Friday, March 30, 2007

Should We Worry About Global Warming?

There is much good information published online by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). It can be a bit long-winded and esoteric, but here is an interesting summary from their study on "Abrupt Climate Change".

Is anyone listening or is it too difficult to understand? They're saying we need more study (of course, always), but there's no reason to panic. Al Gore? Can you hear me?


Fig. 22 Norweigian Sea Image from NASA

Should I Worry?
It is important not to be fatalistic about the threats posed by abrupt climate change. (National Research Council, 2002).

At this point, we know that abrupt climate change is a reality. It has happened before and will happen again. How and why it happened in the past are still open questions, as are how, why, and when it might happen in the future. The information found in natural archives of climate and environmental change such as ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, tree rings, and other proxies can be of profound benefit to society in understanding and predicting future climate change.

The goal of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology is to provide easy access to high quality scientific information derived from rigorous studies of past climate changes. We believe, as do most climate scientists, that the topic of abrupt climate change is worthy of further study, and needs more information before predictions can be made about future events. Several national and international initiatives, such as the U.S. Climate Change Science Plan, have targeted this topic as a priority for scientific research.

Audio Version of Global Warming Debate

Go here to listen to a debate between noted scientists and believers of the man-caused global warming/climate change theory. Tell us what you think.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Global warming is not a crisis
Intelligence² US audience confirms 46.22% to 42.22% in favor of the motion. Speaking for the motion: Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, Philip Stott Speaking against the motion: Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, Richard C.J. Somerville Moderator: Brian Lehrer SOLD OUT

MODERATOR:Brian Lehrer is host of the highly-acclaimed “Brian Lehrer Show” heard weekday mornings on WNYC® New York Public Radio®, 820 AM, 93.9 FM and He is also an award-winning author and documentary producer. Lehrer holds masters degrees in journalism and public health/environmental sciences.

Michael Crichton is a writer and filmmaker, best known as the author of JurassicPark and the creator of "ER." Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. He has been a visiting instructor at Cambridge University and MIT. Crichton's 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios.

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT since 1983, previously held professorships at Harvard, where he received his A.B., S.M. and Ph.D., and the University of Chicago. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the recipient of various awards. He is the author or co-author of three books and over 200 papers. His current research is on climate sensitivity, atmospheric convection and the general circulation of the atmosphere.

Philip Stott is an Emeritus Professor and biogeographer from the University of London, UK. Although a scientist, for the past ten years he has also employed modern techniques of deconstruction to grand environmental narratives, like “global warming.” Stott was editor of the internationally-important Journal of Biogeography for 18 years. He broadcasts widely on TV and radio, and writes regularly on environmental issues for The Times of London , among other publications.

Brenda Ekwurzel works on the national climate program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Prior to joining UCS, she was on the faculty of the University of Arizona. Doctorate research was at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and post-doctoral research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. His publications include studies of past, present and potential future climates. Scientific American cited him as a top 50 Research Leader in 2004, and he has worked on education and outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences, among others. He is a contributing editor at

Richard C.J. Somerville is Distinguished Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. He is a theoretical meteorologist and an expert on computer simulations of the atmosphere. Among many honors, Somerville is a Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Meteorological Society. He has received awards for both his research and his popular book, The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Asia Society and Museum, 725 Park Avenue at 70th Street, New York CityReception 6:00 p.m. Debate 6:45 p.m. Finish 8:30 p.m.


An Video Speech By A Harvard Astrophysicist

This scientist describes past dramatic climate changes and how people reacted out of fear and superstition. Short-term weather extremes produce such an emotional response from people it seems history is repeating itself. Listen and see if you see any similarities between then and now.

Here's a YouTube clip from a Harvard astrophysicist on the subject of "precautionary principle" as applied to weather engineering and the punishment its critics faced half a millennium ago. She has another word from the "post-normal" method of thinking: superstition.
posted by wretchard at 3/15/2007 12:00:00 PM

Looking At The Big Picture

This is a comment from:

By joe_schmo (honest)
Yes, the facts are pretty obvious and anyone would be an idiot not to see them. The temps are rising in the past 50 years. The concentration of CO2 is rising. Now, to leap to the idea that human are a major part of this, or that humans are a major part of the future of this earth, is a step that no scientist could possibly link cause and effect. Humans are a strange species. Most feel we are the center of the universe still. We will come and go, and the planet will be fine. We are not that important. Get over yourself.And if you want to look at the global warming issue, you must look at longer time periods, longer than when human interaction was even a possibility.

There are so many other longer cycles to look at before we deem this as the most amazing pivotal time in the history of the world. The earth is old. Please look at the 15 to 30 thousand year cycle of the axis wobble. Please look at the 50 to 100 thousand year cycle of the shape of the orbit of the earth around the sun. Please look at the even longer cycle of our solar system moving up and down through the plane of this galaxy. Please look at the evidence of much longer cycle of temperature change over thousands of years through polar ice cap core samples to see that this has happened before. Far before man's intervention.

Can we do something about adding more or less greenhouse gases or affecting the amount of living trees on the earth? Sure. Wonder what that will do?There is evidence for major cataclysms associated with impacts of asteroids and comets, major volcanic activity, and major climate changes over the 4 to 5 billion years this old earth has been evolving. It will be fine. When humans have long gone and before the sun turns to a red giant will consist of billions of years in which the earth will support life, go through major cataclysms, and continue to evolve. So yes, the evidence is obvious and hard not to look at for anyone who is willing to look, but how much are you willing to look at?? Are you willing to look at enough to see that we are pretty insignificant in the big picture? That we are only here for a blink in time?

