An inconvenient chill

FROM-Editorial-The Washington Times

Global-warming proponents will face a day of reckoning on Capitol Hill

Al Gore and the climate doomsayers are at it again. The former vice president took to Twitter this week to declare the planet “under threat,” and he already has a solution. Mr. Gore’s group, the Climate Reality Project, is running a “put the heat on denial” campaign throughout August to remind people that it’s hot not because it’s summer, but because Americans are using their air conditioning and driving automobiles.

Alarmists hope to convince the public that the only way to avert certain catastrophe is to force everyone to use “green” energy. Mr. Gore coincidentally stands to profit handsomely from such a conversion through his politically correct investment firm, Generation Investment Management.

So far, Americans have been cold to the idea of giving up the conveniences of modern life. Because the planet has refused to warm up and cast doubt on the alarmist prophecies, Mr. Gore has stepped up his proganda game. In the past month, there have been 2,055 cities across the country reporting chilly summertime peak temperatures. In Texarkana, Texas, for example, the mercury can soar beyond 110 degrees in August. Residents on Friday enjoyed balmy temperatures in the 70s, beating a record set three decades ago.
Forget the evidence. The left insists proof of planetary overheating is overwhelming. “Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since the year 2000,” says Mr. Gore’s climate group. “Extreme weather events like heat waves, heavy rains and drought are becoming more common and more severe. Coastal communities all over the world are preparing for the impacts of sea level rise.” Those predictions have proved less reliable than the local weatherman’s forecast.

Hurricane season began June 1, and there haven’t been any hurricanes yet. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s index of drought conditions has been well below normal over the past 12 months. The seas aren’t rising because the polar ice isn’t melting. The National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado Boulder reports Arctic sea ice is maintaining “average” levels while “Antarctic sea ice is near a record maximum extent for mid-August.” In short, everything is just fine, and that has Mr. Gore and his allies worried.

They ought to be. On Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power announced plans next month to grill bureaucrats from a dozen federal agencies about how they’ve been using taxpayer funds to advance a global-warming agenda. This presents an ideal opportunity for Congress to insist the government get out of the propaganda business. Mr. Gore is a wealthy man with plenty of cash to advance his own business interests.

As Blizzard Nemo Strikes, Global Warming Won’t Be Far Behind

FROM-Town Hall

John Ransom

Blizzard Nemo is bearing down on the Northeast- hence the term nor’easter to describe it- so prepare for the folks at Fashion Week, now being held in New York City, to be out in force battling the storm.

“The organizers of New York's Fashion Week,” reports the CSMonitor, “a closely watched series of fashion shows held under a big tent – said they will have extra crews to help with snow removal and will turn up the heat and add an extra layer to the venue.”

We can only hope that they wear furs.

Because we’ll need blizzards of hilarity to withstand the up-and-coming storm, which will be the worst storm ever since, well, the last “WORST-STORM-EVER!”

However, we won’t have to brace against the snow per se; there have been plenty of monster winter storms in the Northeast that have been shrugged off, shoveled out from and tobogganed on.

Even in the midst of an outbreak of global warming, snow still, after all, eventually melts. Even in New England.

“Yes,” said Mark Twain, a resident of Connecticut, “one of the brightest gems in the New England weather is the dazzling uncertainty ofit.”

So, the biggest storm we’ll face won’t be Nemo, in other words; it will be the blizzard of pseudo-scientific, trash journalistic, moralizing, hypocrisizing and hyperventilating rain of ink that will tie the storm to the effects of global warming.

Al Gore can’t fart sideways today without the gas being caused by global warming.

By definition, global warming can now be defined by anything that disturbs the comfort and security of anyone who lives on the Eastern seaboard.

Read entire article

Another case study in climate change alarmism

People who have payed attention to the alarmist narrative of global warming are seldom surprised when yesterday's apocalyptic predictions are suddenly transformed into today's far less dire scientific study, usually found on the back page.

This pattern of shouted alarm morphing into ho hum is becoming so common it is a wonder that the climate community doesn't just close up shop in shame and embarrassment. But the hubris necessary to actually perpetrate such a false narrative is such that they simply change the theory to fit current climatic conditions.

A recent example of an alarmist narrative suddenly wiped away with little notice has to do with the Amazon. Reuters brings us the good news that

"Amazon forest more resilient to climate change than feared - study"

The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global warming than widely believed because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer, a study showed on Wednesday. 

The boost to growth from CO2, the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate change, was likely to exceed damaging effects of rising temperatures this century such as drought, it said.

The fact that CO2 is a "plant fertilizer" seems to be a new realization to the wizards of smart who have been keeping the world on edge these past couple of decades as they cash their tax payer funded checks. After years of demonetization of CO2. Reuters felt compelled to reluctantly and briefly explain that yes carbon dioxide actually does play a very significant and beneficial role in nature, as anyone over thirty years old remembers from their grade school science class, though who knows what is taught today.

Plants soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use it as an ingredient to grow leaves, branches and roots.

This grade school biology has finally made its way into the calculations of climate scientist and they have now issued a reprieve for the world's largest rain forest. Not only that but we are being informed, again reluctantly, that CO2 far from being a negative to the Amazon is actually a net positive.

It estimated that the damaging effects of warming would cause the release of 53 billion tons of carbon stored in lands throughout the tropics, much of it in the Amazon, for every single degree Celsius (1.8F) of temperature rise.

The benefits of CO2 fertilization exceeded those losses in most scenarios, which ranged up to a 319 billion ton net gain of stored carbon over the 21st century. About 500 to 1,000 billion ton of carbon are stored in land in the tropics.

As if increased heat would not also be beneficial to plant growth....in a jungle environment. Oh well we will take what we can get from the scientific community, they have such a hard time admitting what to most people is common sense.

"I am no longer so worried about a catastrophic die-back due to CO2-induced climate change," Professor Peter Cox of the University of Exeter in England told Reuters of the study he led in the journal Nature. "In that sense it's good news."

Gee thanks Prof, we were really worried about it, especially after you and your peers put out stories like this just four short years ago.

From the UK Guardian in 2009

"Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say" 

Global warming will wreck attempts to save the Amazon rainforest, according to a devastating new study which predicts that one-third of its trees will be killed by even modest temperature rises.

I guess these scientist did not take grade school science and did not know about the whole "plant fertilizer" properties of the demon gas carbon dioxide. They were all to worried about CO2 induced warming killing off the Amazon and made sure that as the Reuters article pointed out that the "die off because of global warming ...[is] widely believed."

And why is the Amazon rain forest die off so widely believed? From the 2009 Guardian article

Chris Jones, who led the research, told the conference: "A temperature rise of anything over 1C commits you to some future loss of Amazon forest. Even the commonly quoted 2C target already commits us to 20-40% loss. On any kind of pragmatic timescale, I think we should see loss of the Amazon forest as irreversible."

