Tag Archives: CO2

Book Launch Exposes UN Climate Science in Another Scandal

by: John O’Sullivan

Newly released science book revelation is set to heap further misery on UN global warming researchers. Will latest setback derail Cancun Climate conference?

Slaying the Sky Dragon Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory is now #1 on the Amazon Best Seller List in the Science category.

Authors of a new book  ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ claim they have debunked the widely established greenhouse gas theory climate change. In the first of what they say will be a series of sensational statements to promote the launch of their book, they attack a cornerstone belief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – what is known as the “carbon isotope argument.”

Mišo Alkalaj, is one of 24 expert authors of this two-volume publication, among them are qualified climatologists, prominent skeptic scientists and a world leading math professor. It is Alkalaj’s chapter in the second of the two books that exposes the fraud concerning the isotopes 13C/12C found in carbon dioxide (CO2).

If true, the disclosure may possibly derail last-ditch attempts at a binding international treaty to ‘halt man-made global warming.’ At minimum the story will be sure to trigger a fresh scandal for the beleaguered United Nations body.

Do Human Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Exhibit a Distinct Signature?

The low-key internal study focused on the behavior of 13C/12C isotopes within carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules and examined how the isotopes decay over time. Its conclusions became the sole basis of claims that ‘newer’ airborne CO2 exhibits a different and thus distinct ‘human signature.’ The paper was employed by the IPCC to give a green light to researchers to claim they could quantify the amount of human versus natural proportions just from counting the number of isotopes within that ‘greenhouse gas.’

Alkalaj, who is head of Center for Communication Infrastructure at the “J. Stefan” Institute, Slovenia says because of the nature of organic plant decay, that emits CO2, such a mass spectrometry analysis is bogus. Therefore, it is argued, IPCC researchers are either grossly incompetent or corrupt because it is impossible to detect whether carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is of human or organic origin.

Skeptics Out to Derail Cancun Climate Conference?

Cynics are already claiming ‘Isotope-gate’ is more than just a promotional stunt to hype this book launch. They say its also deliberately timed to disrupt the latest major international climate conference in Cancun, Mexico (November 29th – December 10th).

The Cancun Climate conference (COP 16) is seen as a make or break attempt by world leaders to secure a binding international treaty to limit emissions of carbon dioxide after the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit last year. Copenhagen was undermined by the Climategate revelations and this latest attempt by skeptics may be a repeat.

The ‘Isotope-gate’ story is one of many planned promotional releases from the book and this publication is bound to cause embarrassment to delegates in Mexico if the revelations it contains become widely known.

Worryingly for Cancun (and the IPCC) this new book makes far bolder claims than have been made before by skeptics. Its authors say they have scientifically and mathematically disproved the greenhouse gas theory. The theory is the bedrock of all scientific claims that humans are responsible for climate change.

‘Slayers’ Book Reveals New Evidence of UN Climate Fraud

The  13C/12C argument being attacked by Mišo Alkalaj may be found in IPCC’s AR4 – The Physical Science Basis Working Group. The IPCC clarifies its position on Page 139 of that chapter.

According to Miso the fatal assumption made by the IPCC is that the atmospheric concentration of the 13C isotope (distinctive in prehistoric plants) are fixed. They also assume C3-type plants no longer exist so would need to be factored into the equations. Indeed, as Miso points out such plants, “make up 95% of the mass of all current plant life.”

Therefore, decay of 95% of present-day plant material is constantly emitting the 13C-deficient carbon dioxide supposedly characteristic of coal combustion—and CO2 emitted by plant decay is an order of magnitude greater than all human-generated emissions.

‘Isotope-gate’ is Twin Brother of Himalayagate

But a more sinister twist to the story is not just that the researchers erred in mistakenly overlooking the flaws about the 13C isotope, but that they never referred the analysis to outsider verification.

As with the Himalayagate controversy, the Prentice paper was never reviewed beyond the secretive four walls of UN climate alarmism; it relied entirely on an internal uncorroborated source.

On this cynical practice Mišo observes, “Few readers will be bothered to follow the trail all the way and especially not the ‘policymakers.’ But the few that do frequently find out that the argument is circular (A quotes B and B quotes A), etc.”

Thus, there exists no proof of any such distinct ‘human signal’ anywhere in samples of atmospheric CO2 and the IPCC is discredited. Therefore, once again, the public has been shown compelling evidence of how it was duped by junk science promoted knowingly by an international gang of fraudsters.