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Human Input....

Of course we can not stop all our pollution......but I'm talking global warming.....dude...

From a reader:
So you don’t think man has any bad effect on the earth/environment at all?
Come on now even the oceans are polluted.
only place left that is pristine is Hawaii and Aspen.......
No,.. I doubt we can reverse what has happened but come on now you cant tell me we have not had any bad effect.

A Geologists View Of Global Warming

I've posted this before as a reply, but I think it warrants being said again, and even exploring farther.

Peter has left a new comment on your post "Father Sun, Mother Earth":
a jacksonian,
Thanks for the input. In striving to understand the complexities of climate change I think geologists have an advantage over pure climate or weather scientists. It's not because we're smarter, I think it is because we're constantly examining processes affecting the Earth and the formation, metamorphosis, or erosion of rocks and we must consider the function of time.

Nothing on Earth is static, including the climate. The Earth is constantly changing and has been doing so for as far back as we can see. What we see in the layers of sedimentary rock, and anyone looking at layered rocks can understand this, is primarily a reflection of CLIMATE CHANGE. Warm to cold, wet to dry, no water to shallow water to deep water as these sediments are being deposited.

In other words, geologists are intimately familiar with the reality of constantly changing climate. What we see going on around us today does not, or should not worry us much. And we don't take these global warming alarmists seriously. We see through the hype. We see Al Gore's "dockumentary" as Hollywood entertainment and Al Gore as a clown.

We know better than to build on an active fault zone. We know better than to build a mansion at sea level on a hurricane-prone coast. We know better than to build on a floodplain. We tried to warn people that New Orleans was in danger, not because of hurricanes or global warming but because it was BELOW SEA LEVEL and is and was continually subsiding.

So geologists like you and I need to speak out more. If nothing else, to alleviate some of the fear about global warming. Stay tuned.

A Scientist Says Temperature Data is Suspect

Here is a scientist who is skeptical about the validity of temperature data. That is, we may not really know IF the Earth's atmosphere is warming. What is the Earth's "normal" temperature, or it's "normal" seal level? Actually there is no such thing as normal because it is constantly changing. He says a lot more interesting things. Read on.

February 21, 2007
04:06:13 pm, Categories: Earth Science, Environment, Ethics and Science, Global Warming and Climate Change, Politics and Science, Public Policy, Education, 754 words The Gore Effect

From "tom"
My goodness, the measurement of the .6C +/- .2C change in a 100yrs+ or so is taken as absolute fact. The measurement of a global mean temp by the use of surface sensors is pretty close to pure folly. Each individual sensor measures nothing more than the immediate micro climate around the sensor. Taking a sensors data and statistically extrapolating it to represent 100s if not 1000s of km2 of surface area is not a simple task and then merging this data with proxy data is even more complex.

Yet we take these numbers as if they are solid...well I don't but the IPCC does. These numbers are not solid...if the .6C change has a +/- .2C margin of error, that means we have a potential margin of error of .4C absolute. Yet, all we hear in the news is how EVERYTHING is caused by global warming. It's really disgusting to this scientist. What is NOT known is much larger than what IS known with respect to climate science.

The IPCC got rid of the HOCKEY STICK graph for their 4th assessment...why? It was so prominently played in the last assessment..what changed? The NAS debunked it for all practical purposes, that's why. Because the Medieval times were warmer than today in all likelihood, without increased CO2.

Historical temperature reconstruction is an INexact science. Global Climate Models are far from predicting the future. The scientific method in all of this popular discussion seems to be missing. I am at my wits end and this "science" publication has gone so far off of the scientific roadway as to deem it a laughable publication...especially this current article I am responding to. Wow.

CO2 lags temperature change in the ice core data. Many studies (accepted in scientific journals worldwide) show this. Temperature changes first then co2 follows in the ice core data. Co2 is not a driver of temperature change in paleoclimate study. It likely has some effect due to its radiative properties, but the Sun/Cosmic rays and other climate drivers likely outweigh co2's effect by magnitudes.

Mixing politics, pop culture with a scientific subject in its infancy is is dangerous because of what the alarmists claim we need to do...we don't even have the methodology to measure the change in temps if KYOTO were to be implemented entirely. Yet the economic effects would be huge.

When push comes to shove and you the general public realizes how much money this charade will cost them they will revolt. Right now it is all just mass media hyperbole and most people don't really give a hoot. Al Gore is an opportunist and leftist Hollywood along with the willing mainstream media are playing the ultimate hypocrites.

"Lie Down With Dogs, Wake Up With Fleas"

I like this comment about the dangers confronting modern-day climate scientists. It was posted by a Robin Jones on
March 16, 2007
11:14:19 am, Categories: Environment, Global Warming and Climate Change, Politics and Science, Public Policy, Education, 203 words Note to Inhofe and Morano: Climate Change is No Hoax

o "Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas." Climate scientists are lying down with some really lousy mutts and it's harming their credibility. They should be concerned that those getting the most exposure in promoting AGW are opportunistic pols like Al Gore, biased news media, ill-informed but loudly outspoken glitterati in the entertainment business, and the legions of power-hungry Leftists who, since the fall of communism, have been looking for an outlet into which they can pour their hatred of capitalistic societies. Not surprisingly, the public distrusts causes espoused by that motley crew.

