Tag Archives: Global Warming

Climate Change U-Turn by John O’Sullivan

Shock: Top British Scientists force Royal Society into Climate Change U-Turn By: John O’Sullivan

Britain’s Royal Society issue astonishing climate change climb down and disowns scientists who have made predictions about heat waves and rising sea levels.

On September 30, 2010 The Royal Society (RS) published its humiliating climb down under the header ‘Climate change: a summary of the science.’ The sudden move appears to be a desperate attempt to pre-empt a possible rebellion among the ranks of the world’s oldest and most prestigious science institute.

In a new document that replaces the institution’s former official guide, ‘Climate change controversies, a simple guide,’ the RS now officially concedes, “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”.

Leading Experts Have ‘Little Confidence’ in Global Warming Numbers

Professor Anthony Kelly and Sir Alan Rudge, senior members of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, led the victory for climate common sense. They spoke for 43 angry fellows who signed a petition sent to the society’s president, Lord Rees. Rees, who has long been accused by climate skeptics as a key global warming scaremonger now grudgingly admits, “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”

Admissions that ‘Uncertainty’ Levels have increased

The new guide retreats from all such former hyperbole to admit: “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.” This more sober statement distances itself from the British government’s melodramatic climate claims while also refraining from offer specific advice to governments on climate related issues.
The story is reported both in the London Times and on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s(IPCC) official news site.

Strident Skeptics Assail High Moral Ground

Piers Corbyn, successful long-range weather and climate forecaster at WeatherAction.com, was quick to react to the announcement:

“Rather than trying again to continue the cover-up of failed science and data fraud the Royal Society should support our call – from ‘Climate-Sense’ scientists -for an open, honest evidence-based public debate on CO2 climate change involving scientists and economists from all sides.”

Corbyn, a fully qualified British astrophysicist, accurately predicted the Russian and Pakistan severe weather events in their long-range forecasts based in solar activity. The solar expert next month chairs a meeting of notable independent British global skeptics and writers planning the November launch of a major new book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ which they claim marks a new phase in the campaign against climate fraud. Billed as the world’s first full-volume debunk of the theory underpinning the global warming hype, the books seven international authors claim, among other things, they have proof NASA and other government climatologists used fake calculations to exaggerate the warming effect of carbon dioxide by a factor of three.

Slap in the Face to New Pro-green UK Government

Professor John Pethica, the Royal Society’s vice-president and lead author of the RS document affirms the consequences caused by the controversy,

“It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.”
The Society’s retreat from the staunch belief that so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ have any significant impact on global temperatures continues, “There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”

Undeterred by the apparent retreat in the science, Britain’s Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, made his pitch that the UK government wanted to foster a “third industrial revolution” in low-carbon technology with policies based on cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases.’

Source: John O’Sullivan

2 Comments

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

Meet the Dr. Kervorkian of Climate Change

WHICH ONE'S THE NICE GUY?

Actually even Dr. Kevorkian would probably be appalled at this dude. He might even make Joseph Mengele puke. Hint – the guy on the right is the one who who wants climate deniers sent to gulags and encourages mass killings as a final solution to non-existent anthropogenic global warming.

Meet Pentti Linkola, an extremely sick mind who according to this article from Prison Planet sounds like he never met a Nazi he didn’t like. Linkola advocates the following…..

  • re-educate deniers in gulags
  • kill the majority of humans/eradicate 10’s of millions of people
  • enslave the rest
  • wants a green police state
  • forcible sterilization
  • cars confiscated
  • travel restricted to the elite (obviously this asshole thinks he is one of them)
  • forced abortions
  • licenses for birth
  • tight regulation of electric power
  • forcing humans to have arat du jour diet
  • terminate businesses

Of course none of the above will affect the élite, who he considers himself to be one of. Sounds like a really “nice” guy doesn’t he?

Philosopher Pentti Linkola has built an enthusiastic following of self-described “eco-fascists” receptive to his message that the state should enact draconian measures of “discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression” in order to make people comply with environmental dictates.

Linkola’s barbaric and dictatorial philosophy has remained relatively obscure but is now gaining traction as the mask of environmentalism is lifted to unveil its true nature – a justification for 21st century tyranny on a grand scale, characterized by eugenics, sterilization, gulags, police states, and total government control over every aspect of our existence.

I don’t think Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin were even this ambitious. Either might have hired him. It doesn’t stop with him, though.  There are other’s running about like him. Who else?

Turns out that we also have our own advocate of mass genocide right here in the United States. Where? Right in the Whitehouse, that’s where!

The current White House science czar John P. Holdren also advocates the most obscenely dictatorial, eco-fascist, and inhumane practices in the name of environmentalism. In his 1977 Ecoscience textbook, Holdren calls for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.