References:

IPCC (TAR) Third Report (2001), ‘The Scientific Basis,’ Working Group 1
IPCC  (FAR) Fourth Report (2007) ‘The Physical Science Basis,’ Working Group 1
Ball, T., Johnson, C., Hertzberg, M., Olson, J.A., et al., ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory,’ (November, 2010), accessed online at: amazon.com (November 26, 2010).

Comments Off on Book Launch Exposes UN Climate Science in Another Scandal

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, John O'Sullivan

The UN CO2 Sting at ‘Concun’

Paul Newman in 'The Sting' A movie about a big con. Model for the UN?

Regardless of what happens, the UN and their fellow ‘warmers’ always report CO2 and temperature are breaking ‘records’ and are ‘unprecedented’. Blah! Blah! Blah!

If you’ve ever seen it, there’s a movie called ‘The Sting,” about a big con run by two guys to get revenge on an Irish mob boss back in the 1930’s. In my opinion, the UN and the ‘warmers’ appear to  have the same talents, only their con is on a a much larger (global) scale and will have not a good outcome as the movie, but will have a very bad outcome if they’re left to complete their nefarious goals.

The latest ‘warmer’ con, ‘conveniently’ timed to coincide with the Cancun Climate Conference, comes from (who else?) the United Nations. You can call it Cancon or Concun, the key is those three letters ‘con‘.

ABC News has an article titled ‘UN: Greenhouse Gas Concentrations at Record Level.” How alarmists can a title be? How ‘convenient’ this is put out the very day before the Cancun Climate Conference starts? If I were to believe, I might feel the need to hide in a bomb shelter after reading that headline. According to the article……

A report by the U.N. weather agency has found that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere reached record levels in 2009.

The World Meteorological Organization (‘conveniently’ part of the UN) says efforts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide haven’t diminished the atmospheric concentration of these gases widely blamed for stoking global warming.

Ummm…..OK, but here’s an article from Examiner.com titled “Global warming: Can we make it 3 years in a row of declining CO2?” that notes that the CO2 levels declined (YES DECLINED!) 2.6% in 2009 and moreover, declined the previous two years (2008 and 2007). So why is the UN making a claim that 2009 was a record? Calling Pinocchio! Calling Pinocchio! According to the article……

The world’s CO2 emissions declined by 2.6% last year, with Spain apparently leading the charge, with reductions of 15%. The U.S. has had two years in a row of declining CO2, with a total of 10% decline over that period.

Here is another one from the Christian Science Monitor titled “Global warming: Carbon dioxide emissions worldwide fell in 2009.”

Industrial carbon-dioxide emissions, the driver behind a new round of global climate talks set to begin in Cancun, Mexico, Nov. 29, eased in 2009, according to a group of scientists monitoring atmospheric CO2.

Can you say oops? Sounds like the World Meteorological Organization is full of anthropogenic BS to me.

So, it’s here we go again. The United Nations and the ‘warmers’ are making dubious claims, ‘conveniently’ timed to coincide with a major climate conference in Cancun. The one that’s predicted to be a major fail before even starting. They’re a bunch of liars in my opinion, foisting con upon con upon the public about anthropogenic global warming. Per the below, the con they put out is exactly that.

An article from Business Report, titled ‘Emissions Calculations Are Clouded,’ shows us that no one’s really measuring CO2 and no one really knows what amounts of CO2, higher or lower, are in the atmosphere. Amazing but true.

Nisbet (Earth Science professor at University of London) says the world puts too much faith in government estimates of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change. That’s because companies and countries base emissions calculations on the raw materials that go into a process; they don’t check the pollution coming out.

“It’s like going on a diet without weighing yourself,” says Ray Weiss, a geochemistry professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, whose article with Nisbet in an issue of Science argues for measuring the atmosphere.

So, what is being promoted by the UN and the ‘warmers’ is basically a fantasy and no one has any clue about what’s really out there. Not very scientific is it? It is mighty ‘convenient’ when it comes to exaggerating things when one is trying to get that big climate deal going though, doesn’t it? Remember, they have to motivate (read con) people to get anything accomplished. Without uber-climate-drama they’re not going to get the power and those billions and trillions of dollars they lust for.

Thus, the old adage, ‘follow the money,’ rears its ugly head again……

Today, $141 billion (R994bn) worth of credits that help countries meet their Kyoto goals change hands in global emissions markets. And business is booming in offsets, the right for countries and companies that pollute too much to claim credit for green projects elsewhere. All of these efforts rely on bottom-up calculations being accurate.