You got that? One of the hottest most humid environments on Earth was going to be "irreversibly lost" due to global warming. Even 1C rise in temperature was predicted to reek havoc on our South American jungles.

It is a good thing that good old Professor Cox came along and set them straight. Oh wait what is this ? From the Guardian story just four short years ago.

Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter, said the effects would be felt around the world. "Ecologically it would be a catastrophe and it would be taking a huge chance with our own climate. The tropics are drivers of the world's weather systems and killing the Amazon is likely to change them forever. We don't know exactly what would happen but we could expect more extreme weather." Massive Amazon loss would also amplify global warming "significantly" he said.

"Destroying the Amazon would also turn what is a significant carbon sink into a significant source."

So the reason people believe that global warming is going to destroy the Amazon and create a global "ecological catastrophe" is because that is precisely what Peter Cox was telling the world four years ago.

Of course the good professor and his like minded peers would simply say that recent scientific studies have superseded their previous conclusions. Of course the whole tenor of these people is like kids who set off fire crackers in a crowded theater then after the panic has created mayhem point out that they are innocent because after all it was not a real machine gun .

But science or truth was not the purpose in the first place was it? If you think about it, the scientific knowledge to reach the conclusion they reached in 2009 as opposed to what they know today is not that much different. As a matter of fact the only thing that changed is the data they put into their models.

The scientists said the study was a step forward because it used models comparing forest growth with variations in the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So all that they did different in this study was factor in forest growth as a result of increased CO2, which leads one to believe that they did not previously factor this into their models. 

In other words the previous catastrophic model scenarios were based on the warmer temperatures that CO2 is believed to cause without determining what effect that same CO2 would have on plant growth which every scientist knows CO2 generates, (we would hope)

This, in a nutshell, is exactly how modern science operates when it comes to "climate change". Look for and factor in only the negative impacts while ignoring or hiding the positive and limiting factors in order to promote worse case scenarios thus creating alarm. Then as with this new Amazon study, when the truth can no longer be hidden, quietly and without shame, tell the truth.

But the damage is done, the agenda has been pushed "Forward", the narrative has been established  our children have been indoctrinated and the lie has circled the globe for four years before the truth has even put on its shoes.

Thank you Professor Peter Cox for being case study in climate change alarmism.

Indoctrinate your children well

The science community, not all by any means, but  a so called consensus tells us that we are experiencing a period of global warming caused by mankind's burning of fossil fuels. They, the consensus scientific community, have joined forces with a powerful segments of the political class and environmental activist in order to convince us that this is not only happening but is actually very bad and that we need to do something to curtail these fossil fuel emissions in order to "save the planet". That, in a nutshell, is a summary of the undebateable-debate we find ourselves in.

This belief in this conclusion is so prevalent that we are currently teaching our children this theory as fact. The Environmental Protection agency has a publication out called A Students Guide to Global Climate Change. If you don't want to be afraid for our future, don't click on that link.

In this publication among the propaganda currently indoctrinating our children  it explains all the negative aspects of "Global Climate Change" which await them. It is a glitzy glossy little presentation put forth with not only all the resources of a well funded federal agency but with all the authority of the federal government behind it.

 If you took my warning about not clicking on the first link let me assure you everything in this extensive indoctrination of our children is blamed on fossil fuel emissions, the entire course is premised on the theory of man caused climate change. From the section Learn the Basics we learn, or our children do, that:

The Great Global Warming Fizzle

FROM-WSJ

The climate religion fades in spasms of anger and twitches of boredom.

By BRET STEPHENS

How do religions die? Generally they don't, which probably explains why there's so little literature on the subject. Zoroastrianism, for instance, lost many of its sacred texts when Alexander sacked Persepolis in 330 B.C., and most Zoroastrians converted to Islam over 1,000 years ago. Yet today old Zoroaster still counts as many as 210,000 followers, including 11,000 in the U.S. Christopher Hitchens might say you can't kill what wasn't there to begin with.

Still, Zeus and Apollo are no longer with us, and neither are Odin and Thor. Among the secular gods, Marx is mostly dead and Freud is totally so. Something did away with them, and it's worth asking what.

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

This week, the conclave of global warming's cardinals are meeting in Durban, South Africa, for their 17th conference in as many years. The idea is to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year, and to require rich countries to pony up $100 billion a year to help poor countries cope with the alleged effects of climate change. This is said to be essential because in 2017 global warming becomes "catastrophic and irreversible," according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency.

Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse.

The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece.

Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.

All this has been enough to put the Durban political agenda on hold for the time being. But religions don't die, and often thrive, when put to the political sidelines. A religion, when not physically extinguished, only dies when it loses faith in itself.

That's where the Climategate emails come in. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.

But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe. Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise—if much at all. Greenland isn't turning green. Florida isn't going anywhere.

The reply global warming alarmists have made to these dislosures is that they did nothing to change the underlying science, and only improved it in particulars. So what to make of the U.N.'s latest supposedly authoritative report on extreme weather events, which is tinged with admissions of doubt and uncertainty? Oddly, the report has left climate activists stuttering with rage at what they call its "watered down" predictions. If nothing else, they understand that any belief system, particularly ones as young as global warming, cannot easily survive more than a few ounces of self-doubt.

Meanwhile, the world marches on. On Sunday, 2,232 days will have elapsed since a category 3 hurricane made landfall in the U.S., the longest period in more than a century that the U.S. has been spared a devastating storm. Great religions are wise enough to avoid marking down the exact date when the world comes to an end. Not so for the foolish religions. Expect Mayan cosmology to take a hit to its reputation when the world doesn't end on Dec. 21, 2012. Expect likewise when global warming turns out to be neither catastrophic nor irreversible come 2017.

And there is this: Religions are sustained in the long run by the consolations of their teachings and the charisma of their leaders. With global warming, we have a religion whose leaders are prone to spasms of anger and whose followers are beginning to twitch with boredom. Perhaps that's another way religions die

Mental illness rise linked to climate

I know that "climate Change" has driven me close to the edge over the past few years

FROM-Sidney Morning Herald

Erik Jensen Health

RATES of mental illnesses including depression and post-traumatic stress will increase as a result of climate change, a report to be released today says.

The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse.

As many as one in five people reported ''emotional injury, stress and despair'' in the wake of these events.

The report, A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change, called the past 15 years a ''preview of life under unrestrained global warming''.

''While cyclones, drought, bushfires and floods are all a normal part of Australian life, there is no doubt our climate is changing,'' the report says.

