Wednesday, February 29, 2012

If You Don't Want To Help Solve Our Energy Problems?......Then Get Out Of The Way.....

If you feel the pinch on your budget when you're filling up at the gas pumps, look no further than the environmental lobbyists and activists for the culprits.  America has more oil and gas reserves than most people understand.  See here.

We don't have to be spending Billions (Trillions?) on foreign wars to protect the oil supplies in the Middle East.  And of course there is no way to put a value on the lives lost and damaged.  Do we want to be free and independent or be ruled by elitist armchair environmentalists?  These people, (Al Gore and Solyndra come to mind, are laughing all the way to the bank with taxpayers money in their pockets.)  We need to encourage oil and gas production.  We know we have the resources, we know how to use them, and now we know the whole man-caused global warming/climate change alarm was a giant hoax.

‘Enough of This!’ -- Boehner Tells 'Radical' Greens to Stop Standing In Way of Energy Policy

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) (AP Photo)

( – Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he’s had enough of environmentalists standing in the way of energy production over the last three decades, remarking, “It’s just about damn time that we ought to have a national energy policy and do something the American people want us to do.”

At a Tuesday press conference on Capitol Hill with several other House Republicans, Boehner was asked about the relationship between high gas prices and investment speculators on Wall Street.
Boehner said, “The price of gas is driven by two factors. It’s driven by supply and it’s driven by demand. And the fact is, is that supply, most of it, comes from the Middle East where there’s an awful lot of turmoil. People are concerned about whether that flow of oil is going to continue.”

Boehner continued: “Secondly, when you look at demand we’re moving into the summer driving season and the [Environmental Protection Agency] EPA requires 30 different blends of gasoline to be produced, now for the summer months in most of the country. And then to try to produce those 30 different blends and then ship them puts an awful lot of demand on the system as a result. You’ve got much higher prices.”

“Americans understand that we can produce more of our own energy,” he said.  (Democrats don't seem to understand this.  Peter) “And they don’t understand why 35 years -- since the oil embargo of 1974 -- that we’ve never had a national energy policy.”

“We’ve got a handful of environmentalists groups -- radical environmental groups -- who’ve stood in the way of having a national energy policy all of these years and it’s just about damn time that we ought to have a national energy policy and do something the American people want us to do,” said Boehner. “Enough of this! Get out of here!”

(continued here)

Monday, February 27, 2012

Surprise, Surprise: There Was Climate Change In Ancient Bagdad

Quick, someone tell Al Gore, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, the United Nations and all the other irrational climate alarmists that it is now officially recognized that climate change was taking place in ancient Bagdad.  Who would ever have dreamed that long before we began burning large amounts of those evil "fossil fuels" and polluting the atmosphere with nasty "carbon"dioxide that there was climate change going on? 

I think maybe all those who fear climate change should go back and take a Geology 101 class.  Or better yet, maybe our educators might think about teaching the truth for a change.   That is the kind of change I believe in.

Hailstorms, Wacky Weather Chilled Ancient Baghdad

Diaries and writings from ninth-century Baghdad provide a glimpse of the weird weather from the era, findings that could help researchers reconstruct past climate.

The surviving documents were written by historians and scholars during the Islamic Golden Age between A.D. 816 and A.D. 1009. They provide a new human record of climate, joining old ship's logs and World War II air force reports as one of the few sources for detailed information on historical weather.

"Climate information recovered from these ancient sources mainly refers to extreme events which impacted wider society, such as droughts and floods," study researcher Fernando Domínguez-Castro of the University of Extremadura in Spain said in a statement. "However, they also document conditions which were rarely experienced in ancient Baghdad such as hailstorms, the freezing of rivers or even cases of snow."  (Some things never change; they only report the exceptional and the sensational.  The Weather Channel would be proud.  Peter)

Many of the writings from the Islamic Golden Age have been lost in wars and upheaval. But some works survive, including those of Sunni scholar al-Tabari (A.D. 913), Kurdish historian Ibn al-Athir (A.D. 1233) and Egyptian scholar al-Suyuti (A.D. 1505). [Top 10 Battles for Control of Iraq]
Domínguez-Castro and his colleagues collected and analyzed these documents and found that they revealed a pattern of increasing frequency of cold-weather events in the early 10th century. July A.D. 920 was unusually cold, perhaps because of a volcanic eruption, Domínguez-Castro said. It snowed in Baghdad in 908, 944 and 1007. The only snow in living memory in the city was in 2008.

