"No other gods before her."

FROM-Pajama Media

An All-Out Deification of Nature
Environmentalism has become less about saving the planet and more about worshiping it.

Since the introduction of bumper stickers calling for us to respect “Mother Earth,” we have been careening towards an all-out deification of nature. And as the last decade has witnessed an unprecedented push for green cars, green energy, and green government policies, it seems environmentalism has finally become less about saving the planet and more about worshiping it.

The mounting significance of environmentalism was evident when Ryan Seacrest welcomed viewers to American Idol’s April 22 episode with these words: “We are coming to you live from Hollywood, and Happy Earth Day. To celebrate our finale we will once again use green power at the NOKIA theatre.” I was immediately struck by the irony that “Happy Earth Day” is in, while “Merry Christmas” and “ Happy Columbus Day” are out.
More...

That the Fox network as a whole has taken the earth-first leap is evident not only to viewers of American Idol, but to those who watch 24 as well. At the end of the April 20 episode, Carlos Bernard (Tony Almeda) said, “Climate change is a real and gathering threat and one that we can no longer ignore. Luckily though, it’s not too late. With just a few small changes in our daily lives, we can all work together to stop global warming.”

Of course the earth-first sermons are not just directed towards older congregants; they are also crafted for children. For example, while flipping through Nickelodeon, Noggin, and Disney television channels on Earth Day with my kids, there were not only the basic “Happy Earth Day” graphics on the three channels, but a plethora of advice on how to protect the planet. Nickelodeon’s Earth Day programming included “Save the Raccoon,” “Olivia Helps Mother Nature,” and “iGo Green.”

Children were also informed that the Jonas Brothers “celebrated Earth Day on April 22 by planting a tree at the Ricardo Lizarraga Elementary School in Los Angeles and told the students how to be more ‘green.’” Kevin, one of the three brothers, “suggested turning lights out and turning off computers when they’re not in use, as well as writing on both sides of a piece of paper” to save the planet. And just as Seacrest’s America Idol prelude proved that the show was doing its part to be green, Kevin said that, “the packaging of the [Jonas Brothers'] next CD will be made of recyclable material.”

There is an undeniable infatuation with nature in our post-modern culture, and like all infatuations, this one causes people to rush to support solutions that are flatly outlandish in their claims. For example, John McCook (Eric Forrester) of The Bold and the Beautiful, delivered the following Earth Day message to the soap opera’s audience: “Utilize public transportation. … It saves 855,000,000 gallons of gasoline.” Never mind that McCook didn’t provide scientific evidence for the saving of “855,000,000 gallons of gasoline” via public transportation or give a time frame showing how such a tremendous amount of fuel could be saved.

This worship of nature often leads its followers on a pilgrimage that is more harmful than helpful to the environment. A case in point is the Disney channel’s longstanding attempt to persuade children to use compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) instead of standard light bulbs. Although presented by nature worshipers as the energy savers that could help save the environment, the Boston Globe reported over a year ago that CFLs “can pose a small risk of mercury poisoning to infants, young children, and pregnant women if they break.” Yet “the state of Maine and the Vermont-based Mercury Policy Project, urged homeowners to keep using compact fluorescent lamps because their energy-saving benefits far outweigh the risk posed by mercury released from a broken lamp.”

Just think where worshiping the planet has brought us. We now have bulbs that are going to save the planet, although in the process they may sicken or kill the people who inhabit that planet. But the people don’t matter, for people aren’t in the liturgy of the church of earth. All that matters is that we recognize our “mother,” and promise to have no other gods before her.

The Oceans Are Rising Faster Than Ever!

Greatest Lie Ever Told?

Let's Review Place #24:
Newlyn, UK

For years (decades?), climate alarmist scientists have been claiming that the oceans were rising with "unprecedented" speed due to human-caused global warming. These scientists claim that because of all the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, due to human-caused warming, the sea levels are rising at an accelerated pace and will continue to so - up to a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is predicted. If this accelerated sea level rising is happening as claimed, then it should be evident across the world. Fortunately, the sea rise at Newlyn, UK is averaging about a half foot per century. This is just but one example of ocean facts countering sea-rise alarmism hype - more to follow. (On average, recent satellite measurements put global ocean level increases at 3mm/year or 1 foot/century.)

"Sounds good to me ! "

FROM-Prometheus
Cost Free Cap and Trade

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) adds to a long series of comments by Democrats that emphasize cost as a crucial criterion for evaluating cap and trade legislation, and specifically, that there should be no costs:

“There should be no cost to the consumer,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Wednesday. She vowed the legislation would “make good on that” pledge.

Of course, cost-free cap and trade defeats the purpose of cap and trade which is to raise the costs of energy, as explained to Congress by Robert Greenstein, of the non-profit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Fighting global warming requires policies that significantly restrict greenhouse gas emissions. The most cost-effective ways to do that are to tax emissions directly or to put in place a “cap-and-trade” system. Either one will significantly raise the price of fossil-fuel energy products — from home energy and gasoline to food and other goods and services with significant energy inputs. Those higher prices create incentives for energy efficiency and the development and increased use of clean energy sources. But they will also put a squeeze on consumers’ budgets, and low- and moderate income consumers will feel the squeeze most acutely.

More...

Skeptics From Around the Globe

SWEDEN

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden


Global climate is an important issue to debate, but it is sad that what is communicated often has a clear shifting towards the worst-case scenarios and the doomsday theories. There is no reason to scare people by giving them only one side of the argument.

Skeptics From Around the Globe

CANADA

Susan Crockford, PhD (University Victoria )Archaeozoology/Zoogeography; Archaeozoology in the Pacific Rim, Domestication and Breed Development, Evolutionaary Theory, Evolution and History of the Domestic Dog; Pacific Rim (Sessional Instructor and Adjunct Assistant Professor)




The polar bear survived two major warming periods over the last 11,000 years, the first of which saw temperatures rise rapidly to at least 2.50C higher than present and there is no evidence that Arctic sea ice disappeared entirely during those times or that any ice-dependent species became extinct.