Must be some of that hope and change all the libtard lemmings voted for. Yes, our president is such a nice guy he hires a Malthusian moron and puts him our government as a White House Czar. That should tell you all you need to know about Obama.  A sitting president shouldn’t be socializing or employing people like this. Hell, a normal human being wouldn’t associate with Holdren or Linkola. Yet the chosen one gets away with it and gets accolades to boot. You can read more about Holdren and his shenanigans here in this article at The Resilient Earth.

I would offer the Doctor Kevorkian of climate change and his buddies a suggestion. Why don’t you back up your bullshit and all kill yourselves as you’re all a part of the problem. Perhaps you should set an example for the rest of us? I doubt many will want to follow, including yourselves and your “people.” After all, stuff like this is only acceptable when it applies to other people isn’t it?

If you don’t have the balls to do that then perhaps you should start eating “Rat – it’s whats for dinner” or “Rat – the other white meat.”

This is what I’d term to be Mega CO2 Insanity. You can read all about this asshole at the source link below.

Source: Prison Planet

Comments Off on Meet the Dr. Kervorkian of Climate Change

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Co2 Insanity, Ecoterror, Global Warming, Government, Terrorist

Global Warming Study Calls Women Stupid?

Male Chauvinist Warmers

Here we have a great play on words in an article in the Christian Science Monitor titled “Women more knowledgeable them men on global warming, survey says.” The article is about a study done by Aaron M. McCright titled “The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American Public.”

I know, it all sounds like it’s complementing the female sex, but is it really a complement? Or, is it an insulting paper that basically states that women are stupid? Please read on and see what you think?

My personal take on this that if you read this you’ll probably  come away with the same impression that I did, which is that the author seems to be a “warmer” type personality and is using his credentials to bolster the argument for anthropogenic global warming.

Here are some of the talking points in from the article that I’m highly suspicious about.

That “women are more likely than men to support the scientific consensus on the reality of global warming caused by humans.” To me that’s insulting because it’s stating what many warmers do, they go along with a “consensus.”  A “consensus” isn’t scientifically recognized as being valid. It appears to me that McCright seems to think that women are as dumb as many warmers are because they believe a “consensus” instead of what real science says. “Consensus” isn’t real science and the warmers know that, but they pray the gullible will believe a “consensus” is legitimate science.

He then proceeds to draw the conclusion “that women conveyed slightly greater knowledge of climate change than men – agreeing that its effects were already being seen, that it is human-caused and that scientists think it is occurring. Women were also slightly more concerned about global warming than men.”

Again he appears to be calling women stupid in a roundabout way.  He gives them credit for “greater knowledge of climate change than men” only because they happen to agree with the warmer position.  I wonder if this statement would have been made if they had greater knowledge but were in disagreement? I’d bet he wouldn’t think them as “having greater knowledge” then. Women are usually concerned more about everything then men are, so I have to wonder why that’s even in there, except to make a feeble attempt to bolster his position with the obvious.

I love this quote from him cited in the article.

“Does this mean women are more likely to buy energy-efficient appliances and hybrid vehicles than men?” McCright said. “Do they vote for different political candidates? Do they talk to their children differently about global warming?”

It really sounds like it’s more of a marketing study than a scientific study. Perhaps it was designed to confirm they can get women feeling all touchy-feely about global warming  if they use the right marketing techniques. Perhaps done because the warmers don’t seem to be having much luck with the men. I feel his comments about what kinds of appliances, cars they will buy and who they’ll vote for only strengthens my position about this being marketing oriented.

Moreover, it’s based on science? Nope! It’s based upon 8 years of Gallup Poll Data.” Think my questions are out of line? In another quote he says “femininity stresses attachment, empathy and care. The latter traits might make it easier to feel concern about the potentially dire consequences of global warming.”

Sounds more like he’s saying that women are not only dumb, they’re also suckers and that’s who the warmers need to target (use) to get all their cap & trade and carbon taxes rolling again. I can’t wait to see Al Gore selling “Global Warming BS” on “Days of our Lives.”

Think Aaron isn’t a warmer?  Here’s a list of his other studies he’s published per Michigan State University.

