most interesting thing about this study is that it is not news. The same story ran in August of 2002. In fact, the report came from the UN and was presented at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg on August 26,2002.

So, if the UN, and presumably the IPCC knew about the origin and nature of the melting of the Himalayan glaciers why did they report the following in 2007?

"Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world. Half a billion people in the Himalaya-Hindu-Kush region and a quarter billion downstream who rely on glacial melt waters could be seriously affected.

Glaciers in these areas could, at current rates of global warming, disappear altogether by 2035, if not sooner. "

I guess the question is not why have the global warming alarmists have been spreading the hype about the Himalayan glaciers melting as a result of carbon-emission caused climate change when they have known the real cause since 2002 - the question is, why are we surprised?

BBC News August 2007
CNN 2002
Science Daily 2007

Global Seesaw - Warming or Cooling?

2007-08-09T21:18:00.000-04:00

The versatility of global warming theory is amazing. If it snows in the midwest, it's global warming. Droughts? Global Warming. Floods? Global Warming. The UN has announced that wacky weather is just more proof of global warming. Because, I guess, weather was always constant before the last century - nothing ever changed.

And for the piéce de resistance, the data that shows that temperatures are starting to go down is also proof of global warming.

According to a story in the journal Science, global warming is now expected to drop off for the next ten years. Global warming is going to slow down. But even though that sounds like good news, don't think you can rest on your carbon offsets just yet. After that, it's going to speed up!

Talk about hedging your bets!

The problem is, that if the Earth is starting to cool, then the hype will too and all the global warming theorists will look rather foolish and some will lose a good deal of money they planned to make off of the frightened masses.

To offset the possible calming effect of cooling, the story is that it's just the calm before the storm.

"Sure, it might be snowing and frigid now, but if you don't buy a hybrid car, in ten years this entire area will be a desert. Where will you build your snowman then, huh"?

Honestly, they get sillier and sillier.

Source

The Truth About CFLs

2007-08-06T20:59:00.000-04:00

The evangelists of environmentalism and the fiery global warming preachers are fervently exhorting us to replace our standard light bulbs with more energy-efficient and cooler-burning fluorescent bulbs.

However, a controversy over the safety of these "green" fluorescent bulbs has arisen to make the layfolk wary.

I have seen a lot of stories about Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFLs) across the net. A popular tale is of a woman in Maine who accidentally broke a light bulb in her daughter's bedroom and was told to call poison control, had the room declared a hazardous waste site and was quoted an estimate of $2000 to stage a proper clean-up.

Some blogs call the story is a hoax. National Geographic, on the other hand, says it is true, but the hefty clean-up bill was due to some bad advice. The truth is that there is a danger in CFLs, in the form of Mercury. Each CFL contains about 5 milligrams of Mercury. Mercury is a neurotoxin and exposure can have serious effects on health.

Some sources say that extreme caution must be taken should you break a CFL, something bound to happen to nearly everyone at least once (they are encased in glass, after all). Others say clean up is as simple as clearing away any other broken bulb.

I decided to see what the experts in our government have to say on the matter.

This is from www.energystar.gov on frequently asked questions about CFLs.

What should I do with a CFL when it burns out?
EPA recommends that consumers take advantage of available local recycling options for compact fluorescent light bulbs. EPA is working with CFL manufacturers and major U.S. retailers to expand recycling and disposal options. Consumers can contact their local municipal solid waste agency directly, or go to epa.gov/bulbrecycling or earth911.org to identify local recycling options.

If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the bulb in two plastic bags and put it into the outside trash, or other protected outside location, for the next normal trash collection. CFLs should not be disposed of in an incinerator.

This is important to note. You must double seal the bulb in two plastic bags. That's because despite their reassuring words about the "tiny" amount of mercury in the bulbs, it is nonetheless, poisonous.

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
The following steps can be performed by the general public:
1. Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
2. Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a sealed plastic bag.
.Use disposable rubber gloves, if available (i.e., do not use bare hands). Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the plastic bag.
.Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
3. Place all cleanup materials in a second sealed plastic bag.
.Place the first bag in a second sealed plastic bag and put it in the outdoor trash container or in another outdoor protected area for the next normal trash disposal.
Note: some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken lamps be taken to a local recycling center.
.Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
4.If a fluorescent bulb breaks on a rug or carpet:
.First, remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner, following the steps above. Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
.If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag or vacuum debris in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.

Okay, did you get that? First of all, open a window and leave the room. When you clean up the broken bulb, wear rubber gloves, and double bag the broken bits. Make sure you get all the tiny pieces by using sticky tape. If you vacuum, make sure you wipe down your vacuum cleaner and dispose of the bag by sealing it inside two plastic bags. Note how often the double bagging is mentioned. Now think of the last time you had to fumigate a room because you broke a light bulb, or wear rubber gloves to clean it up, or wash down your broom or vacuum to remove a poisonous element.