Today's Thought

"Do you ever wonder how communism could last for 70 years in Russia? Surely there was plenty of evidence, for decades, that the system was failing: food shortages, declining life expectancy, increased infant mortality, low standards of living, primitive hospitals, and sanitation facilities lagging far behind those in Western Europe and America — not to mention pollution far worse than in the West. But to diehard communists, the facts did not matter. All the observable negatives of collectivism were trumped by ideology. The same is true of the ideology behind global warming."

Edmund Contoski

Play nice now children !

FROM-The Australian
Via-Climate Fraud

Ministers split over Antarctic ice shelf claims

A SPLIT over global warming has emerged in Kevin Rudd's cabinet after it was revealed that a 13-month-old photograph was published this month to support the view that a catastrophic melting of Antarctic ice was imminent.

Federal government sources said Climate Change Minister Penny Wong was disappointed with the way her ministerial colleague, Peter Garrett, weighed into the debate about global warming, claiming sea levels could rise by 6m as a result of melting in Antarctica. Senator Wong yesterday pointedly refused to indicate whether she supported Mr Garrett's view.

"The impacts of climate change are being seen in many ways, from sea level rise through to extreme weather events," Senator Wong said yesterday.

"Climate change is a clear and present danger to our world that demands immediate attention."

Senator Wong declined to nominate potential levels to which seas could rise.

At a time when the Rudd Government is battling to salvage its emissions trading scheme, some of Mr Garrett's Labor colleagues were annoyed the Environment Minister used his responsibility for Australia's Antarctic territory to weigh into the climate change debate with exaggerated claims.

Mr Garrett claimed the break-up of the Wilkins ice shelf in West Antarctica indicated sea level rises of 6m were possible by the end of the century, and that ice was melting across the continent.

The Environment Minister later sought to distance himself from his comments.

A study released last week by the British Antarctic Survey concluded that sea ice around Antarctica had been increasing at a rate of 100,000sqkm a decade since the 1970s.
While the Antarctic Peninsula, which includes the Wilkins ice shelf and other parts of West Antarctica were experiencing warmer temperatures, ice had expanded in East Antarctica, which is four times the size of West Antarctica.

British newspaper The Observer this month published prominently a story with a photograph of breaks in the Wilkins shelf.

"A huge ice shelf in the Antarctic is in the last stages of collapse and could break up within days in the latest sign of how global warming is thought to be changing the face of the planet," the story began.

In March last year, US news agency msn published the same photograph with a similar story that began: "A vast ice shelf hanging on by a thin strip looks to be the next chunk to break off from the Antarctic Peninsula, the latest sign of global warming's impact on Earth's southernmost continent." The photograph was published by numerous other outlets, including The Australian.

A spokeswoman for the British Antarctic Survey said the photograph in both stories was taken in March last year.

Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said the misuse of the photograph and the similar story lines 13 months apart reflected how the Wilkins ice shelf break-up was being recycled annually to fuel global warming concerns.

Senator Joyce said Mr Garrett's entry into the debate demonstrated how it was being hijacked by misinformation.

"We are on the edge of a possible pandemic that could cause untold misery and people are running around tilting at windmills," he said.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said Senator Wong should distance herself from Mr Garrett's comments.

Mr Garrett was defended by Australian Conservation Foundation director Don Henry.

"The minister is right to raise concerns that melting of our ice caps could lead to that kind of sea level

More...

The Oceans Are Rising Faster Than Ever!

FROM-C-3

Greatest Lie Ever Told?

Let's Review Place #23:
Brest, France

For years (decades?), climate alarmist scientists have been claiming that the oceans were rising with "unprecedented" speed due to human-caused global warming. These scientists claim that because of all the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, due to human-caused warming, the sea levels are rising at an accelerated pace and will continue to so - up to a 20 foot rise by the end of the century is predicted. If this accelerated sea level rising is happening as claimed, then it should be evident across the world. Fortunately, the sea rise at Brest, France is averaging about a third of a foot per century. This is just but one example of ocean facts countering sea-rise alarmism hype - more to follow. (On average, recent satellite measurements put global ocean level increases at 3mm/year or 1 foot/century.)

Some Like it Hot

In an earlier post I discussed the possibility of the Earth going through a cool down rather than a continued warming period and how this could find us unprepared. Since that original post back in 2007, the Sun has remained quiet and more and more people are beginning to take notice and express concern for this possibility.

As I have mentioned before, I pretty much ignored the global warming debate for years because I had read a wonderfully informative article by Thomas Gale Moore called "Why Global Warming Would be Good for You" It never really registered with me that this entire global warming thing would become a movement not based on science but on an agenda. I just assumed that global warming would eventually be recognized as a good thing.

Here are some of the key points that Dr, Moore made in what I still consider a very likely outcome should we experience global warming.


More...

Climate affects principally agriculture, forestry, and fishing. Manufacturing, most service industries, and nearly all extractive industries are immune to climate shifts. Factories can be built in northern Sweden or Canada or in Texas, Central America, or Mexico. Banking, insurance, medical services, retailing, education and a wide variety of other services can prosper as well in warm climates (with air-conditioning) as in cold (with central heating). A few services, such as transportation and tourism, may be more susceptible to weather. A warmer climate will lower transportation costs: less snow and ice will torment truckers and automobile drivers; fewer winter storms -- bad weather in the summer has less disruptive effects and is over quickly -- will disrupt air travel; a lower incidence of storms and less fog will make water transport less risky. Hotter temperatures will leave mining and the extractive industries largely unaffected; they might even benefit oil drilling in the northern seas and mining in the mountains. .....