  • McCright, Aaron M. 2010. “The Effects of Gender on Climate Change Knowledge and Concern in the American Public.” Population and Environment DOI:10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1.
  • McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. 2010. “Anti-Reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy.” Theory, Culture, and Society 27 (2-3): 100-133.
  • McCright, Aaron M., and Rachael L. Shwom. 2010. “Newspaper and Television Coverage.” Pp. 405-413 in Climate Change Science and Policy, edited by Stephen H. Schneider, Armin Rosencranz, Michael D. Mastrandrea, and Kristin Kuntz-Duriseti. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
  • McCright, Aaron M. 2009. “The Social Bases of Climate Change Knowledge, Concern, and Policy Support in the US General Public.” Hofstra Law Review 37:1017-1047.
  • McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. 2008. “The Nature and Social Bases of Progressive Social Movement Ideology: Examining Public Opinion toward Social Movements.” The Sociological Quarterly 49:825-848.
  • McCright, Aaron M. 2007. “Dealing With Climate Change Contrarians.” Pp. 200-212 inCreating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating SocialChange, edited by Susanne C. Moser and Lisa Dilling.  New York: Cambridge University Press.

You judge for yourself. I’m only asking these questions because this study sounds to me like the author is being a male chauvinist pig who’s desperately looking for ways to get women on the warmer side of things. Sounds like he’s trying to use a “consensus” to prop up the AGW “consensus.”

Somehow I don’t think the fairer sex is that naïve or easily duped. It comes across to me like yet more desperation from the warmistas and definitely more CO2 Insanity.

Source: The Christian Science Monitor

Study: PDF

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming

More alarmism:”Salmon decline due to global warming” false!

The Salmon are running in record numbers!

Remember hearing the harping about the salmon declining due to (what else?) global warming? Well, it appears perhaps we have another crock of global warming BS to flush down the toilet. We had this article in 2007 titled “Salmon and Global Warming”  stating…..

From high mountain streams to broad rivers, to estuaries and the ocean, salmon are our “canary in the coalmine,” alerting us to the impact of climate change on the health of our entire ecosystem.

Then we have this one titled “Salmon Decline is a Wakeup Call”  from Seattlepi.com, “conveniently” written by Doug Howell, regional executive director of National Wildlife Federation, Western Natural Resource Center, Seattle, stating things such as…..

First, we must curb greenhouse gas emissions; second, we need to invest in solutions such as reconnecting salmon to high headwater habitats and protecting health flows and cool waters in headwater areas to help those species cope with changes already under way.

The need for action is now. Fortunately, the Western Climate Initiative presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to lead the fight against climate change on both fronts.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will not be enough to save salmon in our region. We must also help them cope with a changing climate. The solutions have been identified, but we need elected leaders to provide the proper investments so they can be implemented.

We even had the below video from YouTube about the “endangered” salmon due to “warmer water.” Sounds like they may be pre-cooked when we catch one from now on doesn’t it?

Well I hate to burst your anthropogenic global warming bubble but it all seems to be more scare-a-rama, designed by the warmers to get you all hot and bothered about global warming.

Here’s one from the Western Institute for Study of the Environment titled “Record Salmon Return Explained” about why we have a sudden resurgence of salmon. You can see from the first quote they even set a new record one day on the number of salmon going up the fish ladders at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River in Oregon. This was posted July 26, 2010.

The Bonneville sockeye counts peaked from June 20-25 when more than 160,000 climbed over the fish ladders. The counts during that period ranged from 25,011 on June 20 to 30,690 on June 24. The latter count is the highest ever, breaking a record set the previous day (30,374).

The record run is “unexpected and hard to explain,” said the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Kathryn Kostow, who also chairs TAC. The committee is made up of federal, state and tribal officials. TAC typically would investigate such “odd events” at season’s end. …

So what’s the deal here? The salmon that were fast disappearing due to global warming are now suddenly returning in record numbers. Mysterious or is there an explanation?

Hard for some people to explain. But the abundantly obvious and evident reason for record salmon runs is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shift that occurred in 2008, when cool waters replaced warmer waters in the eastern Pacific. Upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich water feeds plankton and subsequently the entire food chain, including salmon.

Oh my, the PDO, cooler ocean waters, hmmmmmm, doesn’t sound like that “unprecedented” ocean warming I’ve been reading about, unless you want to count the 600+ degree day in Lake Michigan at Egg Harbor, Wisconsin.

Seems the Columbia River isn’t the only place we have record numbers of salmon returning to spawn. Per this article at Yahoo News titled ” Pacific Sockeye Salmon Return in Record Numbers” we get…..

After years of scarcity, the rivers of the US and Canadian Pacific Northwest are running red, literally, with a vast swarm of a salmon species considered to be in crisis.

Sockeye salmon, whose stocks ran perilously low last year, are gushing in record numbers from the Pacific Ocean toward their spawning grounds far inland.

Since mid-August, in a torrent expected to last through early October, sockeye have plunged and leapt up Alaskan streams, massed through the mouth of the mighty Fraser River in Vancouver, and filled Oregon and Washington waterways.