Much of that $141 billion that may go away if the Kyoto Treaty dies, or if they can’t get a new treaty to replace it. Those big investors like governments, banks and brokerage firms stand to lose billions if carbon trading schemes die like the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) already has. No treaty no trady, no billions, no trillions, no removing money from people’s wallets. Remember, in the end, the consumer (you) always pays the tab via increased prices or taxes……

Traders and regulators say Europe’s carbon market, called the Emissions Trading System, and the UN’s offset market, called the Clean Development Mechanism, are making a real dent in greenhouse emissions. From $570 million a year in 2004, the global carbon market may surge to as much as $1.4 trillion worth of deals by the decade’s end.

A ‘dent in greenhouse emissions?” It’s more like a dent in everyone’s global bank accounts! Face it, $1.4 trillion doesn’t only talk, it screams! It screams that the fraud called anthropogenic global warming needs to be perpetuated or some people just aren’t going to be as filthy rich as they want to be. There’s money to be made and no one’s there to double-check on what’s going on. You can wager that there’s going to be some rather ‘creative’ accounting going on. That old saying “figures don’t lie, but liars figure,” must have been specially tailored for the carbon trading business as it has already come into play.

Below are some more salient quotes about this from the article, showing just how preposterous the UN claims are……

  • Matthias Jonas, a physicist at Austria’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis says: ““All the emissions we’re accounting for so far under the Kyoto Protocol are based on what we think the atmosphere sees by standing on the ground”
  • Pieter Tans, Colorado-based senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says: “As soon as emissions become worth a lot of money, I start losing faith in self-reported numbers regardless of who signs off on them,” he says. “We need something more objective – like checking what’s actually appearing in the atmosphere
  • US Department of Energy staff scientist Gregg Marland says: “If somebody lies, somebody loses,” he says. “In a CO2 transaction, you can lie and both win. We’re going to create a situation where both sides can win by cheating
  • John Bosch, retired EPA says: “When it comes down to it, these estimates are all guesses

Well, there you have it. From the proverbial horse’s mouths comes the truth. The truth is, they don’t know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. The truth is, that the parties involved self-report with no checks or balances, thus inviting fraud. The truth is, that both sides of a carbon deal can then win by cheating because no one’s checking. The truth is, that it’s all a big guess and they’re clueless. Yes, that certainly sounds like “the science is settled” to me!

What it really sounds like is that it’s a con-artist’s dream! Billions and trillions of dollars at stake in a global fraud that needs to be perpetuated to keep those billions and trillions rolling in. Bernie Madoff would certainly be proud of this scam and he’s probably sorry he’s missed out on the biggest con ever. According to this article at New England Organized Crime, even the Mafia are in on it. They have thus far ripped off carbon trading to the tune of $7.4 billion! Amazing because what you have is scammers ripping off scammers.  Talk about a criminal’s dream! Carbon trading has to be the be all to end all con of all time.

This makes me wonder even more about how anyone with half of a brain can buy into the con called anthropogenic global warming. More evidence of the fraud is that the warmers are now contradicting themselves because they can’t even keep track of all the lies, or who’s saying what. For a couple of examples you can read how we have global warming  now slowed by global warming and the fakery of claiming Pakistan’s monsoons and droughts are caused by global warming. I’d love to hook up lie detectors to some of these people. I wonder if the machines would blow up due to overload when the questions were answered?

As I keep saying, the ‘warmers’ and UN will claim that everything and anything that happens or doesn’t happen is caused by anthropogenic global warming and that we better tax ourselves to stop that evil CO2. The reality is that it’s not about climate change, it’s all about power and money. Still don’t believe it? Well, here’s a nice little article about how the climate talks in Cancun are about the money, not the climate…….

Facing another year without a global deal to curb climate change, the world’s nations will spend the next two weeks debating how to mobilize money to cope with what’s coming — as temperatures climb, ice melts, seas rise and the climate that nurtured man shifts in unpredictable ways.

Yes, they want to ‘mobilize’ your money out of your bank account and into their bank account, nothing more. Climate change, global warming, climate disruption or whatever term you prefer is only a lame excuse for the world’s largest fraud.

Want more? We even have Ottmar Edenhoer (an IPCC guy) who actually has big enough balls to blatantly admit it’s about the money and globalization, not climate change. From American Thinker we have an article that notes the following……

On Sunday, Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated that climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

You can plainly see they desperately want power and riches. They will blatantly lie in order to generate enough panic to get the public to go along with their proclamation that man-made CO2 is the problem to make their nefarious goals come true.

Let them continue and the United States and all other sovereign nations will be no more than a name on a map. They will be shell countries with faux governments, run by the shills of the one-world dictatorship called the United Nations. It will be run by a select group of billionaires who will call the shots by dangling membership in the power and money club in front of all those bureaucrats they want to do their bidding.