As I said the entire article made common sense to me. Living in Florida and knowing that people naturally migrate to warmer weather when they can, if warmer weather should migrate to them it seems like a good thing for a variety of reasons, as Moore further explained:

....A warmer climate would produce the greatest gain in temperatures at northern latitudes and much less change near the equator. Not only would this foster a longer growing season and open up new territory for farming but it would mitigate harsh weather. The contrast between the extreme cold near the poles and the warm moist atmosphere on the equator drives storms and much of the earth's climate. This difference propels air flows; if the disparity is reduced, the strength of winds driven by equatorial highs and Arctic lows will be diminished....

Again made sense to me, longer growing seasons and a more temperate climate in northern latitudes seems like something to be desired rather than feared. He explains something you never hear in today's hysteria driven science and media mantra on climate change, the positive aspects. Including the benefits of increased CO2 levels to crop growth, an overall increase in precipitation etc.

He also explains the historical record of warmer climates on human history, here is a sample:

In Europe, the Optimum period produced an expansion of civilization with the construction of cities and a technological revolution. The Bronze Age replaced the New Stone Age.[78] The more benign climate with less severe storms encouraged travel by sea.

Trade flourished during this warm period. People from ancient Denmark shipped amber along the Atlantic coast to the Mediterranean. As early as 2000 B.C., the Celts apparently were sailing from Cornwall and Brittany to both Scandinavia and southern Italy. Astrological monuments built around this time, such as Stonehenge, indicate that the skies were less cloudy than now.[79]

With the glaciers in the Alps during the late Bronze Age being only about 20 percent of the size of the ice in the nineteenth century, merchants made their way through the Brenner Pass, the dominant link between northern and southern Europe. Northern Europeans exchanged tin for manufactured bronze from the south. Alpine people mined gold and traded it for goods crafted around the Mediterranean. Baltic amber found its way to Scotland.

During the warm period prior to 3000 B.C., China enjoyed much warmer temperatures. In particular midwinters were as much as 9deg.F hotter and rice was planted a month earlier than is now common.[80]

Bamboo, valued for food, building material, writing implements, furniture and musical instruments, grew much farther north -- about 3deg. in latitude -- than is now possible.[81] Chinese archaeologists have found evidence in a district near Sian that the climate5,000 to 6,000 years ago was warmer and wetter than the present.....

.....Written records confirm that the warmer climate brought drier and consequently healthier conditions to much of Europe. Robert Bartlett, citing H.E. Hallam in Settlement and Society, quotes the people of Holland who invaded Lincolnshire in 1189 that "because their own marsh had dried up, they converted them into good and fertile ploughland."[118] Moreover, prior to the twelfth century German settlers on the east side of the Elbe frequently named their towns with mar, which meant marsh, but later colonists did not use that suffix. Bartlett's explanation is that the term had gone out of use, but an alternative one is that the warmer climate had dried up the marshes.[119]

With a more pleasant climate people spent longer periods outdoors; food supplies were more reliable. Even the homes of the peasants would have become warmer and less damp. The draining or drying up of marshes and wetlands reduced the breeding grounds for mosquitoes that brought malaria. In all the infant and childhood mortality rate must have fallen spawning an explosion in population....

...The Mediterranean flourished in the twelfth century. Christian and Moslem lands achieved great brilliance. Cordova, Palermo, Constantinople and Cairo all thrived, engendering great tolerance for contending religions......

On and on he documents the historical record of the positive historical record of a warmer climate. I highly reccomend reading the entire paper which is quite long but I believe a far better assesment to a warmer world than what we get today from the relentless mind numbing drum beat of negativity so popular in our age of eco-warrior scientist.

This I compare to and article by James Marusek about the dangers of a solar minimum. Unlike the purveyors of the CO2 hypothesis he lays out in part the historical record of what has happened during times of solar minimums. This is not the mythical projections of climate models but the actual known consequences of a quiet sun. I will post the entire summary for you in order to consider the alternatives.

A taste of the cold weather due to a quiet sun.

Evidence of the Mississippi River, Ohio River, Allegheny River, Delaware River and Hudson River freezing and of very harsh winters.

Recent periods of quiet sun were the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830 A.D.), the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715 A.D.) and the Spörer Minimum (1420 to 1570 A.D.). The Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum were solar Grand Minima and each were individually referred to as the Little Ice Age.

A few decades after the Dalton Minimum
In the spring Eliza, a slave, carrying her young son, fled from Kentucky by crossing the Ohio River on foot. The river was “swollen and turbulent, great cakes of floating ice were swinging heavily to and fro in the turbid waters.” She leaped from one chunk of ice to the next until she reached freedom on the Ohio shore. [Source: Uncle Tomʼs Cabin. Harriet Beecher Stowe lived in Cincinnati, Ohio from 1832 to 1850. In 1851, she wrote “Uncle Tomʼs Cabin”. Her life in Ohio was intertwined in this work of fiction.]

During the Dalton Minimum
The Hudson River at the New York Harbor froze, enabling people to walk across the ice from Manhattan to Staten Island. The Hudson froze over completely during particularly brutal winter of 1779/1780, when the surface was solid for five weeks straight and the British rolled cannons over the ice. In 1821, taverns were constructed in the middle of the river to offer warmth and refreshment to pedestrians...

..Early settlers routinely waited till winter to cross the frozen Mississippi river in their wagon trains. In 1799, George Frederick Bollinger led a group of early pioneers from North Carolina to establish early settlements in Missouri. They hoped to cross their largest obstacle, the Mississippi River, on the ice, frozen solid in mid-winter. They arrived on the east bank of the Mississippi river opposite St. Genevieve in late December, pitched camp and explored potential river crossings. St. Genevieve is located about a hundred miles downstream from St. Louis. Daily the thickness of the ice was measured and then on December 31, a chopped hole in the ice indicated thickness well over two feet. The next day the settlers successfully drove their heavy loaded wagons across the river. [Source: “The Bollinger Migration to the Louisiana Territory”, part of "Bollinger Collection" compiled by Orena Bollinger in 1984.]