The last thing we are told on the Energystar fact sheet is that compared to the small amount of mercury in CFLs, there are ghastly huge amounts of mercury being released into the atmosphere by coal-burning power plants. (Note: Power plants are always bad per environmentalists and the words "coal-burning" are equivalent to "puppy-strangling".) Just too horrible to envision. So if you want to reduce the mercury emissions from power plants, use lightbulbs that demand less power and keep the mercury emissions in your own house.

Researchers Blame Global Warming for Hurricanes

2007-07-30T06:14:00.000-04:00

The global warming media blitz goes on. Researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research say that the number of tropical storms and hurricanes has doubled over the last century, and global warming is to blame.

According to researchers Greg J. Holland and Peter J. Webster, the incidence of hurricanes is increasing and if global warming goes on unabated we will enter a period of sharp upswing.

Nonsense, says Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center and possibly the most knowledgeable expert in the field of North Atlantic hurricanes. According to Landsea:

The work, he said, is "sloppy science that neglects the fact that better monitoring by satellites allows us to observe storms and hurricanes that were simply missed earlier. The doubling in the number of storms and hurricanes in 100 years that they found in their paper is just an artifact of technology, not climate change."

Holland states that we will probably see "a stabilization in frequencies for a while" - probably due to the fact that the 2006 hurricane forecast was a total flop, with a quiet season that didn't match up to feverish predictions and in light of the fact that the 2007 forecast, the season to end all seasons, has also been downgraded - mostly due to the lack of storms thus far.

Breitbart.com

Bottled Water Causes Global Warming (and cavities)

2007-07-29T13:01:00.000-04:00

If you drink bottled water, you may be adding to your carbon footprint unwittingly. Production of plastic bottles for those fancy-label H2Os uses 1.5 million barrels of oil per year - enough to fuel 100,000 cars.

Just the transportation of bottled water results in increased carbon emissions from trucking the water to market.

And soon there will be a couple of bottled waters that will have to include the fact that they are nothing more than tap water. Both Aquafina by Pepsico and Dasani by Coca-Cola get their water from public water sources. Those are the sources that flow through pipes into your house, the low-carbon alternative.

Furthermore, bottled water has been linked to an increase in the incidence of cavities amongst young people. Most bottled waters contain flouride levels that are well below standards. Flouridation of municipal water sources has been heralded as the single most successful health achievement since the 1960s. But the desertion of public water sources in favor of bottled water has led to a rise in the rate of cavities that is comparable to pre-1960s levels.

So - save the planet, save your teeth and save your wallet. Next time, turn on the tap to quench your thirst.

Skeptic Receives Threatening Letter

2007-07-28T11:21:00.000-04:00

Scientists who are outspoken in their skepticism of global warming theory have stated their belief that they are targeted for their views, ostracized from the scientific community and denied funding for research, a claim often derided by global warming activists as ridiculous and unfounded.

But what of this letter, written by Michael Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) that was sent to Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)?

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

The letter was brought to the attention of EPA head Stephen L. Johnson by Senator James M. Inhofe. The EPA is a member of ACORE.

So much for reasonable debate. If anyone doubted the blind zealotry of the warmies, this letter should resolve that doubt. The warmies boast that they have a scientific consensus of opinion on anthropogenic global warming (nevermind that their numbers are inflated, that's another post), but skeptics have long asserted that many climate scientists who regard the theory as flawed are afraid to speak up for fear of swift and costly retribution.

So why would anyone speak out their dissenting opinion at all? Simply, because they can see the greater harm that will be done by the political agenda of the global warming activists, the widespread economic disaster, the futility of their efforts to control the Earth's climate and the millions who will suffer for them.

Yet the list of skeptics and dissenters is continually growing and includes some very impressive names. For a list of the prominent scientists who have joined the ranks of climate change skeptics see this list at the press blog of Sen. James Inhofe, member of the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.

Inside The Beltway

A Scurvy Suggestion

2007-07-24T20:33:00.000-04:00

Democratic candidate John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth Edwards, alluding to the fact that transporting produce to market creates greater carbon emissions, stated she is now dedicated to eating locally-grown produce. This, she opined, would mean she wouldn't be eating tangerines anytime soon.

One hopes Mrs. Edwards is not seriously suggesting that people should eat only what can be grown in their own state's backyard. Not all of us live in North Carolina, Mrs. Edwards, and it can be a long winter in the Northeast without any vegetables or fruit. Does she really mean to doom the children in Idaho to scurvy by not allowing them orange juice?

It's this kind of silliness that pervades the global warming rhetoric. Does it even make any sense? Reducing carbon footprints by not buying food that requires transporting because it is grown elsewhere?

