In the Wednesday December 5th, 2007 issue of the New York Times appeared a story by Felicity Barringer titled “Precipitation Across U.S. Intensifies Over 50 Years.” In it, Ms. Barringer reports on a new study released by an organization called Environment America that
she described as “a national group that advocates new laws and policies
to mitigate the effects of climate change.” The focus of the
Environment America report was on the results of an analysis they
performed examining trends in “extreme” precipitation frequency across
the United States (apparently Environment America has spread these results to
their arms in individual states, Environment Colorado, Environment
California… you get the idea). The research was funded by the Pew
Charitable Trusts. As Ms. Barringer reported, Environment America
concluded that “Across the United States, the number of severe
rainfalls and heavy snows has grown significantly in the last
half-century, with the greatest increases in New England and the Middle
Atlantic region” and, of course, that this was just as predicted to
occur from global warming. Lest you think that more precipitation is a
good thing, Environment America is quick to warn that “An increase in
the frequency of storms delivering large amounts of rain or snow does
not necessarily mean more water will be available” and that “[w]hile it
may seem like a paradox, scientists expect that extreme downpours will
be punctuated by longer periods of relative dryness, increasing the
risk of drought.”
Global Warming Goals Revealed - Will Media Report?
NewsBuster Noel Sheppard reported on the global climate meetings in Bali, particularly the letter sent to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon by a number of prominent scientists stating that the global warming hysteria was overblown. Now comes an attempt by US Senator James Inhofe to warn about the true goals of this movement.
Inhofe is a tireless crusader for truth in advertising where the global warming hysteria crowd is concerned. On the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works site he maintains the Inhofe EPW blog, wherein he and his staff update the hysteria of the global warming crowd. Today, blogger Marc Morano has posted a news release on the website exposing the real goals of the global warming crowd. The question is- will the so-called mainstream media actually report on this? Based on past experience, I would guess not.
According to the press release, the real goal of the global warming crowd is the imposition of world taxes- especially on the United States. Morano quotes 'global tax advocate' Othmar Schwank, of an organization called the Mauch Consulting Group. Read story...
An energy-rationing bill has been introduced to address “global warming.” The “Climate Security Act” would impose caps on how much carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions can be allowed and would institute an elaborate program to “trade” allowances among the industries and business affected.
Americans better hope that some members of Congress will ask if there truly is a threat of global warming and why a similar program in Europe has proven to be a resounding failure.
If you really wanted to undermine the nation’s economy, you could not devise a better way. It is the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol on steroids.
Little noted during all the headlines concerning Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize was the fact that it was shared with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among skeptical scientists I know, the emails were flying. Several had served as part of the vast array of scientists whose opinions on the various IPCC draft reports were requested and then ignored.
A lot of these expert reviewers are among the 2,000 scientists that the IPCC and Al Gore are always citing as being part of the “consensus” on global warming. The problem for both is that many really, really, really disagree that any planet-threatening global warming is occurring.
One of them is Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand-based climate scientist who has been a part of the reviewing process since the IPCC came into being. He is one of those scientists who will not and cannot be shut up despite the din of the IPCC propaganda.
Briefly, Dr. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England, and his long career has included stints in France, Canada, China, and New Zealand. He has published more than a hundred scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science.
So, following the announcement of the Nobel, Dr. Gray wrote to Professor David Henderson who has called for a “review” of the IPCC and its procedures. This is a nice way of saying that the Panel is so widely viewed as just one more corrupt United Nations instrumentality, a lot of scientists think it should be tossed in a garbage can behind the UN building.
Permit me to share some of Dr. Gray’s thoughts with you.
Commenting on his initial belief that the IPCC would proceed on the basis of “scientific ethics” and that its conclusions would result from “facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles”, Dr. Gray’s experience revealed that, “Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.”
“I have been forced to the conclusion that, for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound…normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.”
“I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt.” Read the rest...
(CHICAGO, Illinois - December 5, 2007) -- The United Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia.
The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN's alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the debate on man-made global warming has been heating up, the UN has tried to freeze out the scientists and new evidence, summarily dismissing them with the claim "the science is settled."
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for The Heartland Institute explained, "It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected dissenting voices. They have been doing this for years. The censorship of scientists is necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science reversed on the alarmist crowd, they claimed 'the debate is over' to serve their wealth redistribution agenda." Read the rest...
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.
The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line. Read the rest...
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change
prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming
must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.
The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears
over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of
unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.
The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it
was vital that the international community based its policies on
science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.
His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on
January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world
convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change
talks.
Capitalist democracies around the world should be very concerned about the level of socialism being discussed at the United Nations' climate change meeting in Bali.
Not only are international hands being extended to collect funds from countries like the United States in order to help poorer nations deal with a problem that might actually be disappearing since global temperatures peaked in 1998, but climate change is also being used as a means of stripping intellectual property rights from companies that have created new more eco-friendly energy technologies.
If such a power-grab for the so-called benefit of the downtrodden actually comes to pass, capitalism as we know it will cease to exist.