Father Sun, Mother Earth

This is just a hunch, a thought, I'm hardly an expert on the subject. However, there may be a good reason ancient people worshipped the Sun as a god. Imagine how nice it felt to wake up to a warm sunny day when you had no heat. Imagine how appreciative you would be when spring returned and trees began leafing out and your crops began to grow. We know how nice it is to see the clouds disappear, and see the ice and snow melt. Maybe the Sun, the ultimate source of energy, around which the Earth revolves, the Sun which drives our winds, ocean currents and daily weather, maybe variations in solar energy output could influence global warming and cooling. This seems a bit more logical to me that a little bit of carbon dioxide. Would you like to bet billions or trillions of dollars on it?


The Sun's diameter is about 110 times that of the Earth.

From Canada's National Post

Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?

"For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending outmore radiation.""...the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.""Mr. Abdussamatov concedes man made gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent ears, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.""Mr. Soon (of the Solar and Stellar Physics Divisionof the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years --corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity. Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze. Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?"

Germans Protest Global Warming Speed Limits

This is really going too far. Carbon Dioxide emission restrictions may cause a revolution, or war between nations. Germans love to drive fast on their is dangerous to try to slow them down. I could not make this stuff up if I tried.

Germans Annoyed by EU Commissioner's Call for Autobahn Speed Limits
BERLIN - An EU official called on Germany to give up the famous freedom of its highways and impose speed limits on the autobahn to fight global warming - a demand that drew angry responses on Sunday in a country that cherishes what it calls "free driving for free citizens.",2933,258200,00.html

SUICIDE - A Unique Way To Control Pollution and Global Warming

Suicide.......yes that's right. Do yourself in for the greater good of Mother Earth. Fewer people, less polution. The math is simple. Would I joke? Have a look and a message from an observant commentator.

Have you ever heard of the organization called The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? At first I thought it was a joke.. but now I'm not so sure. Here are a few statements from their website... Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters. As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us.

Sometimes I wish I were making this stuff up...Oh yeah, and they've got their own bumper stickers too...

Queen Scaremonger - Nancy Pelosi

Taking all things into consideration that you see here on my blog; scientific dispute, fear, blizzards, tornadoes, the phase of the Moon, are some comments from the most powerful person in Congress, Nancy Pelosi. Her ignorance is anything but globally warming. We are being fed a crock of you know what folks. Here are some excerpts from this article.

Read the entire article here:

Security, Economy and Global Warming,
Throw a Net Over Nancy Pelosi!
By Alan Caruba
Thursday, February 22, 2007

So what does Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, think is the nation's highest priority?
In an announcement on Thursday, February 8, she made it clear that Global Warming is her highest priority. Citing the utterly bogus scare mongering of the Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Speaker Pelosi has seen the future and it is one that "will reshape our planet and society. We also see a future in which harsh consequences could be blunted by our prompt action."

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. The greatest fools of all are those running around these days shouting, "Global Warming! Global Warming! Global Warming!" Most of these people are relatively harmless because they do not have their hand on the lever of governmental power, but Speaker Pelosi is literally in the line of succession to the Oval Office.

In her announcement, she claimed that, "catastrophic hurricanes of 2005, Katrina and Rita, foreshadow the challenges we face." The lowliest government meteorologist could tell her there is no connection between hurricanes and so-called Global Warming. He might even remind her that, in 2006, not one single hurricane made landfall; another one of those inconvenient facts.

Instead, Speaker Pelosi conjured up "rising sea levels and intensifying storms." If that wasn't bad enough, she threw in "inland communities (that) will be gravely affected as well by drought and flood." Wait a minute, how can the IPCC report summary predict both droughts, the absence of water, and floods, too much water, at the same time?

Dr. Timothy Ball on Global Warming

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wilderness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Lindzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at
Other articles by Tim Ball

The Big Global Warming Scam

I know I hammering on this issure of man's impact on global warming pretty hard, but I'm convinced it is part of a huge environmental scam that is destined to cost us billions and billions. Maybe most of all, I hate being scammed!


Depending on your email program, you may be able to click on the link in the email. Alternatively, you may have to open a web browser, such as Firefox or Internet Explorer, and copy the link over into the address bar. For the best content online, visit

More Crazy Journalism..........

Climate report:
Droughts, starvation, diseaseThe harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

Totally Irresponsible Journalism

If this isn't irresponsible alarmism I don't know what is. I cannot quite figure who is behind spreading this fear and why they are doing it. It goes way beyond the pathetic Al Gore. He is just callously cashing in on the hysteria. None of this scientific "consensus" can be proven. It is all theory based on bad science. No greater hoax has ever been forced upon mankind. Think about it.

Climate report:
Droughts, starvation, disease. The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

More Good Video Clips About CO2 and Global Warming

more good videos.....and commentary.....

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Global Warming, Carbon Emissions Lunacy Peaks in Britain

Just so no one thinks the frenzy and craziness over global warming and carbon, or carbon dioxide emissions is limited to America. I think it is worse in Europe. Read what is being said in Britain. Prepare yourselves for the coming sacrifices. This is what is coming for America.

Consider the following excerpt from Michael Meacher's pitch for the leadership of the UK Labour party (the ellipses representing a belabored call for more windmills), with the Orwellian assertion that in his world a newly imposed quota – limiting that which you previously had in abundance – would be considered an “entitlement”. Separated by a common language, indeed.