Mrs. Edwards made the remarks in McClellanville, SC, where she and her candidate husband, John Edwards, met with environmentalist leaders on Tuesday.

Elizabeth Edwards will give up tangerines to fight global warming

Reducing Air Pollution May Increase Global Warming

2007-07-23T07:54:00.000-04:00

Researchers are studying plumes of dust that billow from China and make their way across the Pacific. These plumes are a combination of natural and man-made airborne particles, dust and pollutants, that can be 300 miles wide and six miles deep. They make their way across the Pacific and hover over California, they can circle the globe in three weeks. Scientists believe these dust plumes may be masking the effects of global warming due to a high concentration of sulfate particles which reflect sunlight and have a cooling effect. They warn that as China and other nations begin to curb their sulfate emissions, global warming could occur faster than predicted.

This is really nothing very new. In April, 2001, climate researchers warned that efforts to reduce air pollution could make global warming worse if those strategies were not well-designed. Reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides to control ozone in the lower atmosphere, for example, would lead to greater methane levels and increased global warming.

Does this mean that man should stop efforts to reduce air pollution? Of course not. What it does show is that the atmosphere and global climate are extraordinarily complex systems, and global movements to address one aspect of the problem of air pollution may have unexpected effects on both the atmosphere and the climate.

The Al Gore's are ready to force regulations on nations around the world that for some will be economically disastrous, especially those developing nations for whom such restrictions can be a death sentence to their poorer inhabitants. Man's attempts to understand the infinitely complex systems of Earth that allow life on this planet to continue are in their infancy. In his fumbling attempts to control those systems, such as climate, he could destroy it and himself.

Air pollution control efforts will add to global warming if carbon monoxide is not curbed along with nitrogen oxides

Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate

Don't Trust Rust

2007-07-22T21:40:00.000-04:00

One of the fairly risky but probably profitable new schemes to combat global warming is the plan to dump hundreds of tons of iron dust into the oceans of the world in the hopes that it will cause increased phytoplankton blooms that will absorb more carbon dioxide.

To their credit, the World Wildlife Fund is opposed to the dumping of the iron dust, citing possible negative effects such as the introduction of other trace minerals along with the iron dust, some of which may prove harmful to some other forms of marine life. They argue that this plan could cause changes in the ecosystem that would have far-reaching consequences.

"There are much safer and proven ways of preventing or lowering carbon dioxide levels than dumping iron into the ocean," said Dr. Lara Hansen, chief scientist, WWF International Climate Change Program. "This kind of experimentation with disregard for marine life and the lives of people who rely on the sea is unacceptable."

Planktos, Inc., a for-profit company, has plans to dump iron dust at locations in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

One burger - hold the meat

2007-07-20T06:43:00.000-04:00

Japanese scientists have determined that the easiest way to reduce your carbon footprint is not to drive your car less, just stop driving it to go get a burger.

According to the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan, the consumption of 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the same amount of carbon emissions as driving your car for three hours or burning a 100 watt light bulb for 20 days.

The study states that most of the greenhouse gas emissions linked to beef are not from bovine flatulence but from the processing and trucking of cattle feed. But if farmers don't raise crops for feed, where will it all go? To the biofuel industry, most likely and someone will have to truck it all anyway, won't they?

The vegetarians were thrilled with this study, as they are with all studies linking the barbaric human habit of eating animal protein with global disaster.

This comes on the heels of the startling news that Al Gore fed a pretentious meal of Patagonian toothfish to the guests at his daughter's wedding. The environmentalists and the Humane Society were quick to attack Gore for hypocrisy in serving his guests a threatened species of fish for dinner. But, in reality, the fish Gore served were perfectly legal and not endangered. They came from a well-managed and sustainable population of toothfish and were caught in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations.

Gore may not have caught onto the dangers he faces with so many fringe groups latching onto the coattails of the global warming movement. These groups' agendas have little to do with the reversal of global warming, their goals are much more narrow. He wants people to use less energy and drive hybrids. They want to eliminate the eating of meat by anyone, anywhere.

There are real and dire consequences for the world if the global warming alarmists get their way in placing restrictions on even the usage of energy by poor and developing nations who have no other resources to fall back on. But the furtherance of the agendas of radical fringe groups is a far greater danger.

It's Not Easy Being Green

2007-07-17T21:29:00.000-04:00

Al Gore is going to have to watch his back - those environmentalists can turn on you in an instant. One minute you're all breaking organically-grown, whole-grain bread together, replacing light bulbs, polishing the solar panels and buying carbon offsets to neutralize your cat's methane emissions after a tuna-rich meal - but let them find a chink in your green armor and boy, you better watch out.

Rebecca Keeble in this article in the Daily Telegraph takes Gore to task for serving up Chilean sea bass, also known as Patagonian toothfish, for the guests at his daughter's wedding.