It’s even happening overseas…..

The Columbia River in Oregon has seen “the largest sockeye return since 1938,” he said, while Japan and Russia are enjoying “phenomenal returns.”

It’s also per this article from the Telegraph titled “Record Numbers of Salmon and Trout in British Rivers” happening in the United Kingdom….

More than 15,000 salmon and sea trout have already been recorded migrating this year up the River Tyne – a waterway in which no salmon and trout were seen 50 years ago – the highest number since records began.

Record numbers of sea trout have been recorded in the Thames, a river once declared biologically dead.

They attribute this to cleaning up the rivers, which isn’t a bad thing in my book. Certainly not global warming caused salmon decline though is it?

Yup, sure sounds like global warming is killing off all those salmon.  Just another case of “alarmist” bullshit go me. It seems to be if we had that global warming going on we wouldn’t be seeing record salmon runs this year. More CO2 Insanity foisted upon the public by the scaremongers.

Sources in links in the article.

1 Comment

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

Virgin Amazon? Think again

Rainforest

Yesterday I put up a post titled “Alarmist Whackjobism Continues?” where I chastised a recent alarmist report making claims the rainforests of the world are disappearing,which will increase CO2. I countered with a) the report only covers the period between 1980 and 2000, which seems a very dated and short time period, not to mention a seemingly convenient cutoff date, and b) because there is legitimate data showing that the regrowth ratio of the world’s rainforests is 50: 1, i.e., for every acre cut down, 50 acres are growing.

To pile some more fuel on the global warming isn’t anthropogenic fire, a friend tweeted me a URL this morning that leads to an article on Sott.net titled “Amazon was home to a large civilization, scientist says.” It is about a researcher who shows that much of the Amazon has been settled before by significant numbers of people. This means that a) much of it isn’t the “virgin” forest as the warmers and greens like to claim, and b) the jungle does reclaim what it had after man leaves.

This appears to be yet more evidence that condemns the claims in the study from Stanford University’s Holly Gibbs. More information to lead us in the direction that her study may just be last-minute alarmism and that perhaps the rainforests aren’t having the big problems the “warmer” crowd would like the public to believe.

Per the article you can see that Nigel Smith and others have discovered things long-buried in the jungle that seem to refute the claims that the rainforests are endangered. (Please note that this article originated from the Washington Post, which appears to be on the “warmer” side of the fence, which to me reinforces in my mind that the article isn’t just some “skeptic” BS).

To the untrained eye, all evidence here in the heart of the Amazon signals virgin forest, untouched by man for time immemorial – from the ubiquitous fruit palms to the cry of howler monkeys, from the air thick with mosquitoes to the unruly tangle of jungle vines.

Archaeologists, many of them Americans, say the opposite is true: This patch of forest, and many others across the Amazon, was instead home to an advanced, even spectacular civilization that managed the forest and enriched infertile soil to feed thousands.

What has been discovered is interesting. To make a long story short.

  • Man made indian mounts containing ceramic pieces and man-enrichened earth
  • huge swaths of terra preta, so-called Indian dark earth, land made fertile by mixing charcoal, human waste and other organic matter with soil
  • vast orchards of semi-domesticated fruit trees
  • moats, causeways, canals, the networks of a stratified civilization

Nigel Smith

It would seem to me that this research is another cog in the mounting evidence that is proving the global warming crowd is getting very over-heated about nothing. It appears to me that they’re on the defense after Climategate, and appear to be taking some great liberties with the way good science is done, as evidenced by some of the alarmist reports and articles we see. Lest you think not, you can go here and see a huge list of all the claims made by the “warmers,” many which appear contradictory.

They also appear rife to admit that perhaps Mother Nature takes care of herself and that what appears to be global warming to them is just part of a natural cycle, just like the rainforests rejuvenating themselves.

It appears to me that we have another nail in the CO2 Insanity coffin. I’d highly recommend you read the article from Sott.

Source: Sott.net

Comments Off on Virgin Amazon? Think again

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

Alarmist Whackjobism Continues?

Per info in the article this cut in the Amazon rainforest will be replaced 50 times by new growth

We have a new study that appears to be another instance of  what I call “alarmist whackjobism.” It only bolsters my impression that the “warmers” are in desperation mode and are posting some rather amazing things. Things that have the appearance of being designed to bolster their failing arguments regarding anthropogenic global warming. Things designed perhaps to give the governments of the world motivation to pass carbon taxes, cap-and-trade laws and reign in all things that emit carbon. Things that could potentially create a new Unibomber or a new James J. Lee. This time it’s about the tropical rainforests (again).

