POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

From: The Australian 

LETTERS
Global warming error


THE global warming industry made a tactical error in putting all its eggs in the one basket, in the cause and effect hypothesis.

Carbon tax, emissions trading schemes, solar and wind generation are all predicated on the certainty that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by human activity is the cause, and rising global temperature is the effect and the belief that, by manipulating the cause, we can modify the effect.

The pause in rising temperatures shows a disconnection between human activity and increasing global temperatures. The human activity has not ceased but the effect has. We are now back on solid scientific ground, where the sceptics and deniers have been all along, namely that climate changes - always has and always will - and what we are experiencing is within historical fluctuations.


Frank Pulsford, Aspley, Qld

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak


FROM-OC Register

Letters: That chill in the air isn't global warming


DANA POINT, Larry Hamlin, retired Southern California Edison vice president of power production, former state energy construction czar under Gov. Gray Davis (2001):

In the article, “Less snow, more blizzards may be in store” [News, Feb. 10], Seth Borenstein, again, uses erroneous information and results from unvalidated climate models to mischaracterize recent weather events occurring in the U.S.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration empirical temperature data shows that U.S. winters have cooled in the past 15 years in all nine U.S. climate regions. Thus, Borenstein’s most basic and fundamental premise, that global warming makes winters warmer, is wrong, based on reviewing actual temperature data.

North America snow extent empirical data from the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab for the fall, winter and spring seasons from 1967 through 2012 show virtually no change in total snowfall during this period. Thus, again, one of the article’s most fundamental claims, that global warming results in less snow, is wrong, based on reviewing actual snowfall data records.

Borenstein also claims that global warming results in more winter storms but NOAA winter storm data clearly shows increased storms during cooler periods, which is the opposite of Borenstein’s claims.

The number of winter storms in the past decade is consistent with the number of storms that occurred in the cooler-winter decade of the 1960s versus the fewer number of storms that occurred in the warmer-winter decades of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

This article, unfortunately, is another example of climate alarmists making unfounded claims that are easily refuted using empirical data. Further, the article relies on results from unvalidated climate models whose “projections” are based on unproven assumptions of man-made links to climate change.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-Corvallis Gazette-Times

Letter: Could global warming be attributed mostly to sun spots?

We are told that the Earth is slowly warming, and that carbon dioxide emissions are largely responsible. Maybe so, but there is a possible alternative that at least ought to be looked at; that is whether sun spots can make a contribution.

Sun spots are cool areas scattered over the sun’s surface that result from strong magnetic interactions that reduce the sun’s emission locally. They vary in size and individuals usually persist only for a few days. But at least one on record lasted about three months and had a size of about 25 times that of Earth.

The obvious implication, of course, is that their appearance and growth would cool the Earth.

However, a hundred years of counting showed that their number oscillates in a wave-like manner with a frequency of about 10 to 12 years, and has been increasingly substantiated over that time.

The temperature of the Earth — or parts of it — has been measured (estimated?) for many decades but only accurately over perhaps the last decade with the advent of aerial data from the troposphere around the whole globe.

Consider then that if, fortuitously, measuring started when the sun spot count was near a maximum and continued for perhaps five or six years. During that period the concentration would be steadily decreasing and the Earth would be warming. The effect would be small, but we are only looking for a degree or so.

The test of these speculations, of course, would be to see if during the last half decade the temperature would begin to fall again as the sun spot count was increasing again to complete the cycle.

L. Michael Foster

Corvallis

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-Echo Express

Letter - No consensus over global warming

To the editor:

A recent letter referred to man-made climate change and how to deal with it. Not all scientists or climate experts believe in what used to be called global warming (until 1998 ended and the temps leveled off, even lowered a bit). If it was warming, the temperature should have risen every year so 2012 would have been the highest year on record, but the previous one should not have been 14 years earlier.

About 30,000 scientists and climatologists signed a petition questioning the science and conclusions behind the global warming theory, so the “consensus” is not as complete as advocated. Included in this group are some of the top people in their field. If a person does research on “Climategate,” they will discover some of the questions and problems in this whole area.

I contacted five electricity suppliers about a carbon tax to find out what this would do to our rates. The responses were an increase of 15 to 32 percent. Are we ready to pay this price for something that has not been completely debated in the open by experts on both sides of the issue?

If manufacturers have their electric costs go up, hospitals, banks, schools, plus the additional costs of fuel for heat, travel, shipping of goods, what will this do to the cost of living? Since a business passes its cost increases on to the consumers, we will all end up paying a much higher price for everything. It won’t hurt the people with wealth a great deal, but if a way to increase the taxes on the poor is out there, this is it.

Let’s have a formal, open debate with both sides represented before we take major steps that could set our nation and world back severely.

Pryce Score

Kensington, MN

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak


FROM-Knoxnews.com

Letter: Global warming hypothesis is false

Marvin P. Mathiak, Knoxville

Mayan and other primitive societies made sacrifices, sometimes even human, to ensure good crops, rain, as a response to bad weather or to appease some god. Mayan priests enjoyed attention and prestige as they persuaded gullible and ignorant followers to accept their claims. They claimed a subsequent good crop, badly needed rain or end of a stormy season proved the need for and efficacy of sacrifice.