''For instance, the intensity and frequency of bushfires is greater. This is a 'new normal', for which the past provides little guidance …

''Moreover, recent conditions are entirely consistent with the best scientific predictions: as the world warms so the weather becomes wilder, with big consequences for people's health and well-being.''

The paper suggests a possible link between Australia's recent decade-long drought and climate change. It points to a breakdown of social cohesion caused by loss of work and associated stability, adding that the suicide rate in rural communities rose by 8 per cent.
The report also looks at mental health in the aftermath of major weather events possibly linked to climate change.

It shows that one in 10 primary school children reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in the wake of cyclone Larry in 2006. More than one in 10 reported symptoms more than three months after the cyclone.

''There's really clear evidence around severe weather events,'' the executive director of the Brain and Mind Research Institute, Professor Ian Hickie, said.
''We're now more sophisticated in understanding the mental health effects and these effects are one of the major factors.

''What we have seriously underestimated is the effects on social cohesion. That is very hard to rebuild and they are critical to the mental health of an individual.''

Professor Hickie, who is launching the report today, said climate change and particularly severe weather events were likely to be a major factor influencing mental health in the future.

''When we talk about the next 50 years and what are going to be the big drivers at the community level of mental health costs, one we need to factor in are severe weather events, catastrophic weather events,'' he said

How to Expose a Warmist: Andrew Bolt Interviews Australia's Al Gore

FROM-RCP

By Tom Minchin


Introduced by Tom Minchin


The global warming movement is in heavy retreat in every Western country. But, as we have learned from the rise of leftist leaders like President Obama and Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, modern collectivists are resilient. If they can recover from the collapse of Communism, they can certainly rebuild the environmental movement. Now is not the time to celebrate, but to press home the exposure of their bogus claims and hidden interests.


TIA Daily readers will therefore appreciate the uncompromising interview style of Australian journalist Andrew Bolt as he eviscerates one of the world's leading warming alarmists, Tim Flannery-a man in the mold of Al Gore. The interview took place on radio in Melbourne, Australia on June 9.



Andrew Bolt has given TIA Daily permission to reproduce the interview in full.

The debate begins with Bolt asking Flannery about his disillusionment with the Australian government over its ditching of Cap and Trade:

Flannery: I'm unlikely to vote for him [Rudd] because my trust has been eroded away.... He promised to deliver an emissions trading scheme and he's then withdrawn that with very little justification....


Bolt: He said he wouldn't move now until the rest of the world did something which is a direct repudiation of what he said before. But, Tim, part of the reason, of course, that he's backed down is that there's been a great swing in sentiment against this kind of thing, there's a rising tide of skepticism. How much are you to blame for some of that?


Flannery : There is some swing in sentiment. And I think it's very hard to maintain any issue with that sort of very high level of support for a long time. So there's some, but what is happening around the world should give us all heart. We've seen China now pledged to reduce is emissions intensity by over 40 per cent.


Bolt: It's still going to build a coal-fired power station every week or so.


Flannery: And what that is going to do if that's achieved by 2020 is put us on track to avoid dangerous climate change. But for us to do that, places like Australia and the US, the wooden spooners in this debate, actually have to do their part.


Bolt: But, Tim, I'm just wondering, there has been a rise in skepticism. That's precisely why the Liberals [the Australian Liberal party is closer to the classical pro-free market 19th-century meaning of that term rather than its modern sense], for example, have switched from supporting an ETS to opposing it...and they dumped their leader over it. Now I'm wondering to what extent are you to blame for rising skepticism about some of the more alarming claims about global warming.


Flannery : Well, many of the things that scientists highlight may happen are very alarming. They're not alarmist but they are worrisome. Rises in sea-levels, for instance, are a significant issue.


Bolt: Well, let's go through some of your own claims. You said, for example, that Adelaide may run out of water by early 2009. Their reservoirs are half full now. You said Brisbane would probably run out of water by 2009. They are now 97 per cent full. And Sydney could be dry as early as 2007. Their reservoirs are also more than half full. How can you get away with all these claims?


Flannery: And thankfully, Andrew, governments have taken that to heart and been building some desalination capacity such as in Perth.


Bolt: Only in Perth.


Flannery: No, there's plans in every capital city.


Bolt: No, no, no, you said Brisbane would run out of water possibly by as early as 2009. There's no desalination plant, there's no dam.


Flannery: What I have said is that there is a water problem. They may run out of water. And ...


Bolt: 100 per cent full, nearly! 100 percent full.


Flannery: That's a lie, Andrew. I didn't say it would run out of water. I don't have a crystal ball in front of me. I said Brisbane has a water problem.


Bolt: I'll quote your own words: "Water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months." That was, on the timeline you gave, by the beginning of 2009. Their reservoirs are now 97 per cent full.


Flannery: Yeah, sure. There's variability in rainfall. They still need a desal plant.


Bolt: You also warned that Perth would be the 21 century's first ghost metropolis.


Flannery: I said it was...may.


Bolt: It's all "may." Right?


Flannery: Because at that stage there had been no flows into that water catchment for a year and the water engineers were terrified.


Bolt: Have you seen the water catchment levels here, see, they're tracking above the five year level. I'm showing you now.


Flannery: You know what I came in here to talk about, Andrew, here? It's our farm day we're doing with our Deakin lecture series in Bendigo, at the Bendigo town hall today. And it's a really exciting event...

Andrew: All that's lovely, Tim. But I think you need to be held to account for the alarmism that is in part your stock in trade, your shtick, and is responsible for what you now see-the retreat from global warming policies.


Flannery: You want to paint me as an alarmist.


Bolt: You are an alarmist.


Flannery: I'm a very practical person.


Bolt: I'm asking you to defend these quotes.


Flannery: Well, I've done that already

Bolt: You said the Arctic could be ice free two years ago. [Actually, last year.]


Flannery: No I didn't...


[The show host, Steve Price interrupts, and they argue over the questioning.]

Bolt: I'm asking Tim whether he repents from all these allegations about cities running out of water, cities turning into ghost cities, sea level rises up to an eight-story-high building. Don't you think that is in part why people have got more skeptical?


Flannery: I don't, actually, because some of those things are possibilities in the future if we continue polluting as we do. And we've already seen impacts in southern Australia on all of those cities. Everyone remembers the water restrictions and so forth. Just because we get a good, wet year doesn't mean we should forget about the problem. We actually have to deal with this long term drying trend and that means securing our water supply.


Bolt: You warn about sea level rises up to an eight-story building. How soon will that happen?

Flannery: Asking that question is it's a bit like asking a stock analyst when the next stock market crash is going to happen and how big it's going to be. No one can. We can all see the underlying weakness in the market in the months before the crash.

Bolt: Thousands of years?


Flannery: Could be thousands of years.


Bolt: Tens of thousands of years?