Climate change is now the overarching issue facing the world. Tackling it should permeate every aspect of government — not just energy, but transport, industry, building standards, agriculture, public expenditure and taxation, and foreign policy…We should require the airline industry, like every other industry, to reduce year by year their emissions, which are the fastest growing source of global warming. We should increase VED (vehicle excise duty) massively for gas-guzzling cars and use the proceeds to subsidise bus and rail, plus give large rebates to smaller-engine car owners.

We should require industry to measure and make public their carbon imprint, and report on how they are annually reducing it. We should incentivise local food production which would regenerate British agriculture, dramatically cut air miles, and protect security of supply.We should also tighten building standards so that all new construction at least meets the most energy-efficient standards already met in Europe and Scandinavia. We should give each family, according to its size and structure, a carbon entitlement which then has to be reduced each year in such a way as to reward the conscientious and penalise the wasteful.

And in order to meet the target set by scientists of at least 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared with 1990, government should set a target of 3 per cent annual reduction in overall UK emissions. Underpinned by this comprehensive policy, Britain should gain the moral and political authority to lead the way.”

So, here's the query: Al Gore used to demand “wrenching transformation of society”, which he now characterizes as a “World War II-style commitment”, which under the glare of Oscar attention he insists is “not as hard as you think”, yet to date he still won't tell us what his plan entails.Is this it?

Ethanol From Brazil Is The Answer

Who can argue with this advertisement for ethanol?

"The Simpletons Guide To Ethanol"

Alternative energy is the solution, right? No more dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. Someone once told me "there is no such thing as a free lunch". I think that was in Physics or Chemistry 101. Whatever, ethanol might be interesting but it is hardly the total answer. Here is an amusing video.

Another Geologist Relates His Experience

Some geologists have a unique perspective on global warming and climate change that climate modelers sitting in front of their computers cannot even imagine.
"Boots on the ground", I think they call it. Theory backed by observation. Wisdom from "been there, done that" perhaps. So call us skeptics.

Here is a contribution from a respected friend and mentor. I think you will find it enlightening.

Thanks for the forward below. I presume you've read "State of Fear". Amusing read. I come at global warming with some kind of pedigree since I was expounding about it 57 years ago when I read the stats on increasing atmospheric CO2 and the inevitability that this would cause a rise in sea level.

An increase of 2 feet in MSL was predicted by the end of the century and the usual jokes floated that you should forget about buying property around Newport Beach. In all the years since, I kept an eye on MSL, and it stayed put, though I doubt that is a permanent condition, and in the 70s and 80s a new Ice Age was predicted backed up by 17 straight years of satellite temp measurements and an alarmingly expanding snow cover moving south in Canada.

Then, along came Gore, and suddenly global warming turned from science into politics. Several months ago I predicted he'd probably receive an Academy Award for it from his like-minded nitwits in Hollywood. 20 billion dollars, I read, were spent trying to prove global warming, and I headed for the exit. Now I don't believe anything I hear about the subject, no matter that recognized PhDs of all persuasions, including Dermatologists, Psychologists, and Animal Behaviorists, have signed on.

Are we in a period of global warming? As I keep repeating, of course we are. We're coming out of an ice age aren't we. But in the meanwhile there have been peaks and pits in world temperature. This sounds familiar so I must have written about it in the past. Anyway, in all my professional career I've only seen signs of sea level retreat, not advance, all over the world.

Old sea ports in Korea are now stranded 2 km inland. The Dalaman River delta in Turkey has moved many Km out to sea and I recommended this environment as a placer platinum target since the Dalaman is Pt bearing and a retreating shoreline tends to concentrate heavy minerals.

I have mapped and drilled the raised beach deposits of western Liberia for stranded diamond placers along the old shorelines. Holland Syndicate, under Dr. Terpstra, had done the same in the 1930s during their worldwide gold survey and I was so lucky as to find one of Terpstra's former banka drillers, now a one-eyed old man named Mohammed, sitting on a bench at the LGS, and I borrowed him for my project.

I did a geomorph survey of the raised beach deposits of SE Sierra Leone, downstream of the "Blood Diamond" business now showing at a theatre near you. These raised beaches extend miles inland, and represent a pretty good diamond and heavy mineral target. You can see these on maps and global scans. They look like bathtub rings. While I was at Texas Instruments some idiot had seen the scans and recommended them as a petroleum target. I delighted in telling the assembled study group that I just happened to have walked the length and breadth of these things and they were fresh raised beach sand, showing several plateaux of sea level terrace of about 1.5 to 2m elevation difference. The target was diamonds, not oil. They thought I was a smart alec.

Then there is the SW coast of South Africa and Namibia. The famed "Oyster line" prospected by the Germans in 1913 or so. A major strip of raised beach hundreds of miles long. There is a similar raised beach along the Strait of Malacca. One Englishman's survey monument was lost and later found 2km inland owing to retreat of the shoreline.

Anyway, that's my story for the moment. I think a sulfide aerosol deployed into the upper atmosphere should be looked into to create global cooling on demand. Perhaps spread by international airliners. I am going to propose that to Branson if I can ever get my trash together. Cheers,

Nasty Stuff.......Down and Dirty Politics and Science

I feel like a "babe in the woods". I thought science was pure and simple and honest. Everyone is being used and abused........witness the latest from the late, great state of Colorado:

Political Correctness For State Climatologists In Order To Force These Positions To Embrace Global Warming As Summarized By The IPCC – A Chilling Development
Filed under: Climate Science Op-Eds — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 3:22 pm

There are currently two efforts underway to remove two State Climatologists from their positions because they do not parrot the summary conclusions of the new IPCC Report. These attempts are in Delaware (David Legates; see and see) and Oregon (George Taylor; see). This follows the recommendation by Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel to retract the certification of broadcast weather forecasters who do not accept what she considers is the accepted scientific view of global warming (see).