Emotional and societal pressures to ignore reason and sacrifice for the common good were sufficient. The false premise that sacrifice helped was religiously accepted.

This primitive behavior hasn't changed. Only priests' titles and the type of sacrifice have changed.

Modern priests ("scientists" and politicians) tell gullible and ignorant people that man's carbon dioxide emissions can and are causing global warming. To correct this, they demand sacrificing jobs, prosperity and our economy. Proponents enjoy attention and prestige in the media and from the political left. They use a storm (Sandy) to prove their claim and that sacrifice is necessary.

Their false claims are founded on the hypothesis, an unproven, unlikely foundation of foam, that man's emissions of carbon dioxide do raise global temperatures. Global temperature fluctuation is normal. The anthropogenic global warming myth is widely and effectively employed to achieve personal prominence, economic advantage and followers.

Scientists are no more ethical than politicians. Consensus among people earning money or achieving power promoting anthropogenic global warming, or among political factions, proves nothing. If science actually supported the idea, its proponents would not have to hide behind vague claims of consensus.

When an actual, successfully peer-reviewed scientific study proves that man's relatively tiny emissions of carbon dioxide actually override effects of solar activity, geological activity, volcanism and other major natural emissions of it, and the dominant greenhouse gas water vapor, we can take these claims seriously. Beware of false prophets.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

Don’t fall for socialist global warming hysteria

FROM-Daily Inter Lake


By P. DAVID MYEROWITZ

I enjoyed reading Bob McClellan’s nonsensical letter (“Hurricane Sandy was wake-up call,” The Daily Inter Lake, Nov. 22). In his usual rambling, McClellan retreats to the man-made global warming mantra. No matter what the climate change is, the true believers blame it on man-made global warming. If it’s hot, it’s global warming. If it’s cold, it’s global warming. If it’s dry, it’s global warming. If it’s wet, it’s global warming. So of course, the same worn theory of man-made global warming must be dragged out to explain any climatic catastrophe, such as Hurricane Sandy. The only problem is ... it’s not true.

One need only look at the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean temperature patterns, as respected meteorologist Joe Bastardi has done since 2006. I am not going to put you to sleep with a description of cyclical oceanic temperatures [Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)]. Nor am I an expert in meteorology. But I have read a bit and heard good descriptions of how these oceanic temperature patterns affect the United States.

The oceans are changing from a warming trend to one of cooling which brings tumultuous weather to the mid-Atlantic and New England regions of the United States and drought to the Southwest, exactly as occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. So why do we have to find a new explanation for this pattern of oceanic temperature change which produces mid-Atlantic hurricanes and drought? Let me propose a theory.

If the liberals want to further restrict our personal freedom — the cars we drive, the houses we build, the cost of fuels and electricity, etc., etc., etc. — and because of push-back by an increasing number of real scientists, why not up the ante? The liberals are finding it very difficult to get most people to return to Third World country lifestyles by scaring them with tall tales describing the disappearance of New York City into a rising ocean of somewhere between an inch and 20 feet and the spontaneous combustion of Arizona due to a temperature rise of somewhere between 1 degree and 10 degrees Fahrenheit. (The exact amount of melting and warming varies a tad depending on which totally unproved computer model which grant-dependent so-called scientist publishes to please which liberal funding agency.) Of course all of these doomsday predictions are to occur at some nebulous time a hundred or more years into the future making it even harder to scare people.

So why not just take any bad weather — drought, flooding, hurricanes — and say that global warming is the culprit. After all, Hurricane Sandy is hurting people right now. No need to PROVE anything. After all, man-made global warming, blaming carbon dioxide for all the aforementioned problems, is merely theory. So if the theory doesn’t fit the carbon dioxide or temperature curves, change your computer model a bit (last I heard there were nine) or just lie (I hope it’s OK to use this word ... seems only liberals can use it to describe conservatives), as Dr. Michael Mann did in the infamous “hockey stick” graph of average global temperature.

And, most important, disparage anyone who dares to point out the failings and inadequacies of your theory. Distorting the truth and character assassination both form the central theorem of man-made global warming and are the core of liberal doctrine.

Most important, if you can’t get Congress to cripple the country by restricting the harvesting and use of our plentiful natural resources, just get your EPA to declare that carbon dioxide, the gas that is the foundation of all life, is a pollutant, thus allowing them to regulate its production.
If we’re lucky, they’ll continue to let us breathe (every breath exhales carbon dioxide), though, at some time, don’t be surprised if we conservatives have to pay for that privilege also!

Myerowitz is a resident of Columbia Falls.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

Don’t fall for socialist global warming hysteria

FROM-NJ.Com

To the Editor:

“First there was New Orleans; then … Seabreeze, and then … Greenwich Pier. What’s the common thread? One is global warming. As the ice caps shrink … easily verified by comparing satellite images of the polar caps for the last 10 to 20 years … the oceans rise.” (The News, May 26, “It all begins with one sandbag”)

But what about the disappearance of an entire New Jersey municipality, South Cape May, nearly a century before the “global warming” hysteria? Contrary to liberal fairy tales, catastrophic storms have historically wreaked havoc! Whether cyclical “global warming” or “global cooling,” Atlantic storms have always washed away homes, streets, and acres of the land.