Flannery: Could be hundreds of years.


Bolt: Hundreds of years?


Flannery: It could be hundreds of years. The thermo- dynamics of ice sheets are very, very difficult to predict, but what we do know when we look back is the fossil record is that when the world is a degree or two warmer than it is now seal levels rise very significantly-between four and 14 meters above where they are. We can't say how long it takes for that rise to happen because the fossil record just isn't good enough, it isn't accurate enough...


Bolt: Should we also have nuclear power plants?

Flannery: In Australia I don't think so. We've got such a great load of assets in the renewable area that I don't think there's an argument here that they are ever going to be economic.


Bolt: Four years ago you did. What changed your mind?


Flannery: No, I never did. I've always had the same argument.

Bolt: No, no, no. Here's your quote: "Over the next two decades Australians could use nuclear power to replace all our coal-fired power plants. We would then have a power infrastructure like France and in doing so we would have done something great for the world." That was your quote.


Flannery: I don't recall saying that at all.

Bolt: You wrote it. You wrote it in The Age. There it is, highlighted.


Flannery: Well ,very good.


Bolt: That's the point, you know, you make these claims and when people confront you, you walk away from them.


Flannery: But that was about "may." No, no, you said "may." And Australia may be able to do that. It's not what I recommend and I never have recommended it. But what I do say...


Bolt: "We would have done something great for the world."


Flannery: But what I do say, nuclear power, right, getting away from coal would be great for the world. Why should we take the most expensive option in this country, which has always been recognized as having the most expensive and difficult option. We are going to see a whole lot of other technologies and innovations which are now well under way which we could use instead of nuclear power.


Bolt: Such as?


Flannery: Such as concentrated PV technology, geothermal technology, wave power, wind power...

Bolt: You're an investor in geothermal technology , aren't you? [Flannery's investment in geo-thermal technology received a $90 million grant from the Australian government last year.]


Flannery: Yeah, I am. Indeed.

Bolt: How come you don't declare that.


Flannery: Well, I've just done it.


Bolt: You just did because I told you. You said that geothermal, which you are an investor of, you've got a plant, you've invested in a plant in Innamincka and you said the technology was really easy. How come that plant...

Flannery: Not really that easy.

Bolt: Well, yes. It's actually had technological difficulties and it's been delayed two years because it's not that easy, after all, is it?

Flannery: Well, any new technology is going to be difficult to bring to fruition. It's a bit like generation for nuclear. There's challenges all the way. But in terms of geothermal there are many places in the world where you can actually drill down and get into a hot rock body such as...

Price: Andrew, we're going to have to go.

 More...

Banned Milliband

Minister's global warming nursery rhyme adverts banned for overstating the risks


FROM- DAILY MAIL
By Sara Nelson

Two government advertisements which use nursery rhymes to warn of the dangers of climate change have been banned for exaggerating the threat.

Commissioned by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, the adverts are based on children’s poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub and assert that climate change will cause flooding and drought.

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) ruled the adverts – which attracted 939 complaints - made exaggerated claims which went beyond mainstream scientific consensus.

One advert read: ‘Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.’

Beneath this was written: ‘Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.’

The other read: ‘Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub – a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.’

It added: ‘Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense. If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.’

The watchdog stated the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) should not publish the adverts again, ruling that the text accompanying the rhymes should have been phrased more tentatively.

Using reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as reference, the ASA determined it was not possible to make such definitive statements about Britain’s future climate, the Times reported.

As a result the adverts were found to have broken the code on substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims.

The ASA said: ‘All statements about future climate were modeled on predictions, which the IPCC report itself stated still involved uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.’

The watchdog found that other elements of the campaign, including a TV and cinema advert in which a father read his daughter a bedtime story about a world affected by climate change, did not breach its guidelines.

Mr Miliband said his department had been ‘comprehensibly vindicated’ by the ASA but promised to more accurately reflect scientific uncertainty about global warming in future campaigns.

The ruling comes amidst the fall-out from the leak of more than 1,000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s controversial Climatic Research Unit.

The emails, which dealt a severe blow to the credibility of environmental science, were seized upon by global warming skeptics as evidence that academics were massaging the figures.

Since the leak, belief in global warming has fallen from 41 per cent to 26 per cent

H/T Air Vent
More...

HURRY SAVE THE CHILDREN !

That evil denial industry sure is warping peoples minds, better save the kids before its too late!


Maybe killing the the Polar Bears is not scary enough what can we do?

Climate change makes birds shrink in North America




H/T EU Referendum
More...

Time for climate change reality check

FROM-The Union

Russ Steele

Now that we know the UN IPCC climate change reports are the result of scientific fraud, claiming that humans cause global warming, it is time for a reality check. You can make your own assessment from the news, but what are your children being taught about global warming in their schools? Are your children's teachers telling them that humans are responsible for global warming? Or, are they attributing climate change to natural climate cycles? Are you sure?

A year ago, I sent e-mails to all the Nevada County school superintendents, asking if their schools were teaching students about climate change. If climate change was being taught in the classroom, were the presentations balanced and giving both point of view? Were both human caused warming and natural cycle theories being presented and discussed?

Those superintendents who answered back, about 25 percent, said it was up to teachers to decide what to teach about climate change. Not having any children in schools to ask, I dropped my investigation.

Now that the wheels are coming off the global warming wagon, and we now know that the whole climate change scare was really a hoax perpetuated by some agenda driven climatologists in the U.S. and the U.K. It is time for another attempt to get at the facts? What are the schools teaching our children? Are they telling them the truth? Or are they continuing to be propaganda agents for the government?

Looking at the materials available to help teachers with science questions, I discovered a NASA Web site that is trying to convince your children that you, your neighbors and all humans are responsible for climate change. The Web site (climate.nasa.gov/kids/bigQuestions/climateChanging) uses emotional pictures of little animals, polar bears, and simulations of sea level rise to scare your children.

NASA ties the rise in CO2 to human activity, claiming it is now higher that anytime in the last 650,000 years. But, if you go back 500 million years and carbon levels were not just 10 to 20 percent higher, they were 10 to 20 times higher, and not just for a fleeting decade or two, but for a staggering hundred million years.

According to NASA, the ice cores going back 650,000 years show CO2 level rose and fell along with temperatures, but they fail to tell the children that any warming occurred hundreds of years before the rise in CO2. It is not good science to hide the facts from students to promote a climate change hoax.

Also, this is the same lie that Al Gore used in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” This movie was based on data we now know is a result of scientific fraud. Are your children's teachers using Al Gore's movie and this NASA Web site in their classroom?

Are you sure?

It is time to ask your children's teachers some hard questions:

• What are they teaching about climate change?

• Are they teaching climate change is caused by human, or natural cycles?