Allheadlinenews.com has this article titled “New Farmlands Driving Out Forests Causes Climate Change Study Says.” It cites what is in my opinion an alarmist study (citation here) posted on the PNAS website (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) that “conveniently” points out that those nefarious tropical farmers are cutting down those trees (the warmers so love to hug) by the millions, and that the process is (of course), going to increase CO2 (which we’re still supposed to believe increases global warming in spite of much damning evidence to the contrary). You can take the following statement into consideration.

More than half a million square miles of new farmland created in tropical countries, such as Brazil and Indonesia, between 1980 to 2000 was due to the felling of forests which in turn, accelerated the release of carbon into the atmosphere resulting in global warming, according to a new study led by Stanford postdoctoral researcher, Holly Gibbs, of the Department of Environmental Earth System Science.

Go ahead, read it again, look at the dates: “between 1980 to 2000.” That seems to be a “conveniently” dated report. Possibly “conveniently” dated because there’s nothing going on after 2000 to get excited about. You call it, I’m just pointing it out for you to think about.

The abstract at PNAS makes me wonder if there wasn’t some “convenient” timing there?  If you read the fine print you can see this study was submitted on September 22, 2009 and not approved until July 30, 2010. That’s a little over 10 months and a lot of negative things about global warming have happened since 9/22/09 such as Climategate, the IPCC getting sat on by the IAC, the Hockeystick graph, myriad problems with the MET, NOAA, NASA, GISS, Satellitegate and many other issues that appear to have increased the warmer desperation level faster than NOAA or GISS can alter temperature data.

I almost wonder if this wasn’t pulled out of the round file due to the increasing need to counter-attack the skeptics with anything they can muster. Like the saying goes “desperate times call for desperate measures,” which could be the new “warmer” mantra.

Why do I take umbrage at this? First, let us look at the definition of umbrage, which is why I chose that word as it seems to have a good take on the “warmer” claims made in this study about rainforests. From here at Dictionary.com we get the following:

“um·brage

[uhm-brij]  Show IPA

–noun

1. offense; annoyance; displeasure: to feel umbrage at a socialsnub; to give

umbrage to someone; to take umbrage at someone’s rudeness.

2. the slightest indication or vaguest feeling of suspicion, doubt,hostility, or

the like.

3. leaves that afford shade, as the foliage of tree

4. shade or shadows, as cast by trees.

5. a shadowy appearance or semblance of something.”

Sorry if you don’t get it but since we’re talking about rainforests I thought the definitions were funny, and yes, words such as offense; annoyance; and displeasure could describe my feelings about what I question is going on with this report (to say the least).

There is a reason I take umbrage, which takes us back to the date of the report. My suspicion is that they don’t have much to stir people up with after 2000, so they cut things “conveniently” off  at 2000. It appears that after 2000 we have things popping up that present problems with the claims in this report such as:

From Mongabay we get the following about the Amazon Jungle.

Annual deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon fell below 10,000 square kilometers for the first time since record-keeping began, reported Brazil’s Environment Minister Carlos Minc on Sunday.

You can read the whole article here. Please note that it’s dated June 22, 2009, about 8.5 years after the 2000 cutoff date cited in the study. Also please note the remark at the end about how the Brazilian government committing to significant reductions in deforestation of the Amazon Jungle, which is an indication the deforestation will slow down and possibly stop in much of the Amazon. Something not mentioned this report even though recently published.

Want more to ponder? You can read this from a New York Times article here circa June 29, 2009, again long after this studies cutoff date of 2000.

By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play.

Well now, isn’t that amazingly contrary to the report that prompted this post? Rainforest’s growing? Heaven forbid! This could be another reason we get the cutoff date of 2000. Again from the same NYT article.

The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists who believe that vigorous efforts to protect native rain forest should remain a top priority. But the notion has gained currency in mainstream organizations like the Smithsonian Institution and the United Nations, which in 2005 concluded that new forests were “increasing dramatically” and “undervalued” for their environmental benefits. The United Nations is undertaking the first global catalog of the new forests, which vary greatly in their stage of growth.

Even the United Nations (home of the IPPC and who in general seem to love all things warming) bought into the fact that the rainforest are growing back in 2005, about 5 years after the 2000 cutoff date in the Stanford report. Is environmental outrage perhaps some or all of the driving force behind this report? Is this another good reason for the 2000 cutoff date?

We get even more from CO2 Science’s article found here.