Your life may be controlled by those members of the do as I say not as I do club such as Al Gore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maurice Strong, Bill Gates, James Cameron, George Soros and a long list of other wealthy hypocrites who want you to take the bus while they fly about in CO2 spewing private jets and tell you to live in a green constructed shack with no heat or air conditioning while they live in mansions.

This is the danger of CO2 Insanity. They will use their anthropogenically created CO2 Insanity to extract money from your bank account, enrich themselves further, gain global power so they can dictate the world’s every move. They will make Nazi Germany, Cuba, and the U.S.S.R., all combined, look like pikers.

Sources: ABC News, IOL Business Report, Examiner.com, New England Organized Crime, Associated Press/Google, The Christian Science Monitor

2 Comments

Filed under Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, United Nations

Give me that old time global warming religion

Send your donations to me c/o the Chicago Climate Exchange

Hallelujah brothers and sisters! Get down on your knees and pray! (….and don’t forget to leave some cap-and-trade money in the basket we’re passing around). From Examiner.com we get this interesting item titled “Climate-change movement pays homage to false god of global warming.”

The Church of Global Warming (a.k.a. the Church of CO2 Emissions), which has converted many a true believer over the past few decades, is facing a Reformation of sorts. Its pews are beginning to empty as snow-bound and shivering skeptics increasingly question its once-unchallenged doctrines.

Still, many millions of worshipers remain faithful to the religion’s man-is-warming-the-earth theology – a belief system based on demonstrably fraudulent science and false prophecy.

False prophets? Religion? Pray-tell! (pun intended)

In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is now cooling – not warming – why do so many cling to their Greenhouse God while denouncing CO2 as the planetary Satan? Why do they continue to recite chapter and verse from necromancer Al Gore’s Bible of Inconvenient Truth?

Read all about it at the source below. (….and please leave some money so I can make a donation to the Church of Global Warming – thanks!)

CO2 Insanity indeed.

Source: Examiner.com

Comments Off on Give me that old time global warming religion

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming

Will carbon credits create food shortages?

Sheep....it may not be what's for dinner anymore.

I just came across this piece from Bloomberg Businessweek titled “New Zealand Farmers Harvest Carbon Credits” that seems to have some nefarious implications about what carbon credits could do to the world’s food supplies.

…a carbon emission trading system that kicked off in July is upending the economics of sheep farming, a once crucial sector of the economy. Sheep farmers are walking away from the business of selling wool and lamb chops and are converting their grazing lands into tree farms that could prove valuable when the country’s agricultural sector is forced to pay for greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2015.

While that may seem “valuable” when it comes to paying for greenhouse gas emissions, it certainly doesn’t seem very valuable as far as the world’s food supply is concerned. According to them it’s not even going to make any difference in their emissions.

Prime Minister John Key’s government in Wellington has said a carbon trading regime probably won’t have a big impact on the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, yet will boost the country’s green credentials and clout in global climate talks.

Seems like some fat egos in New Zealand are more concerned about being stylish on the world scene than being realistic or worrying about what this may do to the food supply in the future. I mean why in the hell would you spend a wad of money for something that isn’t going to do anything? This reminds me of some the scams you see on TV for various “medicines” that aren’t government tested or approved yet come with claims of providing miracles.  One would think if there was something out there that would make your wanker grow that some huge drug company like Bayer or Pfizer would have already discovered it and had a patent on it and be raking in billions.

So why would the sheep farmers get all excited about this scheme? Well it seems there are problems in Sheepland such as:

  • “Although New Zealand was the world’s largest sheep meat exporter last year, the number of sheep have fallen from a 1982 peak of 70 million to about 40 million”
  • “The government’s carbon program is also a welcome opportunity for some sheep farmers, struggling against slumping wool prices, drought, and competition for land from the dairy and lumber industries”
  • “Farmers who convert their land from sheep grazing to planting trees could add $172 per acre in value each year to their land holdings”

Think about it. You have less sheep to deal with, which means less feed to buy and less help to pay for and you plant trees that sit there and do nothing and require little if any care, plus you get paid for it. Sounds like a dream come true – get paid for doing basically nothing. But that old adage, ” if it sounds too good to be true it usually is.”

While this may sound good to your friendly neighborhood sheep farmer, it does have other implications on the economy such as “losing jobs once held by shearers, mechanics, and veterinarians.” You can extrapolate that to the shearers, mechanics and veterinarians aren’t going to be spending any money so we will soon have problems with other businesses such as restaurants and stores losing business or even going out of business.

It also isn’t the panacea it’s promised to be, as there are other issues surrounding this:

  • “farmers are being sold on carbon trading without understanding that they could lose trees to fire or disease”
  • “the government might cancel the program at any time”

So what we have here is another global warming failure in progress. By the New Zealand’s government’s own admission it’s not going to accomplish much in the way of emissions reductions and it has a lot of potential problems.