I built our home on the edge of the Delaware Bay. One weighs the obvious storm damage risks, not just from floodwater, but pounding by ocean-sized waves such as the most recent storm that caused extensive damage to Gandy’s Beach. I’ve spent around $30,000 of my own, not taxpayers’ money, to construct and maintain defensive bulkheads over the 20 years I have lived here. That comes to $1,500 a year in addition to the almost $7,000 dollars in taxes, owing to the bay view. Insurance, including flood, is another $2,000 a year. This $1,000 a month is my burden to bear. I don’t expect taxpayers to protect my property from inherent risks.

I’m not some mindless “Gorebot” who believes natural weather events are attributable to man-caused “Global Warming.” Al Gore’s con has made him exceedingly rich. A liberal hypocrite, Gore’s carbon footprint for his 20-room, eight-bathroom mansion in Tennessee and his new $9,000,000 mansion in California, plus cars, boat and private jet, etc. is astronomical. Gore burned more electric every month than did the average household in a year! The writer adds, “The best solution would be to stop polluting the air with carbon dioxide.” One wonders how he heats or cools his home, powers his transportation and generates electricity with no CO2 footprint?

Instead of looking at satellite polar ice cap images over a quite brief interval of only 20 years, I suggest we study global weather patterns thousands of years prior to the Industrial Age, electricity, automobiles, boats and jets. Incidentally, current scientific and weather data indicates that global warming stopped many years ago.

Archeologists believe there was once a “Bering Land Bridge” over which nomadic hunter-gatherers migrated to North America. Sea levels were far lower during that great Ice Age when a mind-boggling mass of water was frozen in the Northern ice cap. In fact, sea levels are thought to have been an incredible 100-150 meters lower than today, exposing a Bering Land Bridge to Alaska. Similarly, glaciers that once covered the northern United States were so thick they gouged out the great lakes! Yet they receded naturally, thousands of years before any fossil fuels were used. The United Nations now postulates that livestock herds cause the worst emissions.

It is estimated that up to 200 million Bison once grazed the Great Plains from Canada to Mexico. A recent UN report states that the current world’s cattle herds are the greatest threat to the climate. Yet ancient Bison herds were exponentially larger. Nevertheless, a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization claims that cattle generate more greenhouse CO2 emissions than all fossil fuel powered cars and trucks combined.

Do you catch that stunning tidbit? Yet at only 11.2 million head, cattle are a very small percentage of the prehistoric 200 million Bison thought to once inhabit this land. Thus the carbon footprint of innumerable herds of gaseous Bison would dwarf today’s CO2 fossil fuel emissions! I suppose gaseous Bison melted the ice cap?

Global warming and cooling are just one of various natural cycles in which we have negligible effect. Don’t let liberal hypocrites like Gore and other fear mongers intimidate you into surrendering our national sovereignty, our freedom and unique living standards to any autocratic government. The Democrat socialists are trying to impose on free Americans a global government with despotic ruling powers, supported by confiscatory taxes.

Programmed “Gorebots” are incapable of analytical thought. They scare children with cataclysmic propaganda that captive students are compelled to watch in most public schools. It is your responsibility to deprogram your children. Teach them the facts about pre-historic Ice Ages. And about epic “global warming” that naturally melted these great glaciers long before the use of fossil fuels and cattle ranching. Learn! Think! Question! Expose liberal myths! And never, never follow brainwashed “Gorebots” who serve a global socialists agenda.

Davis Patterson
Fortescue

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-My High School Journalism

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

Politicians, bureaucrats will be forced to reject climate change propaganda

James D. Kellogg

FROM-Glenwood Springs Post Independent

Less than a decade after the painfully dry year of 2002, the Upper Colorado River Basin is laden with snowpack that's 160 percent of average. Total runoff this spring and summer will be huge, potentially swelling creeks and rivers to record volumes. Flush with inflows, reservoirs will fill and spill.

An Associated Press article from Dec. 5, 2008, asserted, “Western U.S. states will face more water shortages in the years ahead as climate change exacerbates the strains drought has put on the Colorado River.”

Apparently, the “scientific consensus” doesn't have a clue about climate. Or maybe it does. To show warming trends, models used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) depend on the assumption that climate change is man-induced. At the same time, U.S. government-funded research by Dr. Roy Spencer and others is providing mounting evidence that climate change is natural and cyclical.

Undeterred, well-funded environmental special interests claim the debate is over; fossil fuels are changing the climate in ways harmful to human health and the environment. Junk science and misrepresentation of data have conjured an environmental crisis.

Environmental groups are lobbying for limits on Constitutional liberty and economic prosperity to enable aggressive government action to save the Earth. Maurice Strong, advisor to former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan, bluntly stated, “The only way to save the world will be for the industrial civilization to collapse.”

One scheme to engineer America's economic collapse is “cap and trade” legislation. Under the pretense of halting devastating climate change, the federal government would dictate drastic reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, particularly those from use of fossil fuels. Companies that emit more CO2 than legal limits would have to buy carbon credits or face stiff penalties and fines. Many would be forced to reduce production, move operations abroad, or go out of business altogether.