...From 1803 to 1806, Captains Lewis and Clark lead a transcontinental expedition to explore the greater Northwest. During the winter of 1804/1805, the explorers set up a winter base camp near the Big Knife River near what is today the town of Bismarck, North Dakota. The winter was bitterly cold. There were 6 days with temperatures of -30oF or lower. These occurred in 1804 on December 12 (-38 degrees F), December 17 (-45 degrees F), December 18 (-32 degrees F), in 1805 on January 10 (-40 degrees F), January 11 (-38 degrees F), and January 13 (-34 degrees F). Compare this to the current low temperatures of Bismarck, North Dakota in which only one day in the past decade fell below -30 degrees F. On January 15, 2009 the temperature fell to -44 degrees F. [Sources: (1) The Journals of the Expedition under the Command of Captains Lewis and Clark, (2) Weather Underground for Bismarck, ND]

Between the Dalton Minimum and the Maunder Minimum
December 1776 was a desperate time for George Washington and the American Revolution. During the night of December 25, Washington led his small Continental army of 2,400 troops from Pennsylvania across the Delaware River made dangerous and barely navigable by huge chunks of ice. Once across they launched a surprise attack on the Britain's Hessian mercenaries at Trenton, New Jersey, capturing 1,000 prisoners and seizing muskets, powder, and artillery...

..In Boston, Massachusetts on February 22, 1772, Anna, a young school girl, writes in her diary “Since about the middle of December, we have had till this week, a series of cold and stormy weather - every snow storm (of which we have had abundance) except the first, ended with rain, by which means the snow was so hardened that the strong gales at northwest soon turned it, and all above ground to ice.” In some streets about town this mixture of ice and snow is 5 feet thick. On March 11, she writes that the snow is now 7 feet deep in some places around her house[Source: “Diary of a Boston School Girl” written by Anna Green Winslow from 1771-1773, edited by Alice Morse Earle in 1894.]...

...Just before the opening battles of the French and Indian War in December 1753, George Washington, then 21 years old, crossed the Allegheny River. In their first attempt, Washington and a guide used a raft to cross the ice-choked river and this ended in disaster as Washington was knocked overboard in deep water and saved himself only by catching the raft as it swept by. The severe cold that night froze their clothes and the guide's fingers. The river also froze, however, allowing them to walk across on the ice the next morning. Soon they reached the safety of an English trader's settlement.

During the Maunder Minimum
During the Great Frost of (1683–1684) in England, the River Thames was completely frozen for two months, the ice was 11 inches thick at London. Sea ice was reported along the coasts of southeast England, and ice prevented the use of many harbors. The sea froze, so that ice formed for a time between Dover and Calais, joining England and France. The Thames was recorded to have frozen over at London during the years: 1649, 1655, 1663, 1666, 1667, 1684, 1695, 1709, and 1716....

...During the Little Ice Age, growing seasons in England and Continental Europe generally became short and unreliable, which led to shortages and famine. These hardships were nothing compared to the more northerly countries: Glaciers advanced rapidly in Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia and North America, making vast tracts of land uninhabitable. The Arctic pack ice extended so far south that several reports describe Eskimos landing their kayaks in Scotland. Finlandʼs population fell by one third, Icelandʼs by half, the Viking colonies in Greenland were abandoned altogether, as were many Inuit communities.

During the Spörer Minimum
By 1518, early explorers made significant progress in probing and surveying the New World. They described North America as a “land of frozen seas, horrid, barren and scarcely habitable for cold”. “In the New World, cold predominates. The rigor of the frigid zone extends over half of those regions which should be temperate by their position. Countries where the grape and the fig should ripen, are buried under snow one half of the year; and lands situated in the same parallel with the most fertile and best cultivated provinces in Europe, are chilled with perpetual frosts, which almost destroy the power of vegetation.” [Source: The History of the Discovery and Settlement of America by William Robertson, 1826]

Again I recommend you read the entire article which is quite chilling, but the comparisons between the two could not be more stark. If indeed we are headed into a period of global cooling not only will our world be a much less friendly place to live but because of the obsession over global warming we now will be less prepared to handle it .

One wonders that should the Rivers Thames and Hudson freeze over in the next few years, will our eco-warrior scientist peer review papers explaining that your frozen breathe is to blame.

Skeptics From Around the Globe

UNITED STATES

William M. Gray - Professor Emeritus Deparment of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

"I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant amounts of global warming." ... “We should begin to see cooling coming on, I’m willing to make a big financial bet on it. In 10 years, I expect the globe to be somewhat cooler than it is now, because this ocean effect will dominate over the human-induced CO2 effect and I believe the solar effect and the land-use effect. I think this is likely bigger.”

I'd rather it be Venusians

FROM-Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Martian-made global warming?

My adventures have taken me to some pretty interesting places, but it seems none are as interesting as our own hometown. Whether I'm in a jungle, on a mountain or in a pub, somebody always wants to talk about Harleys or Miller when they hear I'm from Milwaukee. Now, I can add another topic to that: global warming.

Two professors from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis, recently set the global warming world ablaze when they studied cold, hard numbers and found that the Earth stopped heating up in 2001 and actually has been cooling a bit.

Much to their dismay, "experts" on one side used the research to say, "See, we told you there's no warming," and those on the other side spun what the team discovered to make it sound less conclusive.

The professors have tried to stay above the fray by saying that the research is what it is and that it shouldn't be used to further agendas on either side, but that has not stopped the battles. The professors should have called NASA. It happened to that agency's researchers, too.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration researchers studied all the weather data going back to 1903, the first year that reliable long-term records started being kept. They, too, found that the Earth had warmed up a bit, but according to its climatologist, Ray Spencer, temperatures have been falling for the past five years.

But being good scientists, the NASA researchers decided to compare that to the only other planet that we have reliable, long-term data for: Mars. They found that temperatures there are 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer now than they were in 1973. But, unlike Earth, the Red Planet is still heating up. That has caused some problems.