Let’s get to the food issue. I see global warming not as a reality but as something that is trendy with the green crowd, a potential maker of billions for people in on the carbon trading schemes, and a killer of jobs and economies due to the increased costs of doing business due to carbon taxes. If that’s not enough we now have the potential to create food shortages.

We now have a foot in the door by paying people not to raise sheep. What next? We pay people to not raise cattle and chickens? Crops such as corn and soybeans are currently being partially diverted from feeding people to making ethanol for cars.  How much more will the price of those crops rise if there’s additional shortages created by farmers electing to plant trees instead of grow corn? How much less food will be around because of this?

Think I’m kidding? Just look at the bump in wheat prices due to Russia putting a ban on exporting it due to the recent fires? Imagine if 1/3 of the world’s wheat farmers decided to plant trees and not bother growing wheat anymore? Will there be enough? Will the poor be able to afford it? Will the middle class see their food bills rising to the point that it’s a burden? Here’s a clip from the Washington Post.

Russia announced Thursday that it will ban all grain exports for the rest of the year, sending wheat prices soaring to a two-year high and raising the possibility of inflated food prices that could throw an already fitful global economy recovery off track.

Wheat prices in 2010

You can see from the above chart what the prices have been doing. Below is one effect of price increase and shortages of wheat.

In Egypt — one of the biggest importers of wheat and a nation that experienced deadly violence in bread lines two years ago — the government assured the public that it has a four-month supply of wheat and urged Russia to honor contracts it signed before the ban. In Europe, the United Kingdom’s Premier Foods and Switzerland’s two largest food retailers warned consumers that they may increase prices of products that contain wheat, from crackers to beer.

That Russian wheat is only about 11% of the total world market and yet you can see the actual and easily imagine the potential effects a shortage could have in countries that are dependent upon wheat imports.

So what’s worse? Dying from global warming or food shortages? Sometimes I wonder if there isn’t some other undercurrent going on here that all this is more about population reduction than it is about global warming. Adding the potential of food shortages due to carbon trading schemes just seems to reinforce that idea.

Maybe artificial meat or soylent green will become popular.

More CO2 Insanity.

Source: Bloomberg Businessweek

2 Comments

Filed under Carbon Trading, Co2 Insanity, Food, Global Warming, Government, Politics

Wind power = little CO2 reduction

From the Wall Street Journal we get an article titled “Wind Power Won’t Cool Down the Planet” showing us why putting all those bird-killing, fugly wind-turbines up isn’t going to change much.

The wind industry has achieved remarkable growth largely due to the claim that it will provide major reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. There’s just one problem: It’s not true. A slew of recent studies show that wind-generated electricity likely won’t result in any reduction in carbon emissions—or that they’ll be so small as to be almost meaningless.

None of it will lead to major cuts in carbon emissions, for two reasons. First, wind blows only intermittently and variably. Second, wind-generated electricity largely displaces power produced by natural gas-fired generators, rather than that from plants burning more carbon-intensive coal.

To condense the concept, you have to keep the coal plants running because you can’t just shut them off and then re-start them when the wind dies down, they’re not like a light bulb. They burn more fuel and they emit more pollutants.

This final quote is priceless. You can read the whole article here.

Perhaps it comes down to what Kevin Forbes, the director of the Center for the Study of Energy and Environmental Stewardship at Catholic University, told me: “Wind energy gives people a nice warm fuzzy feeling that we’re taking action on climate change.” Yet when it comes to CO2 emissions, “the reality is that it’s not doing much of anything.”

These wind farms receive billions of dollars in subsidies each year (which comes out of your pocket because your tax dollars are paying for it).Yet another waste of your tax dollars that could be spent on better endeavors, not to mention more CO2 Insanity.

Source: Wall Street Journal

Comments Off on Wind power = little CO2 reduction

Filed under AB32 California, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, pollution, Renewable Energy, Science

Waaaah! Nobody wants to by my CO2!

Antelope Valley Station

Here we have a project with a power plant looking for someone to buy the CO2 they capture and evidently we have no takers thus far.

Basin Electric Power Cooperative is searching for customers to buy the carbon dioxide it plans to retain in an experiment to reduce emissions of the gas from its Antelope Valley power plant, a company official said.

One crucial element is whether Basin can find customers for the carbon dioxide that would be captured from one of Antelope Valley’s two 450-megawatt generating units, he said

Great Plains processes lignite coal to make synthetic natural gas and retains much of the carbon dioxide in the process.