A cap-and-trade bill passed in the US. House of Representatives in June 2009, but never came to a vote in the Senate. Americans understood that it was a massive energy tax and voiced strong opposition.

Predictably, environmentalists made an end run around American voters. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Massachusetts vs. EPA that CO2 is a pollutant and that the “EPA no doubt has significant latitude as to the manner timing, context, and coordination of its regulations.” In effect, the court usurped congressional authority and wrote new law to expand powers of the presidency beyond constitutional limits.

When cap and trade failed, the Obama administration simply exploited the power granted by the court. The EPA made a carbon endangerment ruling, decreeing that CO2 is indeed a pollutant requiring stringent regulation.

Now the EPA is engaged in a campaign to drive coal-fired power out of existence and stymie natural gas production. Mr. Obama promised, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Our standard of living is set to decline. Ultimately, carbon purging will expand like a contaminant plume, victimizing schools, farms, homes and everything else. It sounds so benign under the guise of saving the planet.

On April 6, 2011, Republican-sponsored legislation to overrule the EPA power-grab failed to garner a supermajority vote in the Senate. But as more Americans learn the truth, politicians and bureaucrats will be forced to reject climate change propaganda. Restrictions on individual freedom, limitations on mobility, and hindrance of economic growth won't be sacrificed for pseudo-science that empowers anti-capitalist collectivism.

The drought of skeptical science and intellectual honesty in the green movement will eventually be washed away by a torrent of public backlash. It's like the Colorado River. If you ignore the flood warnings, you're going to drown.

James D. Kellogg of New Castle is a professional engineer and the founder of LiberTEAWatch.com and WriterBalm.com. Contact him at jamesdkellogg@yahoo.com.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-Baltimore Sun

Domestic drilling could finance alternative energy

Your editorial on oil prices and drilling ("Beware the snake oil sales pitch," April 26) is disingenuous at best. While your points on the amount of available domestic oil and the development of alternative energy are valid, you fail to mention the minimal potential for alternative energy over the next 10 years. My recollection is that alternative energy would produce less than 5 percent of the needed energy in that period, and anecdotally, consumer interest (or lack thereof) in electric cars speaks volumes.

Why not make a complete argument rather than shill for an agenda that is only costing citizens more? When we encourage Brazil to drill with the promise of purchasing their oil, yet hamstring domestic oil production (and by the way, creation of jobs), it sends a message that the agenda is one-sided. Why not develop domestic oil resources and take the requisite taxes and use them to develop alternative energy sources at a faster rate than the free market will since the free market knows alternative energy is inefficient and costly at this point?

Brice Gamber, Royal Oak

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-Verde Independent

Letter: Politically incorrect stance on man-caused global warming

Editor:

If his observations concerning the petition by those concerned that the man-caused global warming movement are correct, I appreciate John Lockway’s effort to correct the number of scientists who signed the document. I find it a little surprising, however, that he seems to dismiss his own finding of 578 Climatologists, Atmospheric Scientists, Meteorologists, Astronomers and Astrophysicists on the list of signatories. I might add that skeptics can be found among such institutions as the Dept. of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg, the University of Jerusalem Institute of Physics, University of Ottawa Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of London Dept. of Bio Geography, Paris France Pasteur Institute, NASA, MIT, University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences and the International Arctic Research Center. In addition, one can find former members of the IPCC, such as Prof. Paul Reiter and Prof. John Christ (who was a lead author of the IPCC) as well as the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore.

These are heavy-hitters – not fly-by-night institutions and experts. They have much to lose, personally. They speak up even knowing that they face loss of funding and research grants due to their politically incorrect stance on man-caused global warming.

Mr. Lockway, being well informed, probably knows that quite a number of the members of the IPCC were also “non-scientists”- government workers, reviewers, etc. Professor Reiter says that “many specialists who disagreed (with the findings) resigned” but their names were left on the list of authors of the report without an acknowledgment of their dissent. Professor Reiter threatened a lawsuit before his name was removed.

Through the tone of his letter, Mr. Lockway dismisses the fact that the connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-gong research. He indicates that Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine should be dismissed from the discussion because of possible funding from Exxon-Mobil, who have a clear interest if man-caused global warming is based on false findings. He also frowns on any finding published in National Review, a conservative leaning magazine, even as he tells us he gets his own information from (1) DeSmog Blog Project, which proudly proclaims to be routinely highlighted by such left wing entities as New York Times Dot Earth, the Huffington Post, Treehugger and Daily Kos and (2) Media Matters for America, a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) (tax exempt), self described “progressive (read “Liberal”) research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Media Matters main reason for existence appears to be to an attempt to neutralize the Fox News Network whose meteoric rise in ratings and influence is horrifying to the left, long accustomed to dominating news dissemination in the U.S.

Mr. Lockway misses the point (deliberately???) of the “Moon Paper” saying “none of them (the authors) have training in climatology.” Exactly! And yet, using the questionable NASA method, they could reach results showing a green-house gas effect on a lunar surface with no atmosphere!