Both David Legates and George Taylor are well respected by their peer State Climatologists. George Taylor was elected twice as President of the American Association of State Climatologists.
The move to remove them from their positions because they do not espouse a particular viewpoint on climate change reflects negatively on the politicians who are abusing their power to enforce their views. Regardless of your perspective on the role of humans in the climate system, their attempt to force political correctness on any science issue should be vigorously repudiated.

I also commented on the weblog on Promthesus on this subject. Here is what I wrote there;
“As Former State Climatologist of Colorado and Past President of the American Association of State Climatologists, I am familiar with this appointment. The political intervention of the Governors of Delaware and Oregon to seek the removal of two State Climatologists is unprecedented.
To provide background for the certification process, the website for the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) is

Bush Administration's Answer to Global Warming....

Many phrases come to mind, like we're being "bam-boozled", "railroaded", "jerked around", "snookered", "shafted", "played for pawns"..........I'm sure you can think of a few......all I do is read the news like this:


The dirty secret about clean cars
Automakers push flex-fuel vehicles, get around efficiency standards

President Bush plugs a power cord into a car under the watchful gaze of Ford CEO Alan Mulally and Vice President Dick Cheney at a White House meeting this week.
View related photos
President Bush enjoyed a high-profile photo-op Monday with the heads of the Big Three automakers and their latest clean-car models. The impressive lineup included a General Motors model that can run on ethanol, a plug-in Ford powered by hydrogen, and a DaimlerChrysler Jeep filled with a biodiesel blend.

It was smiles all around as the automakers announced they would make half of America's vehicles ethanol-ready by 2012. "If you want to reduce gasoline usage—like I believe we need to do so for national-security reasons as well as for environmental concerns—the consumer has got to be in a position to make a rational choice," said a beaming Bush.

But there's a dirty secret about clean cars. The policies for flexible-fuel vehicles—those that can run on mixtures of gasoline and more than 10 percent ethanol—are written in such a way that they result in a number of unintended consequences. One result is that automakers gain some leeway in meeting fuel-economy standards if they produce flexible-fuel cars and trucks. So Detroit's automakers have been pumping out hundreds of thousands of the vehicles, even though most consumers have no access to alternative fuels because they're available at only a fraction of U.S. gas stations.

(Is this what those in business call a "win-win situation"?)

John Kerry, Another Hypocrite Jumps On The Bandwagon

Some people just don't give up, do they? He should have gone down with his Swift Boat. But, no, he was saved by Ms. Heinze Ketchup. Now we have John Kerry and his wife coming out with a book about how they know how we can save planet Earth. Unbelievable. If Al Gore can do it, why not them. Eventually voters are going to see through all of this nonsense. At least I hope so.


Kerry's inconvenient truth [Henry Payne]
Reverend Gore’s energy-guzzling mansion has brought snickers from the pews, but there’s always John Kerry to one up the Goracle in the hypocrisy sweepstakes.

Kerry appeared on Democratic jester Jon Stewart’s show Monday night to flog his green tome (co-written with his wife), “This Moment on Earth”. “We’re running out of time” to save the planet, Pastor John intoned, but “a lot of people out there want to do what’s right.” Thus the book, which Kerry hopes will teach that “you can develop a sustainable way by which to live.”

Present company excluded, of course.

While running for eco-moralizer-in-chief in 2004, Kerry was asked by The Detroit News editorial board what car he drove. Without any hint of irony, he said:

"Well, we have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a Jeep. . . and a PT Cruiser up in Boston. . .and we have some SUVs. . . and an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate. . . and I also have a Chevy. A big Suburban."

A New Music Video For Al Gore --- A "Must See"

This is really clever and funny, if a bit rude.

If the Vice Prophet used the same techniques he used on Capitol Hill to try to sell you a used car, you'd walk away quickly with both hands on your checkbook and never look back. "What do I have to do to put you in this crisis today?"
P.S. Here's a rewrite of Al's movie's theme song.
Posted by: Saint Kansas at March 28, 2007 11:37 AM

Or go here to see:

Beautiful --- Another Earth Scientist Speaks Out

Again, I can't resist re-publishing this. It makes me feel so good to know there is intelligent life out there, it does not surprise me it comes from a "geoscientist".


I think your commenters here have summarized the present argument (and situation) well. As a doctored geoscientist I claim no particular prescience, only an appreciation for the much longer geologic time frame, perhaps a greater appreciation for the variables involved, and a cognition of the number of times throughout history that "science" has gotten it rather wrong.

I'm quite certain that the globe has recently "warmed"; it doesn't surprise me. I would even argue that there is probably some anthropogenic contribution. That said, science (and particularly fear-mongering politicians) have no idea of the magnitude or the consequences of such activity. We simply do not know, and more recent scientific insights regarding CO2 being a consequence of temperature increase rather than causative beggars the issue even more.

But Larry J is absolutely correct. There is no global political solution to the problem--it transcends our ability to impact it. Only an egomaniacal fool would posit such a stance. The Goreacle, whether considered the high priest or the emperor of GW, increasingly appears to be wearing increasingly transparent robes--and very likely none at all.