The findings suggest that Iraq's climate was more prone to unusually chilly events than it is today.
"Ancient Arabic documentary sources are a very useful tool for finding eye-witness descriptions which support the theories made by climate models," said Domínguez-Castro. "The ability to reconstruct past climates provides us with useful historical context for understanding our own climate."

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Decades Of Environmental Fraud Being Exposed

Maybe it is taking economic disaster, massive unemployment, bottomless governmental debt, despair, hopelessness, bitter partisan politics, and rioting in the streets, (to name a few of the symptoms of the illnesses afflicting the world) to wake us up to the fact that modern "environmentalism" may actually be the PROCESS by which this illness spreads.  The illness is a deadly CANCER on society.  This deadly cancer is the idea of ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.  The idea that ONE group of men (people), an "elite" group for sure, can and SHOULD control ALL others.  Call it socialism, welfare state, nanny state, communism, or is EVIL and has caused more deaths and suffering than any movement in human history.

If they can't do it through climate control, they will do it through health control, or water control, or through the creation of massive debt and perpetually higher taxation (slavery).  Who are "they"?  We know the names well by now, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, etc. and now the principal flag-carrier, Obama.  We must fight this trend with everything we can.  Destroying the myth of man-caused global warming/climate change is a good beginning.  The following article summarizes some of the issues well.

The entire fraudulent environmental house of cards is crashing down.......and that is a very good thing.
Peter Gleick - World Economic Forum Annual Mee...
Peter Gleick - (Photo credit: World Economic Forum)
Peter Gleick obtained documents falsely from the Heartland Institute (HI) and used them to vilify that organization. HI was a major target for promoters of human caused climate change because they dared to hold international conferences presenting the other side of the climate debate. This was actively surpressed by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Climatic Research Unit (CRU) members, as leaked emails showed. (Disclosure; I was privileged to be a keynote speaker at the first conference in New York and commented in my opening remarks, I’ve waited thirty years for this day.)

Gleick’s activities apparently manifest a groupthink mentality of several faculty at Stanford University. The late faculty member and grandfather of IPCC, Stephen Schneider, delineated it in Discover magazine in 1989.

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. (Precisely the problem,; this is not science, but politics and it is NOT good.  Peter)  This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

The penultimate sentence is wrong frightening and not justified by the last sentence as Schneider apparently thought. Scientific ethicist Gleick agreed with Schneider as he wrote, “He taught me and many others he mentored to understand and honor the science, but he also taught us the importance of speaking up in defense of the integrity of science and the public interest. “

Gleick is fully compromised, but will likely continue because of his claims about water. It’s the environmental vehicle replacing climate for achieving government control, nationally and internationally.

Stanford University was the academic centre for issues that framed the Club of Rome (COR). Pivotal publications included Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, but predictions were set out primarily in Limits to Growth using simplistic computer models. They extended the Malthusian idea that population would outgrow food supply and applied it to all resources with amplification by capitalism and fossil fuel driven economies. Almost all the predictions were disastrously wrong.
Others involved were PhD Stanford graduate John Holdren, co-author with Ehrlich, and now Obama’s Science Czar. Gleick’s water research is referenced throughout their works.

Water was central to the COR concerns, probably with Gleick’s influence. Their agenda was incorporated into United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) specifically as Agenda 21. At the 1977 United Nations ‘Water Conference’ they set up the International Drinking Water Decade as 1981 – 1990. People involved with this project were associated with the COR and the plans for One World government. Central was socialist Barbara Ward, former Cabinet Minister in the UK government. In an article titled “Only One World: An Awakening” Stephen Berry quotes Ms. Ward, “We may be on the way to a new moral reality.” This view pervades all the policies emanating from the UN, the COR and the environmental movement of the last 40 years.

The objective is one world government with almost total control.
Environment became a vehicle for social control of individual countries and suppression of capitalism and technology. Strong used the UNEP with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Neil Hrab wrote: “What’s truly alarming about Maurice Strong is his actual record. Strong’s persistent calls for an international mobilization to combat environmental calamities, even when they are exaggerated (population growth) or scientifically unproven (global warming), have set the world’s environmental agenda.” Now that warming has failed as the political vehicle water is rapidly advancing as a replacement.