• The science is not settled, so are they presenting both sides of the argument in a fair and balance way?

Here are some facts you should share with your children and their teachers about climate change:

• Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional. The warming during 1975-1998 is similar to that during 1910-1940 and 1860-1880.

• There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. Earth has been cooling for more than a decade, according to satellite temperature measurements.

• The Medieval Warm Period, about 1,000 years ago, was hotter than today, when the vikings were farming on Greenland, which is now covered with ice.

• Sea levels have been rising at rate of 1.6 mm/yr over the last 100 years, which translates into a sea level rise of about six inches by the year 2100.

In 2007 the record-low Arctic sea ice was not caused by global warming, but by wind currents that pushed a massive amount of thick, multiyear sea ice out of the Arctic basin into warmer Atlantic water, according to NASA.

• Analysis of Arctic ice core data demonstrates that CO2 concentrations have not played a significant role in the waxing and waning of past ice ages.

Continuing to the teach children that humans are responsible for climate change will lead them to question all science when the truth becomes known, and they discover they have been fooled by their teachers.

It is time for a reality check. What are your children or grandchildren being taught about global warming?
More...

We Are Doomed -- Again

FROM-American Thinker

By John Dietrich

Global warming is far from the first apocalyptic prediction, or even the first based on computer models. The belief that the world is coming to an end appears to be a universal concept based on an innate psychic need. All major religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism -- have a version of the end of the world. While the major religions' visions may be traced back to ancient Persia and Zoroastrian teachings, the Mayan and Hopi Indian visions of the end times are unlikely to have originated in the Middle East. While we still have religion-based suicidal groups (Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians, the Peoples Temple), these groups now have a competitor. In a secular society, we no longer put our faith in ancient revelations. The apparent psychic need for an apocalyptic myth may not have disappeared. The new apocalyptic visions are not based on revelation, but on "science."

In the 1960s, Paul Ehrlich's bestseller, The Population Bomb, predicted the end of civilization by 1983 as a result of overpopulation. Ehrlich, Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University and president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology, claimed that "the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." He was the first to base his conclusions on computer modeling. In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted the depletion of many of our necessary resources, including the depletion of oil by 1992. Its report, "The Limits of Growth," sold 12 million copies.

During the Cold War, the West was gripped by the fear of a nuclear apocalypse celebrated (among others) by Jonathan Schell's The Fate of the Earth and the TV program "The Day After." "Thermonuclear education" became an important part of the school curriculum. Commentary magazine described this indoctrination as "gratuitous sadism." It elicited comments from young students such as, "Do you really think anyone will make it? If they do, will they want to? I pray I am lucky and die."

If famine or nuclear annihilation doesn't kill us, perhaps diseases will. In 1987, the New York Times headlined an article titled "AIDS May Dwarf the Plague." The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, told a congressional panel, "We could spend our energy on research and immunization and education and still not have any Americans left unless we're prepared to confront the crisis of AIDS." Oprah Winfrey announced that "one out of five heterosexuals will be dead of AIDS by 1990." The swine flu "pandemic" nearly devastated the tourist industry in Mexico. In October 2009, President Obama declared a state of national emergency because of the swine flu. It is quite possible that more people perish by falling in their bathtubs than have died of swine flu. So far, the president has not declared this a national emergency.

The crisis de jour is global warming. Much of the hysteria generated about global warming is the result of the research done by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Eastern England. It claims that the world's largest temperature data set and its work in mathematical models was incorporated into the IPCC's (United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, dismissed a report by the Indian government which said that glaciers might not be melting as fast as had been feared. Dr. Pachauri described the report as "voodoo science."

There are several problems with apocalyptic scenarios. For one, a genuine and avoidable crisis may be ignored due to crisis fatigue. Residents repeatedly told to evacuate because of oncoming hurricanes may become complacent in the face of a serious hurricane. Pathological science diminishes faith in genuine science. The world is full of swamis, faith healers, snake oil salesmen, and mountebanks. There are now thousands of professionals whose reputations are invested in maintaining the global warming hoax. Perhaps the most reprehensible characteristic of apocalypse-mongers is that they target children. According to Commentary magazine, thermonuclear education consituted "the most serious abuse of children."

The threat of global warming will eventually recede. The need for an apocalyptic vision, however, will not. The next threat will contain many of the characteristics of the global warming threat. It will predict the end of the world. It will be based on "scientific facts." It will require massive counseling for the psychological distress it will cause. It will require the creation of a massive bureaucracy. And it will require the transfer of massive amounts of money to the hypothesized victims of the future crisis.

John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing).

More...

Eco-Imperialism – every Environmentalist’s Dream

A must read article

FROM- Buy The Truth

How do you like the government agency that makes official climate predictions, and pushes industry and local government to act on “climate change” to be headed up by a green alarmist and activist? It’s well known that in the USA the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies is headed up by the climate alarmist and activist James Hansen, who encourages criminal misdemeanours in USA and criminal damage in UK. But what of the UK? The situation is even worse. The UK Meteorological Office, whose Hadley Centre runs the IPCC scientific assessment (“Working Group 1”), is now a department of the UK Ministry of Defence. And its Chairman is none other than Robert Napier, a green activist and alarmist with tentacles into some of the world’s most powerful drivers of climate alarmism and social control.

Not only is he the chairman of the Met office, but Napier is Chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission, seeking to impose massive green taxation; he is Director of the Carbon Disclosure Project, which has built the largest database on corporate ‘carbon footprints’ as a basis for discrimination against those who don’t go along with the eco agenda; he is Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation, which is bankrolled by the UN Environment Programme to push and ensure compliance with the Green agenda; and he is Chairman of the Homes and Communities Agency, which is seeking to grab land for ecotowns and determining compliance of housing to stringent Green standards. Other recent positions he has held include Chief Executive of WWF-UK, a vast malthusian political pressure group seeking to grab land and stop development around the world; a Director of The Climate Group, a huge international pressure group for the climate change agenda; and a Director of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, a secular body seeking to infuse ‘Green’ values into all the major religions, and to designate land as ‘sacred’ to prohibit development, and galvanize religions as a powerful advocacy group for the eco agenda.

This web of organizations over which Napier exercises influence means that Napier is responsible for the generation of climate alarmism, input into the IPCC reports, powerful secular and religious eco advocacy, directing of investments exceeding $55 trillion towards the Green agenda, monitoring of eco compliance, manipulating government fiscal policy towards green taxes, and control of the built environment towards the green agenda. Napier is an eco-imperialist, and for him and his cronies it’s all about total social control for the green agenda – controlling all bases: investment, building, land, religion, government, taxes, propaganda, advocacy, monitoring, climate science and data.....read entire article here

More...