In a report published in the 6 March 2009 issue of Science, Oliver L. Phillips of the UK’s University of Leeds and his 65 co-authors write that “old growth forests in Amazonia … through photosynthesis and respiration … process 18 petagrams [18 x 1015 grams] of carbon annually,” which they say is “more than twice the rate of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions.” They also state that over the past quarter-century of intensive region-wide measurements, the productivity of the Amazon rainforest — even in its extreme old age — has been found to be “increasing with time,” in support of which statement they cite the comprehensive observational studies of Phillips et al. (1998), Nemani et al. (2003), Baker et al. (2004), Lewis et al. (2004) and Ichii et al. (2005).

So per the above the Amazon alone is processing more CO2 than we’re pumping out globally (2 x) and the ability to process CO2 is increasing, not decreasing as the report would have you believe.  This causes me to again wonder why the evident alarmism, what the motivation for this report was and why the seemingly “convenient” cutoff date of 2000? Note that the item from CO2 Science doesn’t even include the respiration of all the other forests and plants of all types worldwide, just the Amazon.

Think about this and tell me where’s the problem and why the alarmism? Is this more CO2 Insanity?

Source: Allheadlines.com

1 Comment

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

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

Hurricane Alarmism

Hurricane Earl Subject of Alarmism

This is the kind of garbage that gets people stirred up over little or nothing. The warmistas need to tone it down some lest we have more John Lees (ecoterrorist invader of the Discovery Channel Building in Silver Spring, Maryland) and Ted Kaczynskis (the Unibomber) running around blowing up or shooting people who are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. You would think someone would get a clue, but no, we get more alarmist claptrap courtesy of this article from Boston.com’s “The Green Blog.” To quote…..

The large waves, storm surge, and flooding that Hurricane Earl will spawn as it strikes Massachusetts tomorrow night comes with an added dollop of trouble; Sea level rise. Very gradual — and in some cases accelerating — rises in sea level off our coast over the last century will boost the height of Earl’s storm surge — expected to be one to four feet — meaning the wall of water will be able to travel that much farther inland and over higher elevations to flood basements, streets, and other low-lying areas.

Of course the article just had to lay the blame at our old “friend” global warming even though it is unproven BS. “Wall of water?” This isn’t going to be a 10 meter event in Massachusetts by any stretch of the imagination. As of now it’s like a 1-4 feet predicted storm surge being predicted. I guess “wall of water” increases the drama and alarmism.

Sea level is rising, scientists say, in large part because of a global warming double punch: higher ocean temperatures that expand the volume of water, and melting glaciers that add water to the sea. So future hurricanes are likely to cause more widespread flooding.

Now doesn’t “temperatures that expand the volume of water” sound ridiculous? Yes? No? I’m not refuting laws of physics, but think about it for a second, not as a reality but with respect to an ocean, not a glass of water. Has the whole entire Atlantic Ocean suddenly and completely warmed up from the Arctic to the Antarctic, from the US to Europe and from South America to Africa? I really think not. It would be rather asinine to claim that because it is constantly warming and cooling and doing it in different places at different times. Sea-levels will vary some, yes. Yet this article appears to try to get us to believe the whole Atlantic Ocean has warmed in its entirety and will be spilling over into the United States any second now and causing flooding in Des Moines, Iowa.

As an aside, water is also a little different animal than most things. Water will expand when heated, but guess what? It also will expand when cooling. Below is a quote from eHow about it or you can go here and see for yourself.

  • Water is not like other liquids. It isn’t, well, a normal liquid. In other liquids, the basic principle holds true that heated liquids expand and cooled liquids contract. But water doesn’t exactly work the same way. Water does expand when heated and contracts when cooled, but not at all temperature levels.
  • Water has a magic range where the rules do not apply. The main reason for this difference is its makeup. Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, and they exist as a loose bond. The range that is different is between 0 and 4 degrees Celsius (32 degrees F to 39.2 degrees F). Water at any other temperature would expand when it is heated, and contract when cooled.
  • However, at 4 degrees Celsius (39.2 F), water is at its most contracted state, but it isn’t frozen. It doesn’t freeze until zero degrees Celsius. This means as it goes toward 0 degrees it expands because of the crystallization of the water into ice. This stems from a reorganization of the oxygen and hydrogen bonds into stronger and more complex attachments. Because water at 0 degrees Celsius (32 F) is more expanded than at 4 degrees Celsius (39.2 F), water heated from zero degrees will shrink from its crystallized state until it makes it back to 4 degrees. Beyond 4 degrees, the water will start to expand again.
  • You can see per the below chart how much the ocean as risen since 1880, which is about 20 centimeters, which equals 7.87 inches, short of the claimed foot in Falmouth by a little over 4 inches, which really isn’t a big deal as far as I’m concerned, just noted so you can see what appears to be to be another exaggeration in a long line of global warming exaggerations, which goes along with the alarmism in the article. Realistically this is 120 years of graph which amounts to a whopping  0.o6558333333 inches of rise per year or approximately 2/3 of an inch per year.  Not much to be alarmed about is there? (Note: The graph was based on 23 different locations and certainly doesn’t span every drop of every ocean and this also is global and not just the Atlantic Ocean).