Mark Dubrulle: 40-year member of the COR was asked in 2008, “Is water an issue within this consultation process and the general program of the Club of Rome?” He replied, “Resources include water by definition. We have within the Club very distinguished members who already years ago draw our attention on the problem of water. We intend to play an active role in the debate on water resources, water supply and water consumption, with a very critical attitude towards the current policies. Ian Johnson, the new Secretary General of the international Club of Rome, clearly stated that water is one of the big challenges, perhaps even more important than oil.”

The 74 Club book explains they believe “democracy has failed and new forms of governance are required”. They determined that “a common enemy must be found, one either real or invented, to unite humanity." They explain, “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”

Schneider’s dilemma is non-existent; the truth is the only option. Gleick’s unethical actions indicate he believes it’s an option and the end justifies the means. We are on notice, so diligence about all water resources claims is required.

Regarding truth and science you might also like to look here:

Environmental Falsehoods Are Costly And Common

The ClimateGate leaking of Emails and computer climate programs revealing the corruption, deceit and lies by "climate scientists"promoting the myth of man-caused global warming is just the tip of the iceberg where the "environmental movement" is concerned. This disease costs everyone dearly and will take a long, long time to cure. Maybe ClimateGate will be a beginning of much needed change into how science is conducted and viewed by the public. Thank goodness for the internet!

Friday, February 24, 2012

Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Who's The Greenest Of Them All?

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the greenest of them all? Think about it; all this nonsense about "saving Mother Earth" is bankrupting America, if not the world. Or it is at least making a huge contribution in that direction. All the Billions spent are not making the climate any more comfortable or safe, nor will they. Any honest geologist or earth scientist could have told you that decades ago. It is time for everyone to wake up and realize we've been defrauded by these climate alarmists. The following article says it well.
See More

The most obnoxious and hypocritical people are those who are always preaching a “greener” way of life, insisting that anything that constitutes our modern lifestyles is destroying the Earth and depleting its natural resources. Never mind that we depend upon oil, natural gas, coal, and a host of minerals and chemicals for that lifestyle, the absence of which caused people in earlier eras to live shorter, far more unpleasant lives.
Oil, other than just an energy source is also a component in countless products, starting with plastic, and is so vital to modern life that its value goes far beyond just being able to drive our cars to visit grandma.

Greener than thou has replaced holier than thou ever since Rachel Carson penned her pernicious and seriously flawed attack on DDT and other chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides in 1962. The result has been the needless deaths of millions from malaria in Africa and subtropical nations after the U.S. banned DDT and other nations followed suit. If there was a comparable pesticide available today, the U.S. would not be suffering a biblical plague of bed bugs.
read more

Obama In La La Land: Algae For Fuel? He Must Be Joking

Combustible fuels can be made from all kinds of organic matter, from corn to manure.  Algae is little different.  What makes these ideas so ridiculous is their small scale.  Compare them to the tens of thousands of feet of organic-rich shale rocks in ancient sedimentary basins found all over the world.  That is where the oil and gas fuel that powers the world really comes from.  These miraculous-sounding alternative sources of energy are miniscule compared to what the liberal media has so demonized by using the term "fossil fuels". 

Someone needs to inform the public about the truth of this matter, to put it into perspective and explain it in a way everyone can understand.  We're sure not getting the straight story from President Obama.  But then we can't expect too much of him, he's just a "community organizer" from Chicago......or so the story goes.

Hopefully he is just simply ignorant and not being purposely misled by his advisors, or "handlers"?

Oh yes, and this is freaking brilliant.......fuel to solve our energy problems by creating it from algae. Geezus who is advising this poor sod?
President Barack Obama speaks at the University of Miami Field House in Coral Gables, Fla., Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

A Moving View Of North America At Night From Space: Energy? Who Needs Energy?

A moving view from the space station of North America at night, from Mexico to New Brunswick.  Look closely and you will recognize the Great Lakes and major cities.  Pay particular attention to all of the lights.  What would America, or anyone anywhere for that matter, do without electricity?  We would be in a world of hurt.  And some people think we can substitute all the energy we get from those "evil" fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power plants with solar and wind power?  Oh, and today Obama is suggesting pouring money into a cockeyed scheme to make fuel from.....hold on to your coffee......algae.  Yes, that would amount to about a fart in the wind.