Man I would have thought Al Gore would have been first in line to buy all this nasty CO2 up so he could stick it someplace. Perhaps he’s blowing all his money on masseuses, divorces and his new bachelor pad in upscale Montecito, California. Talk about more CO2 Insanity.

Source: Bloomberg Businessweek

Comments Off on Waaaah! Nobody wants to by my CO2!

Filed under Carbon Trading, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, pollution

John Kerry the New Al Gore

The new Al Gore

Wow, I’m impressed, John Kerry, the ultimate “climatologist.” Who wouldathunkit.  So what’s so impressive about the man who got shot in the ass in Vietnam? Well………that bullet may have actually hit his brain.  You won’t believe this one, but here it is courtesy of CNS News.

Speaking at a town hall-style meeting promoting climate change legislation on Thursday, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) predicted there will be “an ice-free Arctic” in “five or 10 years.”

“The arctic ice is disappearing faster than was predicted,” Kerry said. “And instead of waiting until 2030 or whenever it was to have an ice-free Arctic, we’re going to have one in five or 10 years.”

5 or 10 years? Very interesting indeed!  Are we talking Earth years? Or, perhaps years on Pluto? Even NOAA isn’t that retarded.

However, the Web site of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says: “Using the observed 2007/2008 summer sea ice extents as a starting point, computer models predict that the Arctic could be nearly sea ice-free in summertime within 30 years.”

At least they give it 30 years. So where does Kerry get this information from?

NSNews.com called Sen. Kerry’s office on Thursday to ask for the source of the senator’s assertion that there will be “an ice-free Arctic” in five to ten years. The office directed CNSNews.com to contact Kerry press secretary Whitney Smith by email. Smith did not respond to repeated emails asking the source for Kerry’s assertion about the Arctic ice

I bet I know….it’s called a brain-fart.  Or, perhaps he OD’ed on too much Heinz 57? Want to see another one?

In his talk on Thursday, Kerry said environmental degradation is happening faster than previously anticipated

Did he mean to say mental degradation?

“The Audubon Society – not exactly, you know, an ideological entity on the right or the left or wherever in America – has reported that its members are reporting a hundred-mile swath in the United States of America where plants, shrubs, trees, flowers – things that used to grow — don’t grow any more,” Kerry said.

Oh? Where is this? No comment? I Googled it, but I don’t see any 100 mile swath in the United States.  Is this a 100 mile swath like 100 miles wide that goes from the Canadian Border to Mexico? Or, does it go from the East to West coasts? Or, is it 100 miles long and 10 inches wide? I’d like to know. Or, could he be referring to Death Valley? It’s about 100 miles long and not  much grows there.

I wonder if Murmansk will have a yacht harbor where he can park his new yacht and save $400,000 dollars like he just did by putting it in Newport, Rhode Island? Will he get a sudden urge for a masseuse or four?

Well, I for one am waiting for the announcement that Mr. Kerry will be next years recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.  I mean if they gave one to the IPCC  and Al Gore, then they should certainly give one to John Kerry, who actually makes the IPCC and AL look smart after this statement. Which actually is something I would have thought impossible, until today.

Source: CNS News

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief, Government, Science

RIP CARBON TRADING

In a mysterious epidemic of common sense Congress has dumped their effort to cap carbon emitting from power plants.  The Wall Street Journal calls it “major blow to one of President Barack Obama’s top priorities.” I call it a victory for the USA because even if you believe in CO2 caused global warming, it’s still a dumb idea.

Why is it a dumb idea? For starters if they charge power plants for emitting CO2, guess who’s going to pay for it? The average American citizen, that’s who.  You aren’t really naïve enough to think the power companies will absorb the cost are you? If you are that dumb, think about this. Pacific Gas and Electric in California is putting in smart-meters all over the place.  Yes it’s costing them money, but they will be saving money reading them, too.  They won’t need meter readers on foot anymore, they can now get it via wi-fi and send you a bill.  Yet they still got the Public Utilities Commission to approve a rate hike to cover the smart-meters.  Nice eh?  They save money, we get to bear the cost of the meters.  Lovely arrangement, if you’re PG & E. Like having a jeweler get Rolex watches for free and then turning around and still selling them at full market rate. Nice bump in profits with someone else paying your overhead.

It’s also mandated that they start getting a larger percentage of their power from renewable energy sources like solar and wind.  Problems with those, too.  I’d question if there are enough of either to make the mandated reductions and even if there are, neither provides power 24 x 7, it’s only provided when the wind is blowing or it’s daylight.  They will still need to get power from non-renewable sources like coal and natural gas power plants when the renewable energy isn’t working or is working at greatly reduced levels.