Uh..What's not to like ?

I know they have to find something terrible in this... and they do. But from the headline and throughout the article it really is hard to see how you could find much that isn't on balance...well pretty good. I mean frozen barren rock strewn wastelands have a certain charm I guess but the description of the changes taking place sound kind of nice to me.

FROM-The Canadian Press

Climate change doubles tundra plant life, boosting shrubs, grasses

Climate change is already having a dramatic effect on plants in the High Arctic, turning the once rocky tundra a deep shade of green and creating what could be another mechanism speeding up global warming.

In a new study to be published in the November issue of the journal Ecology, University of British Columbia geographer Greg Henry has, for the first time, confirmed that rapidly rising temperatures in the Arctic are creating major changes in the plants that live there.

"It's happening so quickly," says Henry.

Henry first came to Alexandra Fiord on the east coast of Ellesmere Island in the 1980s to examine plants growing there. He found a harsh landscape covered with tiny Arctic willows, heather, dryas and blueberries, none taller than 10 centimetres.

Since those days, the average temperature in the area has increased by about 2.5 C - "an extremely rapid change," says Henry.

Those warmer temperatures are making a difference.

Henry says the total amount of plant material above the ground has doubled. In wetlands, that mass is at least three times what it was in the early 1980s. Plants that barely reached researchers' ankles now tickle their shins.

Below ground in wetland areas, researchers found 10 times as much biomass.

"That's an extremely rapid change," says Henry. "That's just unbelievable."

The changes were even more apparent where the land had been disturbed by erosion and sinkholes caused by melting permafrost.

Other evidence corresponds with his findings. The burgeoning shrub population can be spotted on satellite photos. And Dene and Inuit have been saying for years that the tundra is growing bushier.

There are other effects as well.

"If you increase the temperature, the plants respond by growing faster," Henry says. "The leaves come out earlier, the flowers come out earlier, they set seeds earlier. The timing of things is sped up."

The consequences of those changes, however, are still unclear.

"What's going to be the end point here?" Henry asks. "(Are) all parts of the system going to be able to adapt to the extremely rapid change in temperature?"

The range for large grazing animals such as muskox and caribou is almost certain to change.

They may welcome the more luxuriant summer growth. But taller shrubs may crowd out lichens and mosses, which muskox and caribou depend on for winter browse.

There could also be more ominous results.

Henry's study is restricted to Alexander Fiord. But his findings there closely match results from a global experiment that Henry co-ordinated on how warmer temperatures would affect tundra.

That means what's happening on Ellesmere Island could well be happening on tundra around the circumpolar world.

And if that is the case, Henry said the new, denser, shrubbier tundra could speed up global warming even further simply because that vegetation is darker and absorbs more solar energy. Previous studies have suggested that a global spread of thicker plant growth on the tundra could have the same effect as doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Henry said he expects other researchers to soon start reporting results from similar experiments in other parts of the world.

Reports on how global warming is shrinking the Arctic ice cap are increasingly common. Henry said it could be just as important to keep track of how the climbing temperatures at the top of the world are affecting landscapes.

"There's lots of press every September when NASA comes out with the latest minimum sea ice measurements and assessments. That gets big play, but no one ever hears about tundra."

Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

More...

Going global loco local

I was reading this article from Reuters- The spectre of climate change in Kashmir and just had to laugh. The article is obviously about climate change in Kashmir, hence the title. It is full of your typical doom and gloom :

A report on ‘Climate Change in Kashmir’ by ActionAid, an international anti-poverty agency, says the Pampore-Khrew belt, famous for its saffron production, has been witnessing an unusual phenomenon over the last two decades — receiving the least snowfall in Kashmir....

.....Romshoo says there are a number of indicators of climate change discernible in the Kashmir valley.

“Glaciers are receding, scanty and erratic snow fall, change of growing season, shifting of vegetation from lower to higher altitudes, shrinking/loss of wetlands, etc,” he said.

The government official does try to explain reality:

Enviroment Minister Jairam Ramesh says there is no conclusive scientific evidence that climate change is causing glaciers to recede. Ramesh says some glaciers like the Siachen are advancing and there needs to be more study done on this subject.

But the activist will have none of it. Not only do they attribute these events to man made climate change, they have identified the specific cause:

The report also said locals attributed this phenomenon to industrial units which have come up in the area since 1982.

Well I guess that is somewhat reasonable right? Increased industrialization in the area has caused climate change, I guess it could be argued that soot and such would cause a local affect on glaciers etc. But that is not what they mean at all they are far more specific:

The ActionAid report also mentions the movement of heavy military vehicles as one of the reasons for excess pollution in the Valley.

It says convoys and heavy military vehicles produce a high level of greenhouse gases and are out of the purview of the law enforcing agencies in pollution control.

Can the government do something about the reduction of greenhouse gases in the Valley? Will education and awareness among locals and tourists help slow climate change?

So the report being cited in this Reuter's story, despite the environmental minister's caution, represents that greenhouse gasses from military convoys are melting glaciers. That somehow harmless carbon dioxide is being spewed from trucks into the local environment and is reeking havoc on the local ecosystem.

This is one of the problems with the entire AGW mania. The idea that greenhouse gasses are a pollutant and an increase would cause local warming is not only believed but promoted through the media. This is just one example of the absurdity that this movement has taken us but no more absurd than an entire generation being taught that using mercury laden light bulbs is going to save the polar bears.

More...

The Branch Carbonian Cult

FROM-American Thinker

By Jim Guirard

The Global Warming Movement (AGW) has taken on the worrisome attributes of a pseudo-religious cult, which operates far more on the basis of an apocalyptic "belief" system than on objective climate science.


Since this worldwide Movement and its strident policies of Less Energy at Higher Prices (in order to achieve reductions in everyone's "carbon footprint") are at the heart of America's enormous energy shortfall, it poses a national security threat of major proportions.


And in this context, the AGW Crusade should be understood in a "Know Thy Enemy" frame of reference -- perhaps not in terms of a fully conscious or intentional enemy of the American people at a time of war and economic crisis but as a deadly threat to our economic stability and national security, nonetheless.


Kingdom of the Cults


Here, therefore, in far more detail than any routine allegation of "cultism" conveys, are no fewer than ten of this AGW ideology's very specific characteristics, many of whose roots and lock-step influences can be found in Walter Martin's and Ravi Zacharias' definitive, award-winning 2003 book, "Kingdom of the Cults:"


1. Leadership by a self-glorifying, manipulative New Age Prophet -- in this case, former Vice-President Al Gore, though he is rapidly being supplanted by President Barack Obama.