Someone ought to send Obama up to the space station and have him orbit the Earth a few times like in the following video.  Ask him to look down at all the lights, imagine all the people, all the activity, the work and productivity, and then ask him if it can really be replaced by his bird-brained (sorry George) alternative energy ideas.  Sure let's do some research on alternatives, but not at the cost of bankrupting ourselves.  Obviously our "community organizer" President knows nothing about energy, and amazingly, neither do his advisers, or are they his "handlers"?

Little Doubt Remains About Liberal Media Beinng Involved In Global Warming Hoax

Hats off and thanks to source for publishing the following article.  Who would think that Wikipedia would be used as a propaganda tool of the liberal media for political purposes?  It sure isn't supportive of any kind of real scientific search for the truth about global warming.  It is a classic case of "buyer beware".  It is all the more reason to be skeptical and questioning about everything that comes from the mainstream media.

Also, bear in mind that wikipedia is used as a prime source of "knowledge" by our children in public schools.  Is it any wonder why they buy into ridiculous myths like man-caused global warming/climate change?  Wake up people.  The liberal elite and their mainstream media are treating us like mushrooms, keeping us in the dark and feeding us Bull$hit.

Wikipedia Begins Media Whitewash of Climate Criminal Peter Gleick
whitewashWikipedia, the “free online encyclopedia,” has set about swiftly whitewashing the self-confessed criminal conduct of climatologist, Dr. Peter Gleick. Skeptics will regard such action as further evidence that the website is an organ of man-made global warming propaganda.

Despite his full public admission to be a co-conspirator in criminal activities against the Heartland Institute, a charity sympathetic to skeptics, Wikipedia is at pains to hide the fact Peter Gleick yesterday admitted to this felony published here at the Huffington Post.
In it’s latest entry (H/T: Paul Sheridan) added today (February 21, 2012) the Wikipedia entry for fraudster, Peter Gleick reads thus:
“On February 20, 2012, Gleick issued a statement in the Huffington Post explaining that he had received anonymous documents in the mail that seemed to contain details on the climate program strategy of The Heartland Institute, a pro-business think tank. He admitted to soliciting and receiving additional material from the Institute "under someone else's name," calling his actions "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics."[17] Andrew Revkin wrote at the New York Times that "Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins ... " [18]

How many other media outlets that claim to serve the public but are in fact controlled by our self-serving elite, will also engage in this despicable cover up?

#Gator2012-02-21 17:33
Once again, Gleick is not a climatologist. I actually studied climatology at a major university and am offended that this charlatan would be elevated past the title of activist.
Gleick is at best a 'hydroclimatologist'...

'The American hydrologist Walter Langbein (1967) defined hydroclimatology as the study of the influence of climate upon the waters of the land.'

So, again, not a climatologst. Big difference. This would be like calling a geographer a geologist.

I prefer to call him a felon. ;-)

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming/Climate Change Further Exposed

I am thrilled to see the debate about global warming/climate change opening to the public via the more mainstream media.  (Read the following opinion-piece from The Wall Street Journal.)  For far too long we have been deceived and misled by environmental "non-profit" organizations such as "The Sierra Club", or "The National Geographic", and outright lied to by people like Al Gore with his books and "documentaries" like "An Inconvenient Truth", and intimidated and scared by The United  Nations and their IPCC climate reports, and of course we get taxed to death by our politicians playing off of all the fear and frenzy created by the others.

Just as it is unconscionable for an adult to bully and frighten a child, it is time to call the bluff of all the global warming/climate change hoaxters and snake oil salesmen.  With the world economy in a shambles, countries on the brink of bankruptcy, and unemployment rising, it is time to clear the air and be honest and find the truth about this entire global warming/climate change issue.  The following scientists are making a step in the right direction and I applaud them, as a fellow scientist and citizen of the world.  If the world economy implodes, climate change will be the least of our worries.

Just one further thought:

"There never was a democracy yet that did not commit
John Adams

Economic suicide is where the believers and promoters of man-caused global warming have been leading us.

The Wall Street Journal

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming

The authors of the Jan. 27 Wall Street Journal op-ed, 'No Need to Panic about Global Warming,' respond to their critics.

Editor's Note: The authors of the following letter, listed below, are also the signatories of "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," an op-ed that appeared in the Journal on January 27. This letter responds to criticisms of the op-ed made by Kevin Trenberth and 37 others in a letter published Feb. 1, and by Robert Byer of the American Physical Society in a letter published Feb. 6.