Whatever the future climatic/environmental condition, human kind will have to adapt, just like the species has since Lucy scampered around the plains of East Africa. I wouldn't worry about GW if I were you, I would worry about large numbers of imbeciles following Al Gore and Laurie David and telling you how you should live your life.
Posted by: MikeD at March 25, 2007 06:30 PM

Light At The End of the Tunnel---Hope That Truth Will Prevail

Maybe there is hope after all that truth, rational thought, and science will prevail over the hysteria surrounding the idea that man-caused carbon emissions, primarily CO2, are responsible for global warming. As soon as I saw Al Gore promoting this with his movie, "An Inconveniet Truth", I suspected he would be his own worst enemy. Again, it seems I am not alone in my thinking. Read on,


March 25, 2007: Deconstructing Al -
Gore Hurts Global Warming Cause
I have long suspected that Al Gore hurt the very cause - anthropogenic global warming - he is famous for espousing. Now I have some evidence of that in a new Rasmussen Poll saying only 24% percent of Americans consider the former veep a global warming expert. Furthermore, "just 36% of Americans say that Gore knows what he is talking about when it comes to the environment and Global Warming. [caps theirs]"

Gore's problem may stem from the attitude inherent in his remark before a Congressional Committee quoted further down in the Rasmussen article: "Global Warming is 'not a partisan issue; it's a moral issue.'" Wrong, Al. It's neither. It's a scientific issue.
And, considering the Rasmussen Poll, most of us apparently know it.

When I first viewed Gore's Oscar-winning movie, it was that very thing that immediately occurred to me: why am I listening to a politician talk about this? Why not a scientist or scientists? You could cut the inauthenticity of the whole enterprise with a knife, starting with pseudo-self-deprecating joke about his near presidential victory to the recitation of facts that seemed to support his cause (but perhaps didn't, we later learned). The documentary form, of course, allows for these kinds of distortions. How many serious scientific arguments can you fit in an eighty minute film? How deep can you go? Not very far. So someone must select. And with selection comes unscientific bias.

So coming back to the "deconstruction of it all," I will give my visceral reaction to the documentary. After viewing the movie I was less troubled with the global warming issue and more troubled by Gore's narcissism - not exactly the result intended. In fact, the reverse. And evidently, from the poll results, I am not alone. (Something for the Oscar documentary committee to ponder.)

And to be clear, I am personally concerned about global warming. I want to learn more. Even though I am aware of reports that Mars and other planets are currently heating up as well as Earth, this is not by itself proof that the warming cycle here does not have a significant anthropogenic component. I simply don't know. (Neither, I would wager, does Al Gore, in his heart).

So, considering that I am predisposed to worry about such things as global warming, and that I would support some government actions if I were scientifically convinced of the problem, that I might buy a hybrid car, etc.... that I responded negatively to Gore and his film should be of interest, if only because, on this subject at least, I seem to be an average American.

How and Why Did Global Warming Become a Moral Issue?

I've been trying to say that the issue of global warming has become politicized, and hi-jacked by clever environmental extremists. We have strayed from the arena of rational scientific thinking to one of mass hysteria, driven by the fear of global catastrophes, and now we're told it is a moral issue.

Those who claim they love the Earth and the environment are now saying anyone who is skeptical about man's role in causing global warming is immoral. Not only is this accusation about morality ridiculous, not only is it leading to economic and societal ruin, it is outright dangerous to everyone.

The gravest danger to human life on Earth has always been from our fellow man, not from nature itself. Think of evil dictators coercing people to believe in genocidal ideologies and failed economic systems. Think communism, Nazi-ism, and now "environmentalism"; they were all sold to the people because of their "morality". Fortunately I am not alone in thinking this way and many people can say it better than I. Read on. I've pulled some selective statements from the following article.

March 23, 2007
Why Did Global Warming Become a Moral Matter?By Tim Thorstenson

As a scientist, I find the current strategy of the global warming crusade to be fascinating. Particularly because I am a scientist, I also find it insulting. Everyone should find it very disturbing.

I am referring to the fact that the global warming issue is now regarded as a "moral" matter by its advocates. None other than The High Priest of Global Warming (Al Gore) has decreed it as such. Of course, there is some obvious humor in this because the liberals will also tell you that you "cannot legislate morality". Well, it does not take complicated logic to conclude that if global warming is indeed a moral matter and if it is true that you cannot legislate morality, then it should hold that you cannot legislate global warming.

For many years, global warming seemed to be a fact-focused debate. But a persistent problem for the advocates has been dissenting scientific opinion. Some very reputable scientists hold that global warming may be attributed to natural phenomena like the intensity of solar radiation.
Others have valid questions about how much warming will actually occur and how severe the resulting effects will really be. Still others suggest that, if the problem is indeed real and serious, then serious responses are indicated. These folks propose an honest examination of real solutions (like a renewed emphasis on nuclear power) instead of the childish games of useless treaties, carbon credits, windmills and fluorescent light bulbs that seem to enamor so many of the advocates

It is one thing to write these dissenting opinions off as factually false, but this is apparently no longer regarded as adequate by the global warming advocates. The dissent keeps popping up, it backed by some very reputable people wielding very credible facts, and the availability of alternate information outlets (like this blog) has made it impossible to smother the doubters and dissenters.

Now enter the moral angle. If global warming is now a moral matter, it would seem to suggest an associated implication that these inconvenient viewpoints are immoral. Apparently it is now the duty of "good" people to reject these opinions on this "moral" basis and without regard to whether they are factually true or false.