If global warming is man-made, where are the thousands of factories and massive traffic jams that would be needed to heat up Mars? On the other hand, if this is just a natural planetary cycle, could that mean Earth is having one as well? But if that's true, why is Mars still heating up and Earth is not?

The activity at the polar ice caps are a perfect example. Spencer says on Earth, the arctic ice has grown more on a percentage basis this winter than at any time since 1979. However on Mars, according to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the South Pole has shrunk three years in a row, in such a way that it indicates a climate change. Again, why?

Just like in Swanson's and Tsonis' case, one side says, "Well, that proves it's natural." The other says, "Mars isn't Earth, so it doesn't count." Agendas once again over science.

Does this new data mean we should stop conserving, recycling and looking for alternative energy sources? No. These are common-sense measures that make us good stewards of our home planet. But it does mean we should look for real solutions and stop claiming it's totally humanity's fault. Otherwise, it's only fair to say: "Global warming? I blame the Martians!"
More...

"OH NO, Aother One ! "

FROM- Global Warming Hoax

Dr. Leonard Weinstin (former NASA Senior Research Scientist) Shows How AGW Is Not A Problem

Dr. Leonard Weinstein worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center, finishing his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. He is now a critic of the anthropogenic theory of global warming. His analysis shows that man has contributed less than 0.3C of warming and by the year 2100 may contribute less than 0.4C additional warming. This is much less than what the United Nations IPCC has predicted and of course a small fraction of what alarmists such as Al Gore and James Hansen have predicted.

Below is a summary of Dr. Weinstein's work, we highly recommend you follow the links to read the complete papers. His work is compelling and is yet one more example of a prominent scientist that disagrees with the anthropogenic theory of global warming....

"...In order to prove a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a theory, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the theory is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions and conclusions are shown: It has become quite clear to the author that the AGW theory is flawed..."

More...

"Step Right Up"

FROM-RCP

Selling the Green Economy

WASHINGTON -- Few things are more appealing in politics than something for nothing. As Congress begins considering anti-global warming legislation, environmentalists hold out precisely that tantalizing prospect: We can conquer global warming at virtually no cost. Here's a typical claim from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):

"For about a dime a day (per person), we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil."

This sounds too good to be true, because it is. About four-fifths of the world's and America's energy comes from fossil fuels -- oil, coal, natural gas -- which are also the largest source of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas. The goal is to eliminate fossil fuels or suppress their CO2. The bill now being considered in the House would mandate a 42 percent decline in greenhouse emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and an 83 percent drop by 2050.

Re-engineering the world energy system seems an almost impossible undertaking. Just consider America's energy needs in 2030, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Compared with 2007, the United States is projected to have almost 25 percent more people (375 million), an economy about 70 percent larger ($20 trillion) and 27 percent more light-duty vehicles (294 million). Energy demand will be strong.

But the EIA also assumes greater conservation and use of renewables. From 2007 to 2030, solar power grows 18 times, wind 6 times. New cars and light trucks get 50 percent better gas mileage. Light bulbs and washing machines become more efficient. Higher energy prices discourage use; by 2030, oil is $130 a barrel in today's dollars. For all that, U.S. CO2 emissions in 2030 are projected at 6.2 billion metric tons, 4 percent higher than in 2007. As an example, solar and wind together would still supply only about 5 percent of electricity, because they expand from a tiny base.More...

To comply with the House bill, CO2 emissions would have to be about 3.5 billion tons. The claims of the EDF and other environmentalists that this reduction can occur cheaply rely on economic simulations by "general equilibrium" models. An Environmental Protection Agency study put the cost as low as $98 per household a year, because high energy prices are partly offset by government rebates. With 2.5 people in the average household, that's roughly 11 cents a day per person.

The trouble is that these models embody wildly unrealistic assumptions: there are no business cycles; the economy is always at "full employment"; strong growth is assumed, based on past growth rates; the economy automatically accommodates major changes -- if fossil fuel prices rise (as they would under anti-global warming laws), consumers quickly use less and new supplies of "clean energy" magically materialize.

There's no problem and costs are low, because the models say so. But the real world, of course, is different. Half the nation's electricity comes from coal. The costs of "carbon capture and sequestration" -- storing CO2 underground -- are uncertain, and if the technology can't be commercialized, coal plants will continue to emit or might need to be replaced by nuclear plants. Will Americans support a doubling or tripling of nuclear power? Could technical and construction obstacles be overcome in a timely way? Paralysis might lead to power brownouts or blackouts, which would penalize economic growth.

Countless practical difficulties would arise in trying to wean the U.S. economy from today's fossil fuels. One estimate done by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that meeting most transportation needs in 2050 with locally produced biofuels would require "500 million acres of U.S. land, ... more than the total of current U.S. cropland." America would have to become a net food importer.

In truth, models have a dismal record of predicting major economic upheavals or their consequences. They didn't anticipate the present economic crisis. Earlier, they didn't predict the run-up in oil prices to almost $150 a barrel last year. In the 1970s, they didn't foresee runaway inflation. "General equilibrium" models can help evaluate different policy proposals by comparing them against a common baseline. But these models can't tell us how the economy will look in 10 or 20 years, because so much is assumed or ignored -- growth rates; financial and geopolitical crises; major bottlenecks; crippling inflation or unemployment.

The selling of the green economy involves much economic make-believe. Environmentalists not only maximize the dangers of global warming -- from rising sea levels to advancing tropical diseases. They also minimize the costs of dealing with it. Actually, no one involved in this debate really knows what the consequences or costs might be. All are inferred from models of uncertain reliability. Great schemes of economic and social engineering are proposed on shaky foundations of knowledge. Candor and common sense are in scarce supply.

Those Lying Eyes

What the author fails to perceive is that ALGORE suffers the same affliction as our current President. When small men with big egos are treated with adoration and a cult like mystique develops around them they lose site of reality. An adoring media does not hold him accountable for his statements, he is never challenged but rather rewarded with fame and fortune by his followers so there is no need to be either intellectually honest less alone partake in a self examination of either his beliefs or ideals. The fawning crowds are justification and validation enough, his words to him are truth, what pangs of conscious he may have are easily swept away by the ends that justify the means, the power, the money and most of all the cheers of his disciples.