2. Assertion of an apocalyptic threat to all mankind.


3. An absolutist definition of both the threat and the proposed solution(s).


4. Promise of a salvation from this pending apocalypse.


5. Devotion to an inspired text which (arguendo) embodies all the answers -- in this case, Prophet Gore's pseudo-scientific book "Earth in the Balance" and his more recent "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary.


6. A specific list of "truths" (see the Ten Commandments listed below) which must be embraced and proselytized by all Cult members..


7. An absolute intolerance of any deviation from any of these truths by any Cult member.


8. A strident intolerance of any outside criticism of the Cult's definition of the problem or of its proposed solutions.


9. A "Heaven-on-Earth" vision of the results of the mission's success and/or a "Hell-on-Earth" result if the cultic mission should fail.


10. An inordinate fear (and an outright rejection of the possibility) of being proven wrong in either the apocalyptic vision or the proposed salvation.


Prophet Gore's (and now Prophet Obama's) Ten Commandments


With this half of the AGW Cult's self-definition now clearly established, here is the other half -- its Ten Commandments of "Thou-Shalt" and "Thou-Shalt-Not" absolutes -- designed for keeping its devoted cultists in lockstep support and its intimidated detractors in retreat:


o Thou shalt have but one Mother Earth (Gaia) Goddess before you


o Thou shalt not worship false Prophets -- especially sun cycles, ocean cycles, volcanic influences and "Objective Science" in general


o Thou shalt never doubt catastrophic depletion of the so-called "Ozone Layer"


o Thou shalt not doubt man-made "Greenhouse Gasses" as the primary cause of GW


o Thou shalt condemn such doubters as "Extremists" and "Criminals Against Humanity"


o Thou shalt minimize, ignore and deny any and all environmental good news


o Thou shalt avoid benefit-cost evaluations of AGW solutions and never admit error or falsehood about anything


o Thou shalt continue opposing all Nuclear and new Hydro power, despite their non-GW attributes


o Thou shalt promote "zero-carbon-footprint" policies of Less Energy at Higher Prices, except for heavily subsidized ethanol


o Thou shalt engage forever in "Eeeekology" and "Eeeekonomics" (scare-tactics ecology and economics) and never, ever vote Republican


Finally, since this AGW juggernaut seems to have brainwashed a majority of Americans, most of the media and academia, a majority of the Congress and even many churches into a mind-set of support for its pseudo-religious scam, a recent Wall Street Journal's recent conclusion that this represents a "Mass Neurosis" of a cultic nature seems alarmingly accurate.


Truths to be Ignored or Denied


On the more climatically correct side, all that is needed to begin the collapse of this house-of-cards scam is yet another list of certifiable facts and truths -- one which will disprove much of the Cult's mission, tactics and alleged "solutions" -- namely,


(a) the fact that while Arctic ice may (or may not, of late) be receding, Antarctic ice has been increasing for about 40 years


(b) the fact that global temperatures have been on a slightly decreasing trend since 1998,


(c) the fact that Mars (which features no man-made factor at all) is experiencing "global warming," as well,


(d) the fact that Antarctic "ice shelves" which occasionally break off, float away and melt at sea, do not raise ocean levels at all,


(e) the fact that several of the "hottest years" on record were in the 1930s and 1940s, when CO2 levels were much lower than today's,


(f) the fact that ever more scientists assert convincingly that atmospheric CO2 is a lagging consequence, rather than a triggering cause, of alleged global warming,


(g) the fact that all earlier glacial and inter-glacial periods were clearly caused not by man but by solar, ocean and volcanic cycles and "natural" fluctuations,


(h) the fact that di-hydrogen oxide (H2O) molecules -- water vapor -- and methane molecules are 20-30 times more heat-retentive than CO2 molecules are,


(i) the fact that termites worldwide expel about as much "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere as does all the burning of fossil fuels by human beings,


(j) the fact that even if all Kyoto-type limits on CO2 were obeyed by all nations, the estimated net impact by 2050 would be less than half a degree F -- with a ruinous cost-to-benefit ratio of thousands to one, when the standard requirement is no more than one to one.


Conclusion: Since every such Prophet-led, scare-mongering, pseudo-religious conspiracy needs a properly descriptive name, and since this one's primary concerns over alleged depletion of the so-called "ozone layer" over Antarctica have shifted to a panic over CO2, instead, a fitting name for this cultic gaggle might be the "Branch Carbonian Cult" --


o "Branch" because it is a radical offshoot from the main body of science-based environmentalism;


o "Carbonian" because of its professed fear of carbon dioxide as a primary cause of AGW; and


o "Cult" because of its self-evident structure and practices -- which are in full accord with most elements of the typical religious cult, Branch Davidian or otherwise.



Jim Guirard is an attorney and head of truespeak.org.
More...

Global Warming: The True-Believer Mindset:

FROM-CO2 Science

More...

"inveterate liar"

FROM-Buy The Truth

Filthy Dreamers

If you are the President’s chief scientific advisor then you have a duty to be informed and keep informed, and a duty to refrain from making indisputably false statements. Such responsibility is obviously too much for John Holdren, who has shown himself again as an inveterate liar (see earlier posts All who hate Me love Death and Growth of Crops, Weeds, CO2 and Lies). In a recent interview with New Yorker writer Elizabeth Kolbert, Holdren repeats the litany of ‘evidences’ for anthropogenic global warming, which he must know are patently untrue if he has read any scientific literature over the past few years. Holdren said:

We all talk about the acceleration of climate change in its impacts that we’re observing. One sees the incidence of wildfires going up more rapidly than people expected, the incidence of heat waves and droughts going up more rapidly, sea level is rising more rapidly… All of these indicators are moving more rapidly.

Wrong on all counts. It’s simply impossible for Holdren to be honestly mistaken here, because the data in some cases comes from US government agencies. Consider sea level rise. There is not the slightest evidence that “sea level is rising more rapidly”, that this represents an “acceleration of climate change in its impacts”. When Holdren says “One sees…” he cannot mean to ‘foresee’ as a ‘seer’ might do, since his previous statement makes it clear that this is one of the accelerating ‘impacts that we’re observing’. Well, it’s really very easy to determine Holdren’s integrity since we can simply look at the data that ‘we’re observing’. Do records show that sea level rise is accelerating, “rising more rapidly”? Not at all: sea level rise has been pretty steady over the last 100 years, except in the last few years when it has appeared to slow down significantly, even to the extent of appearing to show a declining trend since 2006. Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility correctly states

One definitive statement we can make is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating.

Who knows what the future holds, but it is simply deliberate falsehood to claim that there is an acceleration in sea level rise. Check it out for yourself: here is the data (over thousands of years, a hundred years, and 15 years):









Note that the last graph is from NOAA, a US government agency. One scientific conclusion that can be drawn from these graphs is that sea level rise to date is not anthropogenically related.