The message of these pseudo-moralists is that "good" people must start by accepting the pre-ordained orthodox conclusion and then work backwards through the claimed facts, making not an intellectual assessment of whether they are indeed true, but rather a "moral" assessment of whether or not they agree with the conclusion. Things claimed as facts which are "good" (in this moral sense) should be embraced and those which are "bad" (in this same moral sense) should be discarded, not because they are factually false, but because they are "immoral".

In all honesty, this should scare the heck out of everyone. This is an atmosphere in which scientific inquiry is steered not by factual truth, but by a pre-ordained "moral" position. What is at work here is exactly what the liberals have always claimed to condemn. How is this any different from the decree of a radical theocratic dictator who will allow only those scientific conclusions which are approved by his church?

The liberals always claimed that such behavior - allowing moral considerations to trump factual ones - was the ultimate evil. But apparently, even this "ultimate evil" becomes "acceptable strategy" if the cause is justified. This is "liberal moral relativism" taken to a whole new level.

Global Warming Heresy, by Walter E. Williams

I simply must publish this essay in its entirety. It is very good.

Global Warming Heresy

By Walter E. Williams Commentary March 28, 2007

Most climatologists agree that the earth's temperature has increased about a degree over the last century. The debate is how much of it is due to mankind's activity. Britain's Channel 4 television has just produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a documentary that devastates most of the claims made by the environmentalist movement. The scientists interviewed include top climatologists from MIT and other prestigious universities around the world. The documentary hasn't aired in the U.S., but it's available on the Internet.

Among the many findings that dispute environmentalists' claims are: Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. Contrary to environmentalists' claims, the higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change.

Some of the documentary's scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk.

Throughout the Earth's billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth's climate was much warmer than it is now. Most of this century's warming occurred before 1940. For several decades after WWII, when there was massive worldwide industrialization, there was cooling.

There's a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That's the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view.

According to a March 11 article in London's Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change.

Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."Suppressing dissent is nothing new.

Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake.

Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Today's version of yesteryear's inquisitors include people like the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen, who advocates that the American Meteorological Society strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming.

Columnist Dave Roberts, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards-some sort of climate Nuremberg."

There are literally billions of taxpayer dollars being handed out to global warming alarmists, not to mention their dream of controlling our lives. Their agenda is threatened by dissent. They have the politician's ear; not we, who will suffer if they have their way.

(Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute.)Copyright 2007, Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Can We Control Climate Change?

Here is a another good comment from Grist. The Earth's atmosphere warms and cools over and over again. It has done so long before man began contributing large amounts of carbon emissions, (carbon dioxide, CO2). This person sums things up very well.

Reduced Enough It (carbon dioxide emissions) Could Stop Climate Change?
Wow, I am flabbergasted.
The thought that we can "stop climate change" is so far removed from reality that it boggles the mind.
Haven't we already agreed upon the pre-anthro (before man) emissions climate change? Temperatures rise - then greenhouse gases rise - then temperatures rise etc...
Now the goal is to "control climate change?"
Good luck with that.

I am all for reduced pollution. I am all for common sense solutions and realistic ways of coping with climate change. If we are serious about reducing CO2 we need to have a serious discussion about nuclear power (especially integral fast reactors),
We need to discuss how slow and predictable (and inevitable) sea level change will be addressed in countries all over the world.
What I am not for is inciting fear based on exaggerated scenarios in order to enact legislation that does nothing but redistribute wealth and exacerbate the problem, e.g. Kyoto.

Getting back to the original point - we have about 160 years of accurate temperature records, roughly 47 years of actual atmospheric CO2 observations and some scenarios kicked out by a GCM (Global Climate Model). To think we really understand how climate change works at this point is pretty presumptive. We are still trying to sort out why oceans were cooling when they were supposed to be warming and why global temperatures were cooling while atmospheric CO2 was rising. Most climate change scientists aren't anywhere near as "sure about global warming" as the alarmists.

Some of us are looking for more science and less fear mongering. Every day you can find at least 10 stories that talk about polar bear-jellyfish-bird migration-tropical diseases-ice cap melting-sky is falling-Katrina was due to global warming etc...
Some common sense and rational thought is all I am looking for.
Thanks for the posts!
by Pete H at 3:44 PM on 28 Dec 2006

For A Look At Global FLOODING Caused By Global Warming

I haven't seen this, but it apparently really scares people. It all seems part of the master plan to frighten people into believing the global warming mythology. I must say it has been effective.

Getting a jump on waterfront property speculation
Posted by Corey McKrill at 3:50 PM on 27 Mar 2007
[ print email + digg + + reddit ]
One of the most memorable scenes in An Inconvenient Truth is when Al Gore makes the sea level rise 20 feet and inundate various low-lying regions of the world, including Manhattan and Florida. It was suitably squirm-inducing, especially if the viewer happened to live in one of the areas shown. For the rest of us, or at least for me, however, the lingering question has been, "what would it look like where I live?" Now, thanks to Google's mapping API and the ingenuity of one Alex Tingle, we have Flood Maps, where you can view any part of the world and raise the sea level in 1 meter increments, up to 14 meters (about 46 feet).
Behold, Seattle:

More On Gore The Hyporcrite

If leaders are to be trusted and believed they must lead by example. Apparently the following is true, and if so, it certainly does not bode well for Al Gore and his message on global warming. He wants us to sacrifice and look at the example he sets.

And here is what Rep. Edward Markey, (Dem-Mass.), chairman of the newest House committee titled Select Committee On Energy Independence And Global Warming says on the subject.