"To thine own self be true"
(Inconvenient or not)

FROM-SF Environmental Examiner

Al Gore, global warming and truth

I voted three times for Al Gore, twice for VP and once for President. I don't regret the first two votes...

The former Vice President spoke before the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week. It was not his shining hour. Some of what he said was hyperbole. Some of what he said is just not true. And he, or one of his staff, should surely have known the limits he was transgressing.

For example, when speaking about Arctic ice, he said this:

"New research, which draws upon recently declassified data collected by U.S. nuclear submarines traveling under the Arctic ice cap for the last 50 years ... has told us that the entire Arctic ice cap may totally disappear in summer in as little as five years."

What he might have added was that Arctic ice has only been measured for 30 years, and that it is recovering at the fastest rate ever recorded (from an extreme melt over the past 18 months) and it is more or less (within a standard deviation) back to normal now.

And what is it with Al Gore and 20 feet of sea level rise? He's used it before, it was debunked before, he said it was an honest mistake before--and here it is again:

"A recent study in the journal Science has now confirmed that the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet is warming. Scientists have told us that if it were to collapse and slide into the sea, we would experience global sea level rise of another 20 feet worldwide."

What he didn't bother to tell the Committee was that the study was done by the same discredited scientist who produced the infamous hockey stick (and this study has the same methodological flaws), that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has always been understood to be melting due to the absolutely normal warming that happens during interglacial periods, and that it consists of only 5% of Antarctica, while the other 95% is increasing ice cover by a staggering 100,000 square kilometers per decade. The IPCC predicts a sea level rise of about 0.6 meters this century. Same as last century.

And in a staggering bit of true hypocrisy, Al Gore tries to tie a drought in the Southeast to climate change:

"The American West and the Southeast have been experiencing prolonged severe drought and historic water shortages. A study ... from the Scripps Institute estimated that 60 percent of the changes in the West's water cycle are due to increased atmospheric man-made greenhouse gases."

But what he fails to add is that temperatures in the Southeast have been falling--for 112 years at a rate of 0.12 degrees per decade. And he also fails to mention that drought in the West has been much worse and much worse more frequently in the past, before we began emitting those pesky greenhouse gases.

The statement that takes the cake, however, is this one:

"A number of new studies continue to show that climate change is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. Although we cannot attribute any particular storm to global warming, we can certainly look at the trend. Dr. Greg Holland from the National Center for Atmospheric Research says that we have experienced a 300 to 400 percent increase in category five storms in the past 10 years."

And this is the limit. Every study done in the past 2 years has shown that the energy frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms has fallen to an all time low, causing some respected proponents of the theory to change their minds in a hurry. Every study. There's no excuse for this, Mr. Vice President. At some point, we will have to use the 'L' word.


More...

Skeptics From Around the Globe

POLAND

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland


The first “Summary for Policymakers” statement on the man-made increase of CO2, is a cornerstone of the IPCC report, and of the global warming edifice.

This statement is a manipulation and a half-truth. It is true that CO2 is “the most important anthropogenic [trace] greenhouse gas,” but a much more important greenhouse factor is the water naturally present in the atmosphere, which contributes some 95 percent to the total greenhouse effect.

This basic fact is not mentioned at all in the “Summary for Policymakers.” Also not mentioned is the fact that 97 percent of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea; human beings add a mere 3 percent. This man-made 3 percent of CO2 emissions is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse effect, probably close to 0.12 percent.

Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible.

Skeptics From Around the Globe

UNITED STATES

John T. Everett.-Former Director of NOAA Fisheries Division of Research, Member National Academy of Sciences Panel on Ecosystem Indicators of Climate Change, IPCC lead author and reviewer

"The projected temperature rise is unrealistic, given that the USA and global temperatures have risen by only 1 deg F (.5 C) in 100 years (revised, NOAA, 1 May 2007 ), (or 150 years using the full instrumented data set) during the height of industrial expansion. Even if all this rise is correct, and is attributable to human causes, it is a trivial amount in the natural variation of the Earth, and to suggest the rise would accelerate 5 fold (IPCC best estimate) in this century is incredible....

.....Sea level rise may have increased recently, but other studies have consistently shown no increase. Even if there is an increase, it is in the order of 1 mm per year on top of the 1-2 mm per year that has been happening for the last century, this additional amount is 4 inches (10 cm) over the century. This is not trivial if you are in a low-lying region wrestling with land subsidence, but it is barely more than what would be coming anyway."

GIVE EM HELL BILL !

FROM- BMI

NBC Affiliate Meteorologist Rips MSNBC for Apocalyptic Global Warming Special

Michigan affiliate's chief meteorologist slams disingenuousness of MSNBC's 'Future Earth' special; GE's financial stake in cap-and-trade passage.

NBC Universal and its networks have been criticized for the global warming alarmism it parades on a regular basis. However, now the criticism is coming from its own affiliates.

Prior to its April 26 airing on MSNBC, shows on NBC had been promoting the first part of the climate special “Future Earth” – an MSNBC program that used computer animation to show the possibilities of a polar icecap melting. That prompted Bill Steffen, a meteorologist for NBC’s Grand Rapids, Mich. affiliate, to call out MSNBC for that special.More...

Steffen challenged several premises of “Future Earth: Journey to the End of the World,” on his WoodTV.com blog. Steffen debunked the entire series premise that is posted on the MSNBC Web site: “Find out why Earth’s climate machine — the North Pole — is melting alarmingly fast. Learn about our planet’s future, and how you can stop its decline.”

“First, the North Pole is not ‘Earth’s Climate Machine,’” Steffen wrote. “There is far more heat and area in the Tropics than at the North Pole. Second, YOU can’t stop its decline (assuming it’s declining)! Nature is big - you personally are insignificant compared to nature. Don’t you wish you had the power to control icecaps! If you don’t mind some profanity, check out George Carlin’s take on ‘Saving the Planet.’ Third, MSNBC does not know ‘our planet’s future.’”