Mr. Lockway uses the old strategy of using the term “climate change deniers” rather than the more correct description of “man-caused climate change deniers”, because no one denies the earth’s climate has warmed since the end of the mini-ice age.

The debate between Mr. Lockway and myself could go on and on. This is not the proper venue. There is a need for a long, loud public debate, not only concerning the cause behind a warming climate, but a realistic look at the consequences of such change. The last warm period, which ended around 1200-1300 AD, was accompanied by the flourishing of mankind due to an abundance of food promoted by longer growing seasons.

Today, in a similar (but not yet as warm) period of warmth, we (the U.S.) are increasing corn and wheat production while poor nations, with starving populations – a major factor in the Middle East unrest - watch in horror as we put 4 of every 10 bushels of corn into our gas tanks. The key to those nations rising from poverty, indeed to economic prosperity worldwide, is cheap, abundant energy. And, they need it now. There is little proof that humans can accidentally, or deliberately, alter the earth’s climate. We do have the intellectual capacity to adapt, innovate and take advantage of the current climate. Man does not do well under cold climate conditions. We shouldn’t squander our chance to return to being the world’s “bread basket” by giving in to the” wealth-redistribution” agenda posed by the global warming crowd.

Jim Barber

Camp Verde

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-Payson Roundup


Cycles of global warming, cooling are common

Editor:

As with fantasy energy sources, Mr. Welge’s engineering foundation precludes common ground with Mr. Estess’ Anthropomorphic (human-caused) Global Warming (AGW) pretenses. Cycles of global warming and cooling are common in human and geological history, are due solely to activity of the sun; and, contrary to the Orwellian doomsday claims, the warming periods have always been a tremendous benefit to all life on the planet. The entire global warming hoax totally imploded. Every one of those claims by Mr. Estess was unequivocally proven to be totally false by: (1) winters of the last two years being the most severe, globally, of the last several decades — of any on record, in some areas; (2) release of Professor Phil Jones’ (the world’s chief global warming falsifist and head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia) e-mails which prove the primary “research” institutions were cherry-picking, stacking, and outright falsifying “data” to “prove” the AGW tripe their bosses demanded.

They even went so far as to “lose” 20 of the world’s weather stations which were located in areas reporting weather data directly contradicting the global warming myth. The data manipulation and falsification was so blatant that the primary proponents of this deceit destroyed their databases to avoid external evaluations that would have illustrated the extent of this outright fraud.

Those with the money make the rules, and $50 billion has been invested in creating and promoting this AGW sham. Universities receiving government contracts to “prove” AGW eagerly sacrificed their scientific integrity to replicate the manipulations of “data” necessary to keep the funding coming.

The major media (propaganda center servants of the same government masters) gleefully reported all this garbage as fact, participated in the vilification of those who dared to contradict the AGW theme, and aided the myth of the 200 or 300 AGW-promoting “scientists” as a consensus, while ignoring the 31,000 scientists documented as opposing the AGW alarmism. Even Al Gore’s favorite Michael Mann-produced “hockey-stick” temperature graph was proven to be a fraud. Leaked secret diplomatic cables show that the U.S. government used

espionage, bribery and extortion to pressure foreign governments to support the U.S. position on climate change.

Finally, actual weather data for Payson and Young, for the last decade show no warming trend whatsoever.

Terry Putnam

Young

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-Gloucester County Times

Climate-change crowd won't give up

To the Editor:

The March 21 editorial in the Times, from its sister paper, the Star-Ledger of Newark (“Stop muzzling EPA’s Jackson”) pretty much accuses anyone who doesn’t buy into the theory of man-made global warming — now called “climate change” — as being anti-science, anti-environment and backwards.

The editorial mirrors the attitude of the pro-global warming crowd that routinely ignores anything contradicts their agenda. (The editorial criticized Republicans in Congress who seek to prevent Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson from regulating carbon emissions.)

Evidence that could show that change in climate is a natural occurrence and not man-made has been brought forth by many reputable scientists. Space doesn’t permit me to go into detail, but the information is out there for anyone who wishes to research it.

There have been many instances where the data used to back global warming has been shown to be wrong. However, the activists have refused to address the challenges to flawed data or even debate their critics, preferring to resort to name-calling and making false accusations instead. That is not the behavior of true scientists, but rather that of individuals with ulterior motives — pushing an agenda.

If one looks closely at the people behind the global warming agenda, one finds individuals and companies that stand to profit handsomely from some type of cap-and-trade or similar taxation program. General Electric, which receives government subsidies under President Barack Obama, is one such company. Al Gore, self-appointed “climate expert,” is another.

People who support man-made global warming include those who have spoken in favor of population control, and they view climate change as a means to promote this cause. The fewer people in the world, the less carbon dioxide. Ironically, the politicians, celebrities and wealthy philanthropists who have been the most vocal about the need to reduce one’s “carbon footprint,” are the very ones who lead the most extravagant lifestyles and use the most energy. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes as to their true motives.