The interest generated by our Wall Street Journal op-ed of Jan. 27, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," is gratifying but so extensive that we will limit our response to the letter to the editor the Journal published on Feb. 1, 2012 by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other signatories, and to the Feb. 6 letter by Robert Byer, President of the American Physical Society. (We, of course, thank the writers of supportive letters.)

We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. Consider then that by eliminating fossil fuels, the recipient of medical care (all of us) is being asked to submit to what amounts to an economic heart transplant. According to most patient bills of rights, the patient has a strong say in the treatment decision. Natural questions from the patient are whether a heart transplant is really needed, and how successful the diagnostic team has been in the past.

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.
From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours. With apologies for any immodesty, we all have enjoyed distinguished careers in climate science or in key science and engineering disciplines (such as physics, aeronautics, geology, biology, forecasting) on which climate science is based.

Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that "the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible." Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.

One reason to be on guard, as we explained in our original op-ed, is that motives  (a drive toward increased central governmental control, socialism, fascism? Peter) other than objective science are at work in much of the scientific establishment. All of us are members of major academies and scientific societies, but we urge Journal readers not to depend on pompous academy pronouncements—on what we say—but to follow the motto of the Royal Society of Great Britain, one of the oldest learned societies in the world: nullius in verba—take nobody's word for it. As we said in our op-ed, everyone should look at certain stubborn facts that don't fit the theory espoused in the Trenberth letter, for example—the graph of surface temperature above, and similar data for the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the upper oceans.
What are we to make of the letter's claim: "Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record." We don't see any warming trend after the year 2000 in the graph. It is true that the years 2000-2010 were perhaps 0.2 C warmer than the preceding 10 years. But the record indicates that long before CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere began to increase, the earth began to warm in fits and starts at the end of the Little Ice Age—hundreds of years ago. This long term-trend is quite likely to produce several warm years in a row. The question is how much of the warming comes from CO2 and how much is due to other, both natural and anthropogenic, factors?

There have been many times in the past when there were warmer decades. It may have been warmer in medieval times, when the Vikings settled Greenland, and when wine was exported from England. Many proxy indicators show that the Medieval Warming was global in extent. And there were even warmer periods a few thousand years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth's climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2.

The Trenberth letter states: "Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused." However, the claim of 97% support is deceptive. The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we would agree with. Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some impact.

But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming. To claim, as the Trenberth letter apparently does, that disputing this constitutes "extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert" is peculiar indeed.

One might infer from the Trenberth letter that scientific facts are determined by majority vote. Some postmodern philosophers have made such claims. But scientific facts come from observations, experiments and careful analysis, not from the near-unanimous vote of some group of people.
The continued efforts of the climate establishment to eliminate "extreme views" can acquire a seriously threatening nature when efforts are directed at silencing scientific opposition. In our op-ed we mentioned the campaign circa 2003 to have Dr. Chris de Freitas removed not only from his position as editor of the journal Climate Research, but from his university job as well. Much of that campaign is documented in Climategate emails, where one of the signatories of the Trenberth et al. letter writes: "I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from Climate Research [then edited by Dr. de Freitas] is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken."

Or consider the resignation last year of Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. In a fulsome resignation editorial eerily reminiscent of past recantations by political and religious heretics, Mr. Wagner confessed to his "sin" of publishing a properly peer-reviewed paper by University of Alabama scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell containing the finding that IPCC models exaggerate the warming caused by increasing CO2.

Getty Images/Ikon Images
(A great picture of what the Earth might look like with higher sea levels....scary indeed!)
The Trenberth letter tells us that decarbonization of the world's economy would "drive decades of economic growth." This is not a scientific statement nor is there evidence it is true. A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months.  (Obama environmental crony corrupt capitalism?  Peter)

The European experience with green technologies has also been discouraging. A study found that every new "green job" in Spain destroyed more than two existing jobs and diverted capital that would have created new jobs elsewhere in the economy. More recently, European governments have been cutting subsidies for expensive CO2-emissionless energy technologies, not what one would expect if such subsidies were stimulating otherwise languid economies. And as we pointed out in our op-ed, it is unlikely that there will be any environmental benefit from the reduced CO2 emissions associated with green technologies, which are based on the demonization of CO2.

Turning to the letter of the president of the American Physical Society (APS), Robert Byer, we read, "The statement [on climate] does not declare, as the signatories of the letter [our op-ed] suggest, that the human contribution to climate change is incontrovertible." This seems to suggest that APS does not in fact consider the science on this key question to be settled.