Think that might be a little alarmist? Feast your eyes on the following report from Bali by the Associated Press Wednesday under the headline "Poor Nations Demand Climate Technology" (emphasis added throughout): Read more
Dishonest Political Tampering with the Science on Global Warming
As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.
Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.
My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The report’s first table of figures - inserted by the IPCC’s bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent - listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10. Read the rest...
Want to eliminate what otherwise will soon be the world's second leading cause of death? Impose a global speed limit of 5mph.
Zealots say fighting global warming is a moral imperative, so cost-benefit analyses are immoral. Like our Manichaean president, they have a simple fixation: Are you with us or not? But in his book "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming," the Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg suggests that global warming, although real, is not apt to be severe; that many of its consequences will be beneficial, and that the exorbitant costs of attempting to substantially curtail it would squander resources that, put to other uses, could have effects thousands of times more ameliorative. He offers cautionary calculations:
The warming that is reasonably projected might be problematic, although not devastating, for the much-fretted-about polar bears, but it will be beneficial for other species. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment anticipates increasing species richness.
Global warming was blamed for 35,000 deaths in Europe's August 2003 heat wave. Cold, however, has caused 25,000 deaths a year recently in England and Wales—47,000 in each winter from 1998 to 2000. In Europe, cold kills more than seven times as many as heat does. Worldwide, moderate warming will, on balance, save more lives than it will cost—by a 9-to-1 ratio in China and India. So, if substantially cutting carbon dioxide reverses warming, that will mean a large net loss of life globally.
How cool do we want the world to be? As cool as it was when the Arctic ice pack extended so far south that Eskimos in kayaks landed in Scotland? Just cool enough to prevent the oceans from inundating us?
The U.N.'s 2007 report estimates that by 2100, sea levels will rise about a foot—as much as they have risen since 1860. That will mean a number of local problems, not a planetary crisis. More people now live near coasts (which is why hurricanes have become more costly; they have not become more frequent or violent), but protecting people and property from the sea would be far less costly than attempting to turn down the planet's thermostat.
In an example of what has been called titillating "climate porn," we have been warned that warming might make malaria endemic in Vermont. Well. Malaria kills more than a million people a year worldwide and was endemic in parts of America's South within living memory (which is why the Centers for Disease Control are in Atlanta). But Lomborg says malaria is "related strongly to economic development and weakly to changing climate." Increasing prosperity and low-tech methods like mosquito nets, not controlling climate change, is the key to preventing 85 million malaria deaths by 2100. Rest of article...
Written by Mary Jordan, Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, 11 October 2007
LONDON, Oct. 11 -- A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's Oscar-winning film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," contains "nine errors." ... The judge said that, for instance, Gore's script implies that Greenland or West Antarctica might melt in the near future, creating a sea level rise of up to 20 feet that would cause devastation from San Francisco to the Netherlands to Bangladesh. The judge called this "distinctly alarmist" and said the consensus view is that, if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, "but only after, and over, millennia."
Burton also said Gore contends that inhabitants of low-lying Pacific atolls have had to evacuate to New Zealand because of global warming. "But there is no such evidence of any such evacuation," the judge said.
Another error, according to the judge, is that Goresays "a new scientific study shows that for the first time they arefinding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distancesup to 60 miles to find ice." Burton said that perhaps in the future polar bears will drown "by regression of pack-ice" but that the only study found on drowned polar bears attributed four deaths to a storm.
Burton's ruling said that there is "now common ground that it is notsimply a science film -- although it is clear that it is basedsubstantially on scientific research and opinion -- but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political." Burton said Gore's errors "arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis." Full article here...
The question of press bias about global warming is in the news again.
Writing in the Japan Times, Christopher Lingle asks "What's up with the journalists in the mainstream media?", adding that "reporting on issues relating to global warming has become strikingly one-sided".
Things have in fact come to such a pass that Newsweek recently equated global warming sceptics (itself a derogatory term for climate rationalist scientists who give priority to factual evidence over speculative computer models) with Holocaust deniers (yes, again), and accused them of being in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal (yes, again). The unoriginality and ad hominem nature of such silly accusations, which are fuelled by trashy websites like Exxon's Secrets, DeSmogBlog and SourceWatch, have become tiresome.
As US sceptic Frank Miele has pungently, though accurately commented – those who are vocal in their support for global warming doomsterism are "less interested in free expression of ideas than in total compliance with their ideas, less interested in critical thinking than in being critical, and less interested in the truth than in their truth". These attributes will of course be on abundant display in this, the week of the Sydney APEC.
Meanwhile, at that guardian of public news sanctity, the BBC, plans were being laid for the broadcast next year of a new, splashy "consciousness raising" event on climate change– titled Planet Relief and involving public celebrities such as Ricky Gervais.
The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change
prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming
must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.
Writing in the Japan Times, Christopher Lingle asks "What's up with the journalists in the mainstream media?", adding that "reporting on issues relating to global warming has become strikingly one-sided".