Leda Muth
Pitman

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-Daily Breeze


Sunday's Letter of the Day: Climate-change doomsday is just a modern fable


Most of your readers are familiar with the stories of "The Emperor's New Clothes" and "Chicken Little." The article "`King tides' tell of wet future, groups predict," (Wednesday) is a perfect illustration of the morals behind the two tales. First it repeats the doomsday predictions of the environmental "activists" interviewed. The mantra that catastrophic climate change due to industrial greenhouse gases will overwhelm civilization as we know it is nothing more than Chicken Little's claim that the sky is falling. Citing as a reference the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is as politically correct as were the emperor's subjects who refused to cite the obvious for fear of offending anyone. After all, the emperor wore no clothes and the IPCC has been thoroughly discredited by their own words. I guess that's why these old fables never die.

- Tom Hoffman, Rancho Palos Verdes

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-Gather

Global Warming Believers Propose Tax on Meat and Milk

by Pat Bartels

uel prices are on the rise, which causes increases in most of the things that are purchased. Anyone who shops for groceries knows that prices for food are going up rapidly. Those who support the global warming theory now believe everyone should go further in reducing green house gases by taxing meat and milk.

This suggestion came as a result of a European study and was published by the Climate Journal.

“This tax is not at all a matter of forcing people to become vegetarians, but merely moving towards a slightly more climate-smart diet,” says Stefan Wirsenius of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

It seems hard to believe that this isn’t a way to force people to make changes to their lifestyles. This tax would be specifically designed to reduce the consumption of these products.

This seems to be just one more way that governments gain control and money in the name of global warming. Of course, at this time, it’s only a suggestion. Wasn’t that how cap and trade legislation was developed? Any legislation or taxes imposed on companies to regulate emissions will be passed on to consumers.

This is a world effort to affect protection of the earth’s climate. The most developed countries will be the ones that will bear the burden of those who can’t afford it or won’t participate.

An article on Examiner.com suggests scientists are trying to impose their lifestyles on everyone and should direct their efforts on more productive ways. The Examiner.com article also points to another article at Discovery News that gives more information about this subject.

There seem to be many conflicting opinions on what is causing climate change, and/or if these are natural cycles that are occurring.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-Jewish Comment

Global warming Idiocy: Now Babies are Dying

Contributed by : Carol Gould


As we freeze, global warming conferences continue to proliferate......

London

Those of us who stay up late to watch the cycle of American news programmes on British television will know that a newborn baby died in New York this week because the ambulance called to attend could not get through the ice in time. A Brooklyn woman who had called 911 to seek help for her ailing husband watched him die as emergency services simply could not navigate the snow. All over the East Coast of the United States recriminations are reverberating : did Mayor Bloomberg underestimate the gravity of the storm? Were New Jersey Governor Christie and his Lt Governor right to have taken their respective holidays leaving Newark Mayor Cory Booker to personally shovel snow for his citizens? Finger-pointing is rife: were the airports in disaster mode because of local mismanagement? For that matter were hundreds of thousands of people stranded in Britain and Europe left to sleep on cold floors in airport terminals and in endless queues in sub-zero temperatures because of incompetence ?

Or was it something else? Already this week I am being browbeaten by the same colleagues and friends who loudly proclaim this latest winter nightmare the ‘result of global warming.’ When I meekly suggest I have been unable to grow tomatoes for three damp summers in a row even though I am south-facing I am told this is climate change. That is, global warming. An emailer in the United States has been sending me articles by scientists explaining that the slow rise in temperatures in parts of the globe ‘compresses the air patterns’ and ‘pushes cold air into particular geographical areas, causing temporary cold spells that metamorphose into sweltering summers.’ Fine -- if my punishing heating bills this winter mean I can at least grow a big crop of fruit and vegetables and save on grocery bills, I will be happy to accept the theory. Sadly I see no evidence of unbearable winters leading to glorious, sun-soaked summers here in Blighty.

In December 2006 I was lying in a hospital bed watching shocking television images of thousands of stranded Christmas tourists sitting in makeshift white tents and sipping soup at British airports due to freak freezing temperatures and fog. In pain from surgery I was glad to be in a warm, cosy place away from such vile conditions. I remember wishing I could stay an extra night and feeling the perishing cold on my face when I was discharged into the London fog and ice. Since then our winters have got colder and colder. But let’s look back in time.

My late mother used to tell me about women fainting on Yom Kippur despite carrying smelling salts at the local synagogue in Philadelphia in her childhood Septembers. She was born in 1914. She described the Philadelphia summers as deadly nightmares in which the only relief was the occasional release of water from fire hydrants. Remember all those pictures of the dust storms that consumed the United States in the early part of the twentieth century? In fact, in the early 1800s New England was the escape route for New Yorkers and Philadelphians leaving the scorching summer heat behind. Were there motorcars and factories spewing waste and contributing to global warming? No.

In 1916 the temperature in the Sahara desert rose to 136 Fahrenheit. Likewise in 1995 Chicago experienced its coldest temperature ever recorded: minus 27 degrees Fahrenheit. The average summer temperature for Philadelphia in 1995 was 78.6 degrees but in 2005 it was down to 77.8 degrees. Okay, I am willing to accept that globally 2010 was one of the hottest years on record but there were also anomalies : according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration unusually cool conditions occurred in western North America, northern Argentina, interior Asia and Western Europe. Germany had its coolest May since 1991, the 12th coolest on record. And if one more British friend screams at me ‘But Carol, this cold weather is a freak thing! It only happens once in a decade! We don’t need to waste money on ploughs and snow tires,’ I will cry.