That renewable energy isn’t free either.  Both solar and wind are heavily subsidized. If they weren’t your power bill each month would be more than your mortgage is.  So what you say? It’s subsidized by the government? Obama is sending stimulus money? It’s free?  It’s your tax dollars that pay the subsidy bozo.  Ever wonder why your kids education sucks or why that state college is charging higher tuition every year? Wonder why institutions such as Cal Berkeley have reduced the amount of California students and increased the amount of foreign students and now your kid is turned away? Part of it’s because they take tax dollars that could be spent on education and waste it on overpriced wind and solar power and gigantic self-perpetuating bureaucracy’s  like CARB who can piss away tax money faster than a drunk sailor on shore leave.

Secondly, we’re not the number one polluter on the planet anymore, China just got that honor, India probably isn’t far behind.  Now I ask what good is us spending all this money to reduce CO2 when the China and India pump it out in droves? That’s about as stupid as California’s carbon regulations being implemented.  All they will do is drive up the cost of business in California and drive out what businesses haven’t left already. If you manufactured goods in California why would you want to stay here and pay more when you can move next door to Nevada or Arizona and save a huge bundle of cash, not to mention not having to deal with the bureaucrats in Sacramento? Much of the air pollution in California blows across the Pacific Ocean from China.  I’ve read as much as 1/3 of it is created in China. So, I’m supposed to pay more for groceries, gas, and electricity when it’s not even going to get rid of as much as 1/3 of the pollution?  Now that’s CO2 Insanity!

I hope that “sex-crazed poodle” Al Gore and all his carbon trading butt buddies lose a lot of sleep over this and that they lose a lot of money.  It’s about time they get screwed instead of us for a change.

1 Comment

Filed under Carbon Trading, Co2 Insanity, Government, Obama, Politics, pollution, Renewable Energy, Science

Honey! I shrunk the atmosphere!

The latest hysteria involves the atmosphere, to be more specific it’s the thermosphere according to this article from CNN.

(CNN) — An upper layer of Earth’s atmosphere recently shrank so much that researchers are at a loss to adequately explain it, NASA said on Thursday.

The thermosphere, which blocks harmful ultraviolet rays, expands and contracts regularly due to the sun’s activities. As carbon dioxide increases, it has a cooling effect at such high altitudes, which also contributes to the contraction.

Here we go with CO2 Insanity if course they HAD to have CO2 in the blame game part of this article, heaven forbid it could be caused by only variations in the Sun. After this statement, notice they back down some in the next statement.

But even these two factors aren’t fully explaining the extraordinary contraction which, though unlikely to affect the weather, can affect the movement of satellites, researchers said.

“This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,” John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab was quoted as saying in NASA news report.

OK, so we now have “aren’t fully explaining,” “unlikely to affect the weather,” then we even get dumber with “the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years.” 43 years? Now that’s a long time to be collecting data (not!). You just have to laugh at the alarmism.  I mean it’s like “we don’t know crap, but let’s use this to get everybody all stirred up about CO2 so we can get that grant money going because we’ll really have to spend gazillions to study this one!”

Then we get more wishy-washy statements.  Nothing factual, no science, just what amounts to a biased opinion.

Emmert suggests that the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide making its way into the upper atmosphere might have played a role in the anomaly.

Can you imagine if a doctor did something like this? It’s like a doctor saying “Gee, we won’t run any tests, we don’t have any real proof, but my gut instinct is you need brain surgery so we’ll operate tomorrow.” The CO2 insanity is getting stranger by the day.

We also have a “magnifying” effect again.  The claim is that CO2 somehow mysteriously amps the planet’s heat (even though this violates laws of thermodynamics), and now we have it “magnifying cooling!” I guess all those laws of thermodynamics are meaningless when it comes to proving CO2 is a problem of any kind.

Carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in the upper atmosphere, unlike in the lower atmosphere, shedding heat via infrared radiation. As carbon dioxide levels build up on Earth, it makes its way into the upper levels and magnifies the cooling action of the solar minimum, Emmert said.

Someone please tell me why if the lower atmosphere flows heat to cold (in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics) why the upper atmosphere suddenly violates this? I mean if out space is colder than the warmer thermosphere, then the warmer heat from the thermosphere should flow into the colder outer space, no?

He then backs off this “theory” again as follows:

But, Emmert said, even taking into account the solar activity and carbon dioxide buildup doesn’t fully account for this abnormal collapse.

Despite the puzzling anomaly, the collapse of the thermosphere is unlikely to have a direct effect on our daily lives, said Solomon.