Steffen rebutted claims of the MSNBC special saying that ice in the Antarctic has actually been expanding and that polar ice melting alone would not cause sea level to rise as depicted in the “Future Earth.”

“Keep in mind that if the Polar icecap (without Greenland) melted…it would hardly cause sea level to rise, because the icecap is currently displacing water in the Arctic Ocean,” Steffen wrote.

Steffen also pointed out, as many others have, the financial stake NBC Universal’s parent company General Electric (NYSE:GE) has invested in cap-and-trade becoming law.

“One last point, MSNBC is owned by General Electric,” Steffen wrote. “GE is already making money off the issue with their Carbon Credit Master Card (link from ‘Treehugger,’ no less). Here’s CNN’s story on the new credit card.”

Steffen even showed how much GE has spent lobbying for environmental causes, originally reported by the Washington Examiner on March 3.

“Interesting note: In the fourth quarter of 2008 as GE/NBC stock fell 30 percent, GE spent $4.26 million on lobbying — that’s $46,304 each day, including weekends, Thanksgiving and Christmas,” Steffen wrote. “In 2008, the company spent a grand total of $18.66 million on lobbying. Reviewing their lobbying filings, GE’s specific lobbying issues included the ‘Climate Stewardship Act,’ ‘Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,’ ‘Global Warming Reduction Act,’ ‘Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,’ ‘Low Carbon Economy Act,’ and ‘Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.’ Do you think this ‘big business’ is just concerned about the environment?”

Now who was it denying reality?

FROM-Jennifer Marohasy

Pondering Problems with Computer Climate Models: A Note from Michael Hammer

SCIENTISTS have put a huge amount of effort into generating computer models of our climate system. These models are very sophisticated and complex and their outputs suggest that increasing carbon dioxide will lead to significant temperature rises for our planet. Indeed the model outputs now represent the main evidence in support of the anthropogenic (man induced) global warming hypothesis. Why shouldn’t we take careful note of these results?

Computers are a tool allowing many calculations to be done extremely rapidly. If we can describe a system we wish to explore via a set of interrelated equations we can then get a computer to repeatedly solve these equations with a small assumed time increment between each set of solutions and do it quickly. The output describes the future as predicted from the input equations. This is a computer model. It is important to remember that the model output is completely and exclusively determined by the information encapsulated in the input equations. The computer contributes no checking, no additional information and no greater certainly in the output. It only contributes computational speed.


In cases where the problem domain is comprehensively and accurately understood it is possible to construct a set of equations which very closely mirrors reality and in these cases model outputs can become quite reliable. Finite element analysis and electronic simulation packages are good examples. Even here though, a seemingly trivial error in input such as a single small missing factor can often completely invalidate the output and while the models are used extensively for optimisation the final optimised output is usually checked against reality before being accepted.

In cases where understanding of the problem is incomplete and uncertain, a large amount of information needs to be “estimated” or is simply omitted and this very rapidly causes model outputs to become extremely questionable. Where models are used to explore a theory, very often the input data whether deliberately or not becomes heavily contaminated by the theory. For example, the researcher is convinced something has a very strong effect so he makes the co-efficient for that parameter large or he is convinced another effect is negligible so he omits it completely. Such a computer model is little more than the theory itself expressed in a different form. More...

Evidence is independent information which can be used to support or destroy a theory. The sort of model described above is not independent of the theory. Thus to use the output from this sort of computer model to check a theory is akin to using the theory to prove itself, an invalid circular argument. On the other hand, comparing the output of such a computer model with reality is equivalent to comparing theory predictions with reality and this can indeed be valid evidence.

It is crucial in evaluating climate models to determine the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the input data. We can only include factors we know about and since we don’t anywhere near everything there is to know about climate there must be many omissions. How extensive or significant these omissions are we have no way of knowing. We also know there are things we do know about that are not included in the models. For example Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christenen from the Danish National Space Centre have carried out research which claims to show a link between rising solar magnetic activity and rising temperature. In fact, their data shows exceptionally close correlation between cosmic ray flux and global temperature. This is not included in the model inputs. Even for the causative factors we do know about and include there is still the question of how large is the impact of each factor. In many cases, for the climate models the coefficients specified for each factor are little better than informed guesses. For example, at present modellers have assumed that clouds provide positive feedback and that is what is embodied in their input data. Yet there is significant evidence that cloud feedback could be quite strongly negative. Thus not only is the magnitude of the co-efficient in question but even the sign is in question.

So what is the impact of leaving out a factor from a model or having a wrong co-efficient? It could be minor or it could be profound. Lets take a completely hypothetical example, imagine the Svensmark effect contributed say half the warming of the 20th century and carbon dioxide the other half. Leaving solar effects out would lead the model to predict half the observed warming. But scientists adjust their model against known data to get the best possible match. In this case that would lead to the coefficient for carbon dioxide being increased to twice the correct value implying a very large impact from carbon dioxide. So adjusted, the model appears to match reality quite well over the limited period from 1975 to 1998. However what about if solar magnetic activity falls (as now appears to be happening)? In that case real world data would show a rapid decrease in warming (or even cooling) while the model output continues to show strongly rising temperatures. In short the two errors cease to cancel and instead add to each other.

Thus, errors or omissions in the input may be masked by compensating errors in coefficients of known factors especially over the data set used to calibrate the model. However, when the model is used to predict the future and that prediction is later compared with observed reality significant differences start to show up.

So can we ever really know if a model is a reasonable reflection of reality and thus a sound basis for predicting the future? The only real way is to use the model to predict the future and then with the passage of time compare that prediction with the real world. The longer the two agree the more faith one can reasonably put in the model. On the other hand if the two disagree substantially, model credibility is rapidly eroded. This process is often called model validation.