So here is my point: I suggest we stop concentrating on global warming and start doing something about our shameful lack of preparation for catastrophically cold winters. Look at the pathetic scenes in London when temperatures had fallen to the minus 20s : I could not go out for ten days as I was not willing to break my hip navigating the endless rink of ice that was most of unsalted and ungritted North West London. Who will ever forget the sight of three men with shovels -- yes, shovels -- trying to clear snow from a massive runway at Heathrow? Or the weeping tourists so grateful to the Salvation Army for stepping in to give something to these folks to eat and drink because the British government didn’t have a clue as to what the hell to do?

We need to be ready for cold weather and we must never again have to witness the tragic scenes and fatalities that have ensued because of governments around the world wasting millions on global warming confabs. Instead we need to spend that money on making sure young mothers who have just given birth unaided are not abandoned because we cannot cope with the reality of global freezing.

******************
Statistics from:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/2010-has-been-hottest-year-on-record-noaa.php .

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

FROM-Lubbock On Line

Submitted by may on Thu, 2010-12-30 03:18

Unable to pass his massive Cap and Trade Taxes into law, President Obama now plans to use the EPA to attack our economy and to reward his supporters.

Democrats were once satisfied with using the Federal courts to incrementally achieve their goals. Now Obama senses urgency, as many of his Radical supporters actually believe Global Warming is being caused by human economic activity. Other supporters, such as Al Gore, have positioned themselves to make billions of dollars from the Global Warming Hoax.

The EPA regulations that will go into effect will add to Obama’s current efforts to raise energy prices and to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. Obama has already extended his ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and other offshore areas. Obama has also continued his efforts against coal and even nuclear energy production.

The increased use of corn and other farm products to produce energy rather than food has increased the cost of almost all food items. The increase in energy costs and the cost of fossil fuel derived agricultural fertilizers has also significantly contributed to the rising cost of food worldwide. This has been devastating to the poor, especially to those who are poor in developing countries.

The average cost of regular unleaded gasoline in now about $3.14 per gallon. Gasoline prices have increased about $1.25 per gallon since Obama became President. There are predictions of $4.00 per gallon gasoline by summer, with further escalation of fuel costs to follow.

The solutions are simple. The United States of America has more proven recoverable reserves of both oil and coal than any other country. These natural resources need to be produced, sold, and used. The United States should be a net exporter of oil and coal. In addition, we have massive reserves of uranium that can provide us with inexpensive and plentiful electricity for the indefinite future.

We do not have a lack of energy reserves or natural resources in the United States. We do have a lack of courage, common sense, and political honesty

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak


FROM-This is South Devon

Forget global warming, cooling is the problem

THREE winters ago I noted in the Herald letters pages that average temperatures had been dropping sharply and we were likely to be in for some severe winters.

As a result I substantially upgraded the insulation of our house — no fashionable bare floors now remain, they are covered in thick layers of underlay and carpet.

I commented at the time that officialdom had been completely sold on the notion of global warming even though the evidence was, as noted by myself and other correspondents, thin in the extreme.

The serious point about my earlier letters was to point out that we had only a Plan A to combat drastic warming, but none at all for Plan B — cooling.


This country has been cooling dramatically for five years (google 'Hadley CET to 1772' to see the temperatures).

This graph-maintained by the Met office unfortunately cuts off prior to a warming period very similar to today, culminating in the 1730s.

Hundreds of other places all around the world that have been cooling for decades as can be seen by googling for my article 'In search of cooling trends.'

Cool weather has lots of ramifications, whether it is to do with transport infrastructure or growing crops.

However, most serious of all is likely to revolve round heating costs. Successive Governments have been busily engaged in promoting highly expensive and inefficient green renewable at the expense of conventional power stations, many of which are due to close in the next few years in order to meet our absurd carbon emissions targets.

We need more conventional power stations built urgently to provide power at a reasonable cost.

Current projections are that green energy sources will add some 50 per cent to our already exorbitant fuel bills, always assuming they will work, as most wind turbines have not done over the last three weeks.

We also urgently need a Plan B as Plan A is looking increasingly threadbare.

This will necessitate the Government admitting that perhaps the evidence presented to them for warming has not been as robust as claimed. Will that happen? Don't hold your breath.

TONY BROWN

Shaldon

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak


FROM-UK Telegraph


Whatever the weather, climate alarmists blame mankind

The alarmists use any weather – extreme or moderate – to denounce what they see as the wickedness of capitalism



SIR – With so many politicians promoting hype about the risks of catastrophic climate change, it was cheering to read that the end of November and start of December were the coldest in central England since records began in 1772 (Christopher Booker, December 12). So much for global warming.

What is clear is that the climate behaves in unexpected ways all the time – regardless of what humans do.

In Roman times, wine was made from grapes at Hadrian's Wall, while in the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain was a much colder place than in the 20th century, with frost fairs taking place over the Thames.