“It’s not going to affect the weather, or you won’t be able to tell that this is going on by looking at the sky. It’s not going to look any darker,” he said.

See what I mean? After getting all “alarmist” over the CO2 factor they flat admit it “doesn’t fully account,” “unlikely to have a direct effect on our daily lives,” and “it’s not going to affect the weather.” So why the alarmism? If you go back to common sense we’re having a solar minimum.  I’d bet if you could go back to the Maunder Minimum you’d see the same effect, but I’m not into prognostication like some “warmer” scientists seem to be, so who really knows?

Source: CNN

2 Comments

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Science

Deforestation? Not!

What may happen with fewer trees,

One of the “warmer” mantras has been “deforestation.”  You name the forest and we’re cutting down trees by the bazillions according to them, which is bad because trees eat CO2 for breakfast, lunch, and dinner (unless you’re the EPA, then CO2 is bad for some strange reason).

We get articles like “Forest Holocaust” from National Geographic, designed to scare the crap out of everyone and make us all switch to a Toyota Prius.

The statistics paint a grim picture. According to the World Resources Institute, more than 80 percent of the Earth’s natural forests already have been destroyed.

Deforestation may have catastrophic global effects as well. Trees are natural consumers of carbon dioxide—one of the greenhouse gases whose buildup in the atmosphere contributes to global warming. Destruction of trees not only removes these “carbon sinks,” but tree burning and decomposition pump into the atmosphere even more carbon dioxide, along with methane, another major greenhouse gas.

Here’s some more in an article titled “Deforestation” from Greenpeace.  Drama queens.

Deforestation and forest degradation are both a cause and a result of climate change. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and use it to grow, but when they decay or burn, carbon dioxide is released again. Decaying plants also produce methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide.

They evidently want to have it both ways, it’s a “cause and a result of climate change?”

Anyway, I think you get the point without me quoting from 6,550,000 results about deforestation online (per Google).

It seems deforestation is getting to be so much BS, too.  Per this article in Times Online, perhaps things aren’t as bad as everyone is screming at a high pitch about.

The destruction of ancient forests has fallen to its lowest level for 20 years as countries finally begin to deliver on their commitment to protect animal and plant species, according to a UN report.

Whoa!  A UN report that isn’t all doom and gloom? Oh, ummm, well read on, we can forget about that, they always have to throw in some “extras” to ensure continued funding, fright and cap-and-trade.

The variety of life on Earth is still declining rapidly and several regions are close to “tipping points” from which they may not recover, but there are promising signs that most governments have accepted the need to preserve natural resources.

See?  We can’t leave out those key words “declining”, “tipping points”, “may not recover”, etc.  They must have consulted the Goracle for key words. They forgot “unprecedented” but I guess I’ll cut them some slack. Then they go back to being positive. Perhaps they’re bi-polar?

But it reveals a strongly positive trend towards better protection of the planet’s most unique and sensitive areas of land and sea.

Strongly positive?  Perhaps the writer was drunk? Still, we get more “positive” per this.

More than 12 per cent of land is now protected by national conservation laws, with 120,000 national parks, reserves and other protected areas.

The total protected area has quadrupled since 1970 to 21 million square kilometres, including 4 million square kilometres of ocean.

This is Amozonazing…

Satellite data shows that the annual deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon has slowed from a peak of more than 27,000 square kilometres in 2004 to just over 7,000 square kilometres in 2009.

Even the deforestation of the Amazon is slowing.  How are they going to raise money with stuff like this?  Even Canada and Madagascar are getting in on the act.

Canada has protected an additional 210,000 square kilometres of forest since 2002 and the protected area in Madagascar has almost trebled to 47,000 square kilometres since 2003.

Here’s some more good news.

The report says: “All indicators of the responses to address biodiversity loss are moving in a positive direction. More areas are being protected for biodiversity, more policies and laws are being introduced to avoid damage from invasive alien species and more money is being spent in support of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its objectives.”

Lest you think this is all a fantasy or Pachauri had too much Vodka.

The report drew on about 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers and 110 national reports on biodiversity submitted by governments.

See?  When science is applied properly, with real peer-review, the truth comes out.

I’m glad to see that at least someone at the UN isn’t “adjusting” figures, “deleting” weather stations that don’t show warming, “placing” weather stations next to air conditioning exhausts, “creating” hockey-sticks out of thin air, etc.

We can do with some real science.  At least someone at the UN can tell the truth. Whoever is responsible for this please keep it up.  Please leave out the histrionics though, we can think for ourselves.

Perhaps the CO2 Insanity is easing up.  It’s about time.

Source: Times Online

Comments Off on Deforestation? Not!

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Science