Such model validation is of course being done all the time on the output from climate models. The trouble is that the model outputs depart very rapidly and significantly from reality and basically have failed all validation tests. This would lead one to have no faith in climate models just as the skeptics claim. AGW advocates respond to that by claiming that the models are focussed on predicting climate not weather. Weather is about short term events and is highly chaotic in nature. Climate is about longer term trends and is presumably less chaotic. Since the comparisons have been over relatively short time scales that explains the mismatch.

This is an interesting claim. Nature obeys rigid immutable laws and thus is predictable given sufficiently detailed knowledge. So the AGW claim really amounts to an admission that the models are incomplete and the lack of detail prevents prediction at the scale of days but may not prevent prediction at the scale of decades or centuries. Such claims are not entirely unreasonable, averaging eliminates the impact of many complex short term variables, which are hard to quantify ,and thereby much of the chaotic nature of weather. Climate can be considered as just long term average weather and maybe the models are good enough for reliable long term average predictions. So it may not be reasonable to expect climate models to predict day to day weather. In that case, over what time scale does it become reasonable to test the model output?

The northern hemisphere has just gone through a particularly cold severe winter. I have not seen any suggestions the models predicted that and I am very confident I would have heard loud and clear if they had. Thus one has to suppose time scales as short as a year are still too short. Going further, the climate has been cooling now for 7 years and was static for 4 years before that yet the models predicted continuing strong warming over the same period. This is much more serious for a number of reasons. Firstly one would very realistically expect a climate model to offer accurate predictions over a time scale of a decade. The fact that they clearly haven’t begins to suggest they are simply wrong. This is particularly the case when one considers that the entire AGW hypothesis is based on only 23 years of warming (1975-1998). Before then the earth was cooling. If 1 decade is not long enough to differentiate between weather and climate then why would one suppose a bit over 2 decades was so dramatically better that it could form the foundation of the entire AGW hypothesis. Maybe the period from 1975 to 1998 was also just an example of random chaotic weather.

Another problem is that according to the claims of AGW advocates we are running out of time. We supposedly don’t have several more decades to see if the model outputs are correct. Yet today’s data gives no basis what so ever for believing the model outputs represent anything approaching reality or form a reasonable basis for deciding future policy.

An alternative is theoretical analysis from first principles. This is something which in my own small limited way I am trying to do, as are others. Another way is to recognise that nature works by rigid adherence to natural law and is thus repeatable. This means that we can look back through the historical record for similar situations. If we can find such situations then the response that occurred then is a good indicator of what might happen in our immediate future. This was exactly the basis for the original carbon dioxide driven global warming claims. Vostock Ice core data showed carbon dioxide levels and temperature rising and falling together. Cause and effect was claimed, proof that rising carbon dioxide caused temperatures to increase. Since then, more accurate dating has shown temperature rises or falls 800 years before carbon dioxide responds. This negates the original claims since it shows that rising temperature causes rising carbon dioxide not vice versa.

The most reliable data is of course the most recent. Over the last century, from 1900 to 1940 we had significant warming with very little increase in carbon dioxide levels. From 1940 to 1975 we had strong cooling while carbon dioxide levels were increasing rapidly, from 1975 to 1998 both carbon dioxide and temperature were increasing significantly and now from 1998 to 2009 we have cooling while carbon dioxide levels continue to increase. That represents 40 years of no correlation, 46 years of negative correlation and 23 years of positive correlation. What possible rationale justifies claiming 23 years of positive correlation proves the AGW theory while ignoring 86 years of negative or zero correlation.

There are many others who are going back further into Earth’s historical record with more skill than I have. The reports I have seen suggest firstly that current temperatures are in no way abnormal, secondly that current carbon dioxide levels are also in no way abnormal and most importantly that the historical record shows little cause and effect between carbon dioxide level and temperature. This is significant evidence that needs to be evaluated carefully with a cool unbiased head. I would also suggest that the theoretical analysis from first principles can give very high quality answers and also warrants more attention.

*****************

Michael Hammer graduated with a Bachelor of Engineering Science and Master of Engineering Science from Melbourne University. Since 1976 he has been working in the field of spectroscopy with the last 25 years devoted to full time research for a large multinational spectroscopy company in Melbourne.

Skeptics From Around the Globe

UNITED STATES

David R. Legates-Joint Associate ProfessorPhysical Ocean Science and Engineering
University of Delaware College of Marine and Earth Studies

"science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change."

They are not looking in the right smokestacks

FROM- Prometheus

No Trends in Landfalling Tropical Cyclones

A recent paper by Chan and Xu in the International Journal of Climatology looked at trends in landfalling tropical cyclones in East Asia. The paper finds no trends since 1945. From the abstract:

This paper is the first of a two-part series that presents results of a comprehensive study of the variations in the annual number of landfalling tropical cyclones (ATCs) in various parts of East Asia during the period 1945–2004. The objective is to identify possible trends and cycles in such variations, from inter-annual to inter-decadal, and the possible reasons for such variations. The East Asian region is divided into three sub-regions: South (south China, Vietnam and the Philippines), Middle (east China), and North (Korean Peninsula and Japan). . . An important finding from the time series analysis is that none of the ATC time series shows a significant linear trend, which suggests that global warming has not led to a higher frequency of landfalling tropical cyclones or typhoons in any of the regions in Asia.

Considering this finding along with previous research showing no trends in tropical cyclone (i.e., hurricane) landfalls in the United States (e.g., Pielke et al. 2008 in PDF) or Australia (Crompton and McAneney 2008), means that there are few remaining continental locations where such trends might be found. I’d welcome hearing from anyone aware of studies of landfall trends in the other continental regions exposed to tropical cyclones, including the Indian Ocean (including eastern and Horn of Africa) and Eastern Pacific (Mexico).

The data on landfall trends further confirms arguments that global trends in tropical cyclones losses can be explained entirely by growing populations and wealth in regions exposed to tropical cyclone impacts.
More...