Despite millennia of climate change, the alarmists use any weather – extreme or moderate – to denounce what they see as the wickedness of capitalism, seemingly failing to grasp that the public view their inconsistent pronouncements as more ridiculous by the day.

Jamie Robinson
Edinburgh


SIR – Parts of the world are buried under record levels of snow and people are dying from the cold. Moreover, the science supporting the theory of man-made global warming has been discredited.

Surely the time has come for our politicians to wake up to reality and stop wasting billions of taxpayers' money on ugly and useless wind farms.

The country would be better served by putting that money to good use, for example investing in snow ploughs, transport infrastructure and much needed new power stations.
Do we all have to die of hypothermia before our politicians wake up to the fact that they have got it wrong?

Stefan Reszczynski
Margate, Kent

SIR – Without the agreement of China and India to reduce dramatically their use of fossil fuels, the plans made at Cancun for a low-carbon economy are futile. China is already responsible for 50 per cent of the global carbon dioxide that comes from the combustion of coal.

The UN estimates that the worldwide consumption of coal will increase by 25 per cent in the next quarter-century, mainly in the developing world.

By 2020, China will have installed over 400GW of new coal-fired generating capacity, which is about 40 times greater than the planned British reduction in coal-fired capacity by that date. So the impact of British measures to combat climate change will be infinitesimal.
One day the electorate will have to assess whether that warm feeling of doing your noble but futile bit to save the planet was worth it.

James Atwell
Felbridge, Surrey

SIR – For years we have been subjected to dire warnings of the effect of raised carbon dioxide levels on our climate and told that the world was heating up to the level where tropical plants would thrive in Britain.

With the coldest winter in years upon us, as well as in many other countries, and many indifferent summers behind us, I feel that we are heading in the wrong direction.
Should we perhaps encourage the use of fossil fuels to help warm the climate?

David Parker
Redruth, Cornwall

SIR – How interesting that during our increasingly numerous periods of intense cold, the nomenclature used by fearmongers has changed from global warming to climate change.

Barry Bond
Leigh-on-Sea, Essex

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak


FROM-National Post


There are three kinds of people on the internet you can’t have a conversation with: abortion activists, religious zealots and global warming activists.

Abortion activists, on both sides, are as polemical as polar bears and penguins. It doesn’t matter what side you might lean toward, the other side doesn’t want to hear. They believe so fervently in their cause they will judge you largely on how closely your own views align with theirs.

Next are the religious. The internet is a terrible place to go converting unbelievers, and thankfully few have tried. It’s only when the topic comes up as a point of contention that things can get ugly fast. The last thing anyone who believes in the man upstairs wants to be told is that the Chilean miners were freed by human technology rather than an act of omnipotent benevolence.
The last — and in my opinion the most fervent — believers are those who worship at the altar of anthropogenic global warming. These people are so obsessed with their cause you get the sense they would imprison unbelievers if they had the power. And that’s certainly been suggested by some of the high priests.

Otherwise likable, ordinary folks can turn suddenly pretentious and indignant if you so much as joke that a cold snap in Vancouver means global warming went on vacation. This is an affront to their very belief system, and they will quickly remind you that global warming can result in more snow and cold just as readily as it can result in more drought, desertification, sand storms, windstorms, pine beetles, floods, forest fires, and earthquakes.

It isn’t that I’m surprised anyone would believe in man-made climate change. It’s a readily accepted theory by a majority of people and the scientific community. I would, however, caution that we continue to use the word theory in discussing the topic.

“I don’t believe in global warming, I believe in the facts,” the zealot will pontificate proudly.

Well, sure, but that depends on what sort of facts you’re presenting. It’s difficult for a lot of people to believe the hype about global warming when scientists consistently get their predictions wrong. And sometimes the scientific community doesn’t just get it wrong; they don’t even come close.

Scientists had been warning for years about the extinction of salmon in British Columbia. In 2007 senior fisheries biologists in Ireland predicted pink salmon stocks on the mid-coast could soon be expected to collapse into localized extinction because of sea lice infestations.

This year 34 million salmon returned to the Fraser River for spawning, turning science on its head and leaving the prognosticators running for their labs. Expert who had predicted 1.5 million salmon or less were left more than a little puzzled.

It’s now suggested many of the salmon extinction reports were spread by activists hoping to damage the concept of B.C. salmon farms for moralistic reasons rather than scientific ones.

The green fundamentalists who call for an immediate restructuring of post-industrialized civilization to cater to their theories are absurd individuals. They will shun you for disagreement, and even blacklist you for the audacity of unbelieving. I have met more humourless, fanatical, devoted environmentalist demagogues than I have of the religious equivalent.

Curiously, the punishment they promise unbelievers is death by flood, drought or starvation. It’s like reading the book of Revelation.

The best thing to do when somebody goes on about the Armageddon is to smile, nod approvingly, and change the subject. Otherwise you risk the possibility of being called a heretic and burned at the metaphorical stake.

I have a live and let live attitude. If you want to believe that glacial meltwater spells the doom of the planet, so be it. Just don’t force me to wear the uniform and march in the parades with you.


Adrian MacNair is a Vancouver writer and blogger