Yet here is the critical paragraph from the statement that caused the resignation of Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever and many other long-time members of the APS: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." No reasonable person can read this and avoid the conclusion that APS is declaring the human impact "incontrovertible." Otherwise there would be no logical link from "global warming" to the shrill call for mitigation.

The APS response to the concerns of its membership was better than that of any other scientific society, but it was not democratic. The management of APS took months to review the statement quoted above, and it eventually declared that not a word needed to be changed, though some 750 words were added to try to explain what the original 157 words really meant. APS members were permitted to send in comments but the comments were never made public.

In spite of the obstinacy of some in APS management, APS members of good will are supporting the establishment of a politics-free, climate physics study group within the Society. If successful, it will facilitate much needed discussion, debate, and independent research in the physics of climate.
In summary, science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. Though there are many more scientists who are extremely well qualified and have reached the same conclusions we have, we stress again that science is not a democratic exercise and our conclusions must be based on observational evidence.

The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Germany's "Al Gore" Defects And Becomes A Sceptic About Global Warming

The myth of man-caused global warming continues to unravel and be exposed as the fraud it has always been.  That's the good news.  The bad news is that so many people (at least an entire generation) have been thoroughly brainwashed about everything put out by the "environmental" left that it will be extremely difficult to change their minds.  A good long, cold, dark, and hungry worldwide economic depression brought on by goverment overspending might do the trick.

If Al Gore Had a Change of Heart; It’s that Big

By John Ransom


Germany’s envirowhackos have gone incendiary, as a former apostle of the climate change religion, Fritz Vahrenholt, has coauthored a new, best-selling book that casts doubts on the shoddy science of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The mean greenies in Germany are so hot at Vahrenholt that they probably ought to charge themselves a carbon tax, or buy on offsetting credit, or just kick back and relax with a cold drink on a furry polar bear rug in front of a big log fire.

“The left wing German online TAZ here has a weekend article called Climate Skeptics Are Like Viruses,” writes the website No Trick Zone, “which looks at the controversy swirling about Vahrenholt’s …new skeptic book Die kalte Sonne [The Cold Sun.]” The Taz site includes cute pictures of blood thirsty, meat eating, Coca Cola drinking polar bear cannibals, to emphasize the point: Vahrenholt, bad, polar bears, good. The left uses polar bears as their Little Orphan Annie of global warming. The sun’s out everyday.
The two hypotheses put forward in the book by Vahrenholt and his coauthor Sebastian Lüning are that 1) The UN has purposefully slanted the science to reach a pro-global warming position and; 2) solar activity plays a much more important part in geological warming and cooling than scientists are willing to admit.
Polar bears rock, but people are like viruses.

“Today, I want new scientific findings to be included in the climate debate,” Vahrenholt told an interviewer from the German Spiegel Online. “It would then become clear that the simple equation that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases are almost exclusively responsible for climate change is unsustainable. It hasn't gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years, despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. Established climate science has to come up with an answer to that.”
Currently the book is Amazon Germany’s number one seller under Environment and Ecology and number 62 on its Top 100 List.

In part that’s because Vahrenholt is one of Germany’s best-known environmental activists says the Energy Tribune. “If Al Gore or David Suzuki or NASA's Jim Hansen were suddenly to renounce man-made global warming,” says the Tribune’s Jim Delingpole, “it could hardly be more surprising. Up until two years ago, Vahrenholt was Germany's Godfather of Green: a green activist and former environment minister for the State of Hamburg.”

He also is a graduate of the “student protest movement” according to Spiegel Online and “fought against the chemical industry's toxic manufacturing plants in the 1970s.” That’s why the Social Democratic Party chose him to be their environmental representative in the city of Hamburg, a city that relies on heavy industry like copper, steel, chemicals and shipbuilding.
Most recently, Vahrenholt was CEO of the renewable energy division of RWE, one of Europe’s largest utility companies. That seems to be the point of contention that Greenpeace and others on the intolerant left have fashioned on in order to undermine Vahrenholt’s credibility. calls him an “electric utility executive” skipping over his environmental activism. And Greenepeace, in its Polygraph section, called him an “Ice cold denier” with a shadow rendering of Pinocchio with a very long nose. No polar bears apparently were hurt in the rendering of Pinocchio.
Planetsave calls the rest of us “the usual climate denial enablers,” which is totally unfounded and untrue. I’m an extremely unusual climate denier enabler. And, if you are reading this, 90 percent chance that so are you.