Q. Would you support Al Gore if he ran for president?
Answer: What Al Gore has done for this issue (global warming) is bigger than presidential.

Something is terribly wrong here, don't you think?


HOUSE # 1:A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2: Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside ofNashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of thePresident of the United States, George W. Bush.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007


It seems everyone in our now Democrat-controlled Congress is in a frenzy to initiate legislation to limit and tax "carbon emissions". These carbon emissions are taken to be primarily carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels, primarily oil, gas, and coal. They are wrong, wrong, and wrong. Our Congress, the United Nations and a host of others are leading us down a path of folly, if not economic ruin. Here are some interesting facts about carbon dioxide. From: Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Go here to see it the entire article:

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!

view full-size image Figure 2

Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.

The case for a "greenhouse problem" is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations.

I think Americans and people around the world have been and are being fooled and misled about the threat of and causes of global warming.

Step It Up 2007, Totally Ridiculous

Have you heard of anything as useless and ill-advised as Step It Up 2007 anytime in recent memory? Considering the evidence showing carbon dioxide emissions play a minor role in global warming, (detailed elsewhere on this blog), and taking into account the scientific disagreement on the subject, such drastic action as Step It Up 2007 looks more than foolish. Note: The following is from Wikipedia Greenhouse Gases.

"The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapour, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%."
"Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect."


Dearest Grist reader,
Know how we give you lots of bad news but don't always give you a way to do anything about it? Yeah, sorry about that. But look! Here's something you can do:
We hereby invite you (inveigle you, even) to join Step It Up 2007 -- a day of community events across the U.S. where citizens will demand political action on climate change. On Saturday, April 14, at simultaneous events ranging from protest marches to canoe caravans, Americans will call for Congress to enact immediate cuts in carbon emissions and pledge an 80 percent reduction by 2050. You heard it here first: it's time to get hot and bothered.
Who: You, and everyone you knowWhat: Rallies, parties, parades, sit-ins, hikes, climbs, dives, and much moreWhen: Saturday, April 14, 2007Where: More than 1,000 spots around the U.S.Why: Because it's getting hot in here
Find an event in your neck of the 'hoods. Don't see anything nearby? Then organize one yourself! It's easier than it sounds. Find out how.
Get the behind-the-scenes story on the Step It Up campaign via weekly dispatches that author and organizer Bill McKibben is writing for Grist.
We'd love to see a critical mass of creative, dedicated, intelligent, and all-around stupendous Grist readers join us at these events. Oh, and bring your camera -- Step It Up will be posting pictures on the web from every event, so the whole world can see the impact of our actions.
See you out there!
The Grist staff
Grist: Environmental News and Commentary©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.Grist, 710 Second Avenue, Suite 860, Seattle, WA 98104 USAPhone 206.876.2020 Fax 253.423.6487 grist@grist.orgTo unsubscribe from this list, click here.

Great White Sharks Put UK On Alert, Caused by Global Warming

This again comes from the rational and non-fear mongering, non-sensationalist publication National Geographic. What was it Winston Churchill said? "We will fight them in the air, we will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the oceans...." Something like that. I'm sort of joking about this, but something does seem to be affecting sea creatures. Is it global warming and is there anything we can or should do about it?

"Great White" Sighting Puts U.K. on Shark Alert
James Owen in England for National Geographic News
August 12, 2003

"Usually it's only jellyfish and skin-pinching crabs that swimmers worry about along the beaches of southwest England. But this summer they have something else on their minds—the ocean's awesome predator, the great white shark.

The perceived threat, however slim, follows reports of a large, unidentified shark feeding 20 yards (18 meters) off the west coast of Devon.

Experts disagree on whether it was a great white, which can easily be confused with another species of shark commonly found in these waters.

However, the publicity given to the sighting has raised a number of interesting questions. Why, for example, do great white sharks not ordinarily venture into this part of the ocean?
And if it was a great white spotted off Devon, could this be the first of many following their traditional food source? For some years now, many species that are also the great white shark's prey have been observed migrating farther north—possibly because the sea around the U.K. is getting warmer. Is it not inevitable that the great whites will follow in their wake?
The shark thought to be a great white was recently spotted by Chaynee Hodgetts while on vacation.

The teenager, who wants to become a marine biologist, watched the shark from cliffs for ten minutes as it attacked a shoal of fish. Using binoculars, she judged its length at 12 feet (3.66 meters) by comparing it with common dolphins chasing the same shoal.
Having seen detailed notes taken by the 15-year-old, experts say her description closely matches that of a great white (Carcharodon carcharias)—a species never before recorded in U.K. waters.

She reported her sighting to Rolf Williams, a shark expert at the National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth, England.
"It's tantalizing and we're taking it seriously," he said: "We scrutinized Chaynee very thoroughly to get the best information we could. We'll never know for certain, but some of her observations strongly suggest a great white."

"Although great whites often inhabit relatively cool waters, their presence around the U.K. could also be a response to climate change if their food is luring them to the North Atlantic.
And if they do start to turn up in numbers, the U.K.'s burgeoning seal population should give them good reason to stay. Already there have been reports of seals being attacked by large sharks, including one from a Cornish fisherman who claims to have seen a seal being bitten in half. "

"While this may not be enough to stop nervous, seawards glances on England's beaches this month, it's worth remembering the great white's man-eating reputation rests largely with the bloodcurdling creature depicted in the Spielberg movie Jaws."