    "Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art"

    To get back on track here the reason I claim this is alarmism is that while the sea-level may be 8 inches or so higher than it was in 1880, (and yes, it’s close enough that we will go with the 1 foot claimed in the article to reduce any whining). What seems so ridiculous to me is that as of now, they’re predicting a 1 to 4 foot storm surge, which about renders that extra foot moot because regardless it’s going to spill over and cause some flooding. In the case of a hurricane Camille in 1969 the storm surge was 24.6 feet. Think the ocean being a foot or so higher is going to make any difference in a case like that? I think not anything that anyone would notice in the aftermath.

    So why the continued alarmism? Why does it appear the warmers will continue to keep stirring people up with suppositions and exaggerations? Do they want more John Lees? Do they want more Unibombers to come out of the woodwork and kill people?

    It smacks of more desperation from the warmer crowd and the mainstream media to me.  They’re losing the battle, they’re desperate, they’ll claim anything and everything is related to global warming, regardless how silly. They can’t keep exaggerating things like this and expect anyone who’s reasonable to believe it.  So what’s the point? Sell newspapers and magazines? Perhaps that some of it.

    Sometimes I think they really don’t want to win anyone over, they just want the lunatic fringe to believe in their postulating so they’ll arm themselves with guns or bombs and force everyone to do their bidding. Perhaps they’re really using the science of psychology to enforce their belief of anthropogenic global warming upon us.

    I can’t say for certain, perhaps you should ask people such as Al Gore and James Cameron about it.  James by the way seems to like the thought of ecoterrorism.  You can read about that here.

    Source: Boston.com

    Comments Off on Hurricane Alarmism

    Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Ecoterror, Global Warming, Weather

    Pachauri cleared of financial wrongdoing….really?

    Today we have George Monbiot (referred to as “Moonbat” by some of his “friends”) yelling like Tarzan after getting a nice sloppy kiss from Jane, about how Rajendra Pacuauri, Chairman of the IPCC, has been cleared of financial wrongdoing by KPMG, found here.

    To read Mr. Monbiot’s blog one would think that this entailed a complete financial audit and that it is 100% proof positive of no wrongdoing by Pachauri. It would be nice if that was true, if it were I’d accept it. But after reading the report I have to say that while it sounds like “exoneration” on the face of it, I find some things surrounding this “exoneration” that I feel would lead a reasonable person to question the veracity of the report.

    First: To analyze this, lets first remember that there’s absolutely zip, nada, nothing in the KPMG report regarding any of the actual science surrounding the last IPCC report.  If you remember it is the one that had the glaciers in the Himalayas melting by 2035. This is not reporting about anything other than anything other than Mr. Pachauri’s finances. KPMG is financial accounting company, not Science-R-Us.

    Second: Lets go over the report and see what we find inside it.

    1. Note it’s only a “review” and isn’t a complete audit.
    2. It’s been done by KPMG, which while I’m sure is a good organization still has had its pecadellos over the years such as:

    a) A 2003 scandal in which KPMG admitted setting up phony tax-shelters: “KPMG admitted to setting up fake tax shelters for it’s wealthiest clients, which helped them evade paying $2.5 Billion in tax dollars throughout the 1990’s. If that wasn’t enough, KMPG was accused with the obstruction of justice as investigators tried to piece together the facts of the accounting scandal.”

    b) The 2020 Hontex Scandal in China where evidently KPMG

    i) Slipped up when providing statements for the Hontex IPO in 2009, which raised $129 million USD.

    ii) Which caused the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission to go to court to freeze the assets of Hontex.

    iii) “The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) charged KPMG senior manager Leung Sze-chit, 32, of offering a bribe of HK$100,000 (US$12,900) in February to his subordinate, Lau Shuk-ting, “as a reward for preparing the accountant’s report in the prospectus for the global offering of Hontex.”

    (Again, I am can’t and won’t say that KPMG did anything regarding this review that was improper, you can read up on them and judge for yourself. I do think the aforementioned “problems” would at least cause a reasonable person to wonder if perhaps anything “off-color” went on with this “review.” Don’t blame me, blame KPMG’s past performance, I’m only making you aware of it, you can judge for yourself.)

    3. At the end of this “review” in Section 6.1, please note the following statements:

    6.1 Limitations

    6.1.1 This report is based on information provided to us by TERI, Dr. Pachauri and his tax counsel,Mr. Ashok Khurana (M/s A.K. Khurana & Associates, Chartered Accountants). Work done by us was as considered necessary at the given point in time. Third party evidence has not been verified. We have relied on both oral and documentary evidence.