One global warming apostle enabler who got an advanced copy of Vahrenholt’s book disagrees with the book’s assessment, but agrees that Vahrenholt’s change of heart is newsworthy.
“While books by climate heretics usually receive little attention,” writes Spiegel Online, “it could be different in Vahrenholt's case. ‘His fame,’ says Marotzke, ‘will ensure that there will be a debate on the issue.’” Jochem Marotzke is the director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and the only climatologist who Vahrenholt made sure read the book prior to publication.

Heretics? And they wonder why we call climate change a religion.

Already “three of Germany’s most widely read news publications, Bild, Der Spiegel, and Die Welt immediately took notice, releasing skeptical climate science articles in their print and on-line editions,” reports contributor Larry Bell, who is most avowedly a climate denial enabler and chief denialist. Like Vahrenholt, Bell is a scientist who wrote a book about the climate hoax. But he’s not a climatologist, so that should completely disqualify him from opining on matters related to science.

It’s better that we leave the science to the true experts: radical, Gender Studies graduates who blog for environmental web sites and know how to upload pictures of polar bears and genuflect in the left direction.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

The Shame Of The Global Warming Hoax

Follow the link to read the entire article.  This is no joke.  And our leaders keep pushing and funding this "green agenda"!  It's gonna get ugly.

Posted: 13 Feb 2012 02:05 PM PST

cold snapBy Friday, February 10th, an estimated 500 Europeans had died from the freezing weather gripping the continent. This is the price they and British citizens are paying for embracing the global warming hoax, spending billions for wind power when they should have been building coal-fired and other sources of energy to heat their homes and businesses.
As the British daily, The Telegraph, reported on Friday, “Serbia has started implementing power cuts in a desperate bid to stave off the collapse of its national grid as the country suffers the effects of days of freezing temperatures.”

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Climategate: The Root Of The Global Warming Fraud And Hoax

The following represents the heart of the United Nations sponsored scandal known as "Climategate".  Much thanks to our anonymous Internet troll for the link.  Of course all the data and conclusions have been soundly, thoroughly and completely discredited.  Billions of dollars of taxpayer's money has been wasted.  Pay close attention to the long list of co-conspirators at the end of this document.

I've added a few links to provide a  bit of background about climategate.  All climate scientists should be embarrassed and ashamed over climategate, and distance themselves as far from the United Nations and its IPCC as possible.  There can be no honest debate over the science when all of the data is corrupt.  If this were an issue in a courtroom the case for man-caused global warming would be thrown out in an instant and all the United Nations contributing so-called scientists would be in prison for committing perjury and  criminal fraud, if not crimes against humanity.
Peter   (particularly thorough)


Note: On March 9, 2010, the stopped operations as a daily blog. On July17, 2010, we returned as a simple news aggregator. The main reason for this was to make available again all of our previous articles. You can find them through this index of climategate articles.
The goal of is to provide a daily dose of information regarding the world’s greatest scam, climategate, and other information and news to help you in your battle against the Religion of Settled Science to dispute their views on Anthropogenic Global Warming, and in addition, to battle the one-world socialist agenda, which is the movement’s leaders’ real goal.
If you would like a good primer on climategate Lord Christopher Monckton has created a 43 page report you can download free, in PDF form, called Climategate: Caught Green-Handed — Cold Facts about the Hot Topic of Global Warming Temperature Change after the Climategate Scandal.

And now, an outline of what is rightly considered "history's biggest scam."