What about droughts? Are they increasing, and are they accelerating in their increase? Neither! The latest data has been compiled by Sheffield et al in the Journal of Climate (2009), Global and continental drought in the second half of the twentieth century: severity-area-duration analysis and temporal variability of large-scale events. The authors

identified 296 large scale drought events (greater than 500,000 km2 and longer than 3 months) globally for 1950-2000…the mid-1950s showed the highest drought activity and the mid-1970s to mid-1980s the lowest activity.

So, over that 50 year period, drought was greatest when CO2 concentration was lowest. As for recent trends, we can find this in Sheffield and Wood’s paper in the Journal of Climate (2008), Global Trends and Variability in Soil Moisture and Drought Characteristics, 1950-2000, from Observation-Driven simulations of the Terrestrial Hydrologic Cycle, which records

Trends in drought duration, intensity, and severity are predominantly decreasing…concurrent changes in drought extent are evident, with a global decreasing trend of between -0.021% and –0.035% yr-1.

Sorry Holdren, drought is not only not on the up and accelerating upwards, it is declining globally in extent, duration, intensity and severity.

Maybe Holdren was just talking about USA? No chance!

Over the Americas, trends are uniformly negative and mostly significant.

So we could go on. Again, no informed and honest person could make the statements Holdren does. Holdren has been spouting nonsense since the late 1960s and 1970s, and has spent too much time in cahoots with dreamers like the notorious atheist Paul Ehrlich, his co-author on several books. Ehrlich made the following ridiculously foolish predictions:

(1968) The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.

(1969) Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles…the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979…the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics.

(1969) If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in year 2000.

(1970) In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.

(1974) nutritional disaster seems likely to overtake humanity in the 1970s (or, at the latest, the 1980s)…A situation has been created that could lead to a billion or more people starving to death.

These filthy dreamers are in the mode of the climate alarmist Stephen Schneider, another of Holdren’s long-time friends and associates, who infamously said

…we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have…Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.

In the early 1970s, Schneider, who studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was “full on” about catastrophic global cooling, and he discounted the idea that increasing CO2 would mitigate it by causing global warming. In Schneider S. & Rasool S., Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141, he wrote

It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.

Of course, Schneider jumped once he saw the CO2 bandwagon coming along, and has been a diehard CO2 global warming alarmist ever since. But we know from his 1971 paper that he’s aware he is perpetrating a lie. We know where the balance between being effective and being honest lies with him.


More...

But it's Senatorial 'ridiculous pseudo-science garbage'

FROM-The Hill


Vitter: Climate change evidence often 'ridiculous pseudo-science garbage'

Evidence from liberals supporting climate change is often based on "ridiculous pseudo-science garbage," Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) charged Friday.

Vitter openly mocked an assertion by his Senate colleague Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who said she can feel a change in climate as manifested by increased turbulence in her plane flights.

"Unfortunately, that's sort of the ridiculous pseudo-science garbage that's so common on the left on this issue," Vitter said in an interview with a conservative news radio syndicate. "The real truth is getting out there, and I think citizens are really starting to push back."

"I think there is beginning to be a serious reconsideration of the science of this," Vitter added, saying that supposed growing skepticism of climate change was helping fuel Republican opposition to the cap-and-trade bill before Congress.

Vitter insisted that the month of September, during which the Senate will reconvene after its recess, would be a "critical period" for the advancement of the bill.

The conservative Louisianan expected the cap-and-trade bill would easily pass out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in September, but face a much more difficult time on the Senate floor.

The climate change bill is one of President Obama and congressional Democrats' top legislative priorities this year. The House passed a preliminary version of the cap-and-trade bill by a narrow margin in late June.

Vitter was confident senators would be able to block a vote on the legislation, though.

"I am very hopeful that we can block draconian legislation on the Senate floor, and that we can prevent it from getting 60 votes," he said. "I think there are several Democrats from the upper Plains states, from the Midwest, also my colleague Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, who are going to have a very difficult time supporting this."

More...

Lurch, Lurching

FROM- SPPI
Senator Kerry Misfires about Global Warming and National Security

Senator John Kerry’s statement in early August 2009 about “global warming” before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he chairs, was false in every particular, leading him to draw the incorrect conclusion that “global warming” was a threat to national security. The Senator got every fact wrong –

Wilkins Ice Shelf: Senator Kerry said the recent cracking of the thin “ice-bridge” linking the Wilkins Ice Shelf to the Antarctic Ice Shelf was caused by “global warming”. It was not: there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years.

Arctic ice-cap: Senator Kerry said the Arctic ice-cap would vanish in summer by 2013 because of “global warming”. It will not, and, even if it does, “global warming” will not be the cause: there has been rapid global cooling for very nearly eight years.

Polar bears: Senator Kerry said polar bears were under threat from “global warming”. They are not: their population has increased fivefold since the 1940s, and they survived the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when there was no summer ice in the Arctic.

Famine and drought: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would bring more famine and drought. It will not: “global warming”, if and when it resumes, would cause the space occupied by the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, reducing drought globally.

Pandemics: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would cause worse pandemics. It will not: so-called “tropical” diseases can flourish even in Arctic temperatures. It is inadequate public-health measures, not rising global temperatures, that spread supposedly “tropical” diseases.

Natural disasters: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would cause more natural disasters. It will not: hurricane activity is now at its lowest in half a century, despite warmer weather worldwide; and patterns of flood and drought are much as they always were.

Climate refugees: Senator Kerry said “global warming would cause human displacement on “a staggering scale”. It will not: the only significant cause of human displacement would be rapidly-rising sea level, but this is not happening and is not likely to happen.

Middle East water supply: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would shrink the water supply in the Middle East. It will not: water has been scarce there for 1000 years, and warmer weather is already moistening the atmosphere and greening hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of the Sahara.

Asian water supply: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would melt the Himalayan glaciers, drying up the water supply of a quarter of the planet’s population. It will not: it is Eurasian winter snow cover, not the glaciers, that supplies Asia with its water, and that shows no trend in 50 years.

Sea level rising 3 feet: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would raise sea level 3 feet. It will not: sea level rose 8 inches in the 20th century, is currently not rising at all, and will rise by little more than 1 foot in the 21st century.

entire report here
More...

Global warming must be true if this is the yardstick

FROM-The Examiner

One democrat is so desperate to prove global warming isn't a farce, she's thrown so-called scientific data out of the window and moved on to first-hand 'knowledge' to try and gain ground in the climate debate.

In an interview with The Detroit News Monday, Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) claimed, "Cimate change is very real." Stabenow, recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee, backed up her statement by adding, "Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurrricanes and tornadoes."

Right, Deb. If that's the argument, then it must be true.


More...