    6.1.2 In accordance with its policy, KPMG advises that neither it nor any Partners or employee undertakes responsibility arising in any way whatsoever, to any person other than our client in respect of the matters dealt in this report, including any errors or omission therein, arising through negligence or otherwise, however caused.

    6.1.3 Our work constituted limited review, and the scope of our work was significantly different from that of an audit and cannot therefore be relied upon to provide the same level of assurance as an audit.

    4. Date of Report

    a). Please note per the shot of the cover above that the report only covers for the dates between April 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009.

    b) The IPCC 4th Assessment report was completed and published in February, 2007.  This is  an amazingly long time before the review starts covering Pachauri’s finances in 2008.

    c) One should also note that Dr. Pachauri was hired as Chairman of the IPCC in July, 2001. This leaves almost 6 years of no financial data having been provided or reviewed while he was Chairman of the IPCC.

    5. Future Compensation

    a) There is no mention of any future compensation that may or may not have been promised to Dr. Pachauri by TERI, or anyone else.

    (I know it’s not anything that KPMG could put a finger on, but face it, it is entirely possible that Pachauri could end up with a nice fat seat on the Board of Directors at someplace after he’s done being Chairman of the IPCC as a reward for being a good boy. I guess one could pick anyone who will profit from global warming and the resulting carbon trading as a potential benefactor. Speculation indeed, but it’s a valid question.  Whether it has a valid answer or not is another story.)

    SUMMARY

    Here we have a “review” based upon information provided by the people being investigated that has not been verified. We also have KPMG playing CYA by basically stating they’re not going to be responsible if there was any hanky-panky or if TERI, Pachauri or his tax counsel “conveniently” forgot to provide them with anything, or if anything they provided wasn’t 100% accurate. (To simplify things it means this could perhaps be a case of bullshit in and bullshit out.)

    Then they close by saying it’s not an audit and shouldn’t be taken as an audit because of all the aforementioned reasons. If it were an audit the information would have been verified, but it wasn’t. Sorry, but this really sounds just like the computer “models” used by certain “warmer” orientated scientist to “prove” their global warming theories.  They plug-in whatever “conveniently” arrives at the conclusion that we have CO2 induced global warming.

    Perhaps the information provided in this “review” was of the same order. Instead of feeding in scary things like hot temperatures, we may have a case of feeding in nice financial things that prove everyone is “above-board” and totally honest.

    You can decide for yourself.  Do you think this really is an exoneration of Dr. Pachauri’s financial dealings? Or, is it a case of  CO2 Insanity? Sorry but I can’t feel satisfied that this is an exoneration.

    Source: The Guardian

    The KPMG Review in its entirety is here

    Comments Off on Pachauri cleared of financial wrongdoing….really?

    Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Legal, Science

    No link between weather disasters and global warming

    For the past month or two every time it’s hot someplace or there’s flooding or a drought we here the shrillness of the “warmers” increase to ear-splitting levels that it’s global warming and it’s unprecedented robust proof that anthropogenic global warming is real and soon we’ll all be hotter than Al Gore’s pants when there’s a masseuse in the room.

    Meanwhile, they “conveniently” ignore any cooling trends such as the record cold in South America this winter with cattle and people freezing to death, record snow levels and even snow in places where there is no human memory of it ever snowing.  They also screech about warming in the oceans, yet “conveniently” forget that we’re entering an El Niño period and there’s going to be a lot of  cooling in the oceans.

    I pretty much think the New York Times Dot Earth is geared towards warmers, or at least it has been  up until now. On today’s Dot Earth we now have an article that links to a study by the American Meteorological Society that repudiates all the screaming and hollering about all the weather related events of late, such as the heat wave in Russia having anything whatsoever to do with global warming, anthropogenic or not.

    The pull of the “ front-page thought” and the eagerness of climate campaigners to jog the public have sometimes created a tendency to tie mounting losses from weather-related disasters to human-driven global warming.

    But finding a statistically robust link between such disasters and the building human climate influence remains a daunting task. A new analysis of nearly two dozen papers assessing trends in disaster losses in light of climate change finds no convincing link.

    Hear that people? NO CONVINCING LINK. AKA: It’s all “warmer” bullshit designed to lead you down the primrose path of all things, regardless whether it is hot or cold, wet or dry, or you name it, are proof positive of global warming.

    More CO2 Insanity.

    Source:  NYT Dot Earth

    Comments Off on No link between weather disasters and global warming

    Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Science, Truth Stranger than Fiction, Weather