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

Contents3Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate ChangeExecutive Summary 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Changes in Surface Climate: Temperature 3.2.1 Background 3.2.2 Temperature in the Instrumental Record for Land and Oceans FAQ 3.1 How are Temperatures on Earth Changing?3.3 Changes in Surface Climate: Precipitation, Drought and Surface Hydrology 3.3.1 Background 3.3.2 Changes in Large-scale Precipitation 3.3.3 Evapotranspiration 3.3.4 Changes in Soil Moisture, Drought, Runoff and River Discharge FAQ 3.2 How is Precipitation Changing?3.3.5 Consistency and Relationships between Temperature and Precipitation 3.3.6 Summary 3.4 Changes in the Free Atmosphere 3.4.1 Temperature of the Upper Air: Troposphere and Stratosphere 3.4.2 Water Vapour 3.4.3 Clouds 3.4.4 Radiation 3.5 Changes in Atmospheric Circulation 3.5.1 Surface or Sea Level Pressure 3.5.2 Geopotential Height, Winds and the Jet Stream 3.5.3 Storm Tracks 3.5.4 Blocking 3.5.5 The Stratosphere 3.5.6 Winds, Waves and Surface Fluxes 3.5.7 Summary 3.6 Patterns of Atmospheric Circulation Variability 3.6.1 Teleconnections 3.6.2 El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Tropical/Extratropical Interactions 3.6.3 Pacific Decadal Variability 3.6.4 The North Atlantic Oscillation and Northern Annular Mode 3.6.5 The Southern Hemisphere and Southern Annular Mode 3.6.6 Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation 3.6.7 Other Indices 3.6.8 Summary 3.7 Changes in the Tropics and Subtropics, and in the Monsoons 3.7.1 Asia 3.7.2 Australia 3.7.3 The Americas 3.7.4 Africa 3.7.5 Summary 3.8 Changes in Extreme Events 3.8.1 Background 3.8.2 Evidence for Changes in Variability or Extremes 3.8.3 Evidence for Changes in Tropical Storms FAQ 3.3 Has there been a Change in Extreme Events like Heat Waves, Droughts, Floods and Hurricanes?3.8.4 Evidence for Changes in Extratropical Storms and Extreme Events 3.8.5 Summary 3.9 Synthesis: Consistency Across Observations References Appendix 3.A: Low-Pass Filters and Linear Trends Appendix 3.B: Techniques, Error Estimation and Measurement Systems: See Supplementary Material Coordinating Lead Authors: Kevin E. Trenberth (USA), Philip D. Jones (UK)

Lead Authors: Peter Ambenje (Kenya), Roxana Bojariu (Romania), David Easterling (USA), Albert Klein Tank (Netherlands), David Parker (UK), Fatemeh Rahimzadeh (Iran), James A. Renwick (New Zealand), Matilde Rusticucci (Argentina), Brian Soden (USA), Panmao Zhai (China)

Contributing Authors: R. Adler (USA), L. Alexander (UK, Australia, Ireland), H. Alexandersson (Sweden), R. Allan (UK), M.P. Baldwin (USA), M. Beniston (Switzerland), D. Bromwich (USA), I. Camilloni (Argentina), C. Cassou (France), D.R. Cayan (USA), E.K.M. Chang (USA), J. Christy (USA), A. Dai (USA), C. Deser (USA), N. Dotzek (Germany), J. Fasullo (USA), R. Fogt (USA), C. Folland (UK), P. Forster (UK), M. Free (USA), C. Frei (Switzerland), B. Gleason (USA), J. Grieser (Germany), P. Groisman (USA, Russian Federation), S. Gulev (Russian Federation), J. Hurrell (USA), M. Ishii (Japan), S. Josey (UK), P. Kållberg (ECMWF), J. Kennedy (UK), G. Kiladis (USA), R. Kripalani (India), K. Kunkel (USA), C.-Y. Lam (China), J. Lanzante (USA), J. Lawrimore (USA), D. Levinson (USA), B. Liepert (USA), G. Marshall (UK), C. Mears (USA), P. Mote (USA), H. Nakamura (Japan), N. Nicholls (Australia), J. Norris (USA), T. Oki (Japan), F.R. Robertson (USA), K. Rosenlof (USA), F.H. Semazzi (USA), D. Shea (USA), J.M. Shepherd (USA), T.G. Shepherd (Canada), S. Sherwood (USA), P. Siegmund (Netherlands), I. Simmonds (Australia), A. Simmons (ECMWF, UK), C. Thorncroft (USA, UK), P. Thorne (UK), S. Uppala (ECMWF), R. Vose (USA), B. Wang (USA), S. Warren (USA), R. Washington (UK, South Africa), M. Wheeler (Australia), B. Wielicki (USA), T. Wong (USA), D. Wuertz (USA)

Review Editors: Brian J. Hoskins (UK), Thomas R. Karl (USA), Bubu Jallow (The Gambia)

This chapter should be cited as: Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden and P. Zhai, 2007: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

An Inconsistent Truth

This is sure to rattle some liberal's cages and bring out the internet trolls.

An Inconsistent Truth Official Movie Trailer

Posted: 31 Jan 2012 09:02 AM PST

[h/t to Gator] The official movie trailer for An Inconsistent Truth. The movie they don't want you to see. Visit