The Patagonian toothfish is not on the endangered species list, it is however, considered a "threatened species" because of overfishing by "pirate" ships. It's one of those dishes you serve people to impress them.

Fishing of the toothfish is strictly regulated and those legally engaged in catching this species abide by strict environmental rules. The article cites the strain that poachers and those engaged in illegal fishing operations put on the fishing industry and brings up accusations of child labor. The author warns that seabirds are dying as a result of illegal fishing lines, and states that illegal fishing operations in the Southern Ocean must be curbed or... well, lots of bad stuff will happen.

Al is accused of diminishing his "green credentials". What is never asserted is that the fish Al Gore served his guests was caught illegally, or that it is illegal to eat toothfish. Pardon me for defending Al Gore, but he has never come out and made a statement that eating fish would destroy the planet. I know he's worried about the extinction of half of all species on earth, but not due to people eating them.

The Cowardly New World

2007-07-16T18:20:00.000-04:00

The UN's World Food Programme has announced it is no longer going to be able to feed the estimated 90 million people around the world that it now serves. The WFP cited rising food costs as the reason they will not be able to continue without extra contributions from donor countries.

Purchasing costs have risen 50% in the last six months. The demand for grain crops for biofuel is a main factor in driving up food costs.

This is the scenario that will continue to be played out across the world as we follow the leadership of the environmentalists and the global warming alarmists. Farmers will find it more profitable to grow crops for biofuel than for food.

The poorest will starve. The rich won't have to give up anything, they can afford to buy their carbon offsets that allow them to continue to indulge in their profligate and opulent lifestyles, while they lecture us on the importance of erasing our carbon footprints . The rest of us will become the new "poor" of the world - struggling to pay taxes on energy usage, living under regulations imposed by self-proclaimed saviors of the world.

I would rather have global warming.

UN warns it cannot afford to feed the world

Ice Didn't Melt on Greenland in Historical Warm Periods

2007-07-15T15:30:00.000-04:00

Scientists probing a glacier on Greenland have recovered the oldest DNA ever found. At a depth of 1.2 miles they found DNA of butterflies, spiders, trees and other plants, proving that the Greenland of 450,000 to 900,000 years ago was much warmer than previously thought.

They point also to the fact that during the last interglacial period, about 116,000 years ago, temperatures on Greenland were a full 5C (9F) higher than today, and the glaciers did not completely melt.

The deepest ice core studies, done in Antartica, show that the temperature varied by as much as 15C (27F) over the last 800,000 years.

The Pope Goes Neutral

2007-07-15T12:25:00.000-04:00

The Vatican has decided to go carbon-neutral by accepting a donation of land in Hungary as the Vatican Climate Forest. The size of the park will be determined by the carbon usage of the Vatican so that it will be large enough to offset all the papal emissions. This makes the Vatican the first sovereign state to go entirely carbon neutral. I think they should go all out on energy usage while their carbon footprint is being measured to build a hedge for the future.

Meanwhile, a US led science team studying forests has determined that forests in northern mid- and upper-latitudes are not as effective as tropical forests in reducing global warming. Tropical forests remove a much higher percentage of carbon emissions from the atmosphere. The study is reported in the magazine Science.

Samplings of air taken from around the world indicate that northern forests are not taking up as much carbon dioxide as previously thought and that tropical forests are taking up as much as 40% of their slack

It has not been reported whether this finding will cause revocation of the carbon offsets people have obtained through the planting of trees in northern latitudes.

Live Earth Fails to Save the Planet

2007-07-14T16:13:00.000-04:00

The Goracle attributes the fact that people are beginning to dismiss his shrill hype and scare tactics to the despicable balance in media coverage of global warming that includes even those who disagree with the theory's basic tenets. But when he offered the public a worldwide series of concerts, boasting some of the biggest names in music, he thought he was golden.

But he hasn't garnered only praise for his efforts. There has been criticism of the massive electricity usage of the concert, the trash generated by the crowds, the carbon emissions of the planes that carried the bands to their destinations and worse than that, believers didn't even turn out to watch it in the expected numbers.

In Johannesburg, SA, the unseasonable snow was blamed for the low turnout while in the UK, the weather was just too nice for people to spend their time at a concert. And those who didn't attend, didn't watch either. According to BBC figures, Live Earth scored lower ratings than the Concert for Diana, with 3.1 million viewers tuned in to Live Earth as compared to 11.4 million for the Diana tribute.

Live Earth hasn't got good press since the event, either. Rod Stewart, who is something of a famous rock artist himself, took issue with the vulgar language of some of the comedians and musicians (why wasn't Tipper handing out warning labels?). Rumors imply that Madonna was faking her guitar solo.

The Live Earth event generated 3000 times more carbon emissions than the average Briton does in a year. Remember the good old days when we thought rock n' roll could save the world?