We Must Finally Get Past The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

In my opinion the scientific debate about whether mankind's activities play a significant role in global climate change is long over, as summarized in the commentary below. What remains is a battle to regain political and economic sanity. Whenever anyone claims we must produce electric cars, or "downsize", or "reduce our carbon footprint", or subsidize the building of "wind farms", "solar farms" and uneconomic geothermal energy, remind them that the rationale behind all of this activity is based on a fundamental lie.

As I have been saying and trying to show on this blog since day one, the idea that man-caused global warming, or climate change, or "climate disruption" is and has been an enormous LIE, a terrible, costly, and cruel hoax. We need to continue fighting to convince the dwindling number of people who still believe in the myth of man-caused global warming that they are flat-out wrong. It is past time to put an end to the hoax. Others can do the finger-pointing and play the blame-game. It is just time to put an end to the nonsense. America and our economic survival depends on it.
Peter

Climate Alarmism at the New York Times

Written by S. Fred Singer, American Thinker 07 November 2010 (source)

The New York Times editorial page has been persistent in publishing alarmist editorials on climate change. The latest one appearing shortly before the November elections accused politicians of being in "denial" about climate change. What nonsense! Climate is changing all the time; it has been doing it for millions of years -- without any human intervention. And politicians are simply trying to stay in step with the public.

There is no credible evidence at all that human activities have had any appreciable influence on global climate changes during the last century. While many scientists still believe in a major human contribution, the number of skeptical scientists has been growing steadily as the evidence against AGW [anthropogenic global warming] becomes ever more apparent.

Just ask yourself: what evidence is there to indicate that any warming over the last century is due to human influences? Not even the UN- supported IPCC has been able to point to any solid facts in favor of AGW. The latest science debate revolves around "finger prints" in the climate record. Do the observations of temperature change in the atmosphere show a certain pattern, which is characteristic of greenhouse warming? The answer is a resounding No.

Without any scientific evidence to support AGW, it is wasteful, counterproductive -- and foolish -- to institute regulations that limit the emissions of CO2, restrict the use of energy, and misdirect energy policy into such areas wind farms, solar projects, and biofuels like ethanol. For economic survival, all of these require huge subsidies. which are paid for by citizens twice over: first as taxpayers, then as energy users.

The mid-term elections have pointed up the public skepticism about AGW. Supporters of misguided policies to control emissions of carbon dioxide, through "cap and trade" and fuel standards, went down to defeat almost everywhere. California provided the big exception and now faces an economic disaster.

As reported by Cooler Heads Digest: "... the new Republican majority in the House is largely skeptical of the claim that global warming is a potential crisis and is close to unanimously opposed to cap-and-trade and other energy-rationing measures. Not only is cap-and-trade dead, but there is a good chance that the House next year will move legislation to block or delay the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The question is, can such a measure pass the Democratic-controlled Senate? There is certainly a majority in the Senate for blocking EPA, but sixty votes will be needed. My guess is that there will be more than sixty votes. As EPA regulations start to bite next year, Senators will start to hear complaints from their constituents. And a large number of Democratic Senators are up for re-election in 2012 and will want to avoid the fate of so many of their colleagues this year.

The NY Times may be seriously out of step with its own readers, At least that's how I would judge the results of a survey of readers of Scientific American, a magazine that has been just as alarmist about AGW as the Times:

**77% believe that current climate change is caused by natural processes
**68% think we should do nothing about climate change, are powerless to stop it
**90% approve of climate scientists debating the issue in public forums
**83% believe that the UN-IPCC is corrupt, prone to groupthink, and has a political agenda.

The New York Times is doing a disservice to its readers and to the US public in stoking unreasonable fears not based on solid science.

Source

Some Thoughts On Cap And Trade

This comes from a veterinarian, who knows bull$hit when he sees or smells it, and that is what the Obama Administration's "cap and trade" legislation is. This veterinarian is simply pointing out the obvious. This follows the absurdity of the EPA labelling carbon dioxide as a "pollutant". We had better wake up to what the liberal, leftist Democrats, led by Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are trying to put over on us!
Peter

Cap and Trade
What is this and what does it mean for veterinary medicine?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi What is she doing and why?
Commentaries on Cap and Trade It is fair to say that veterinarians are not experts on matters of the environment, chemistry, physics, and climatology. On the other hand, to enter veterinary school one must at least pass or survive a prerequisite amount of college courses pertaining to the basic sciences, such as chemistry, biology, physics, animal science, toxicology, etc. While in veterinary school, we certainly learn about the interactions and effects of chemicals and physical forces upon living systems, be it animal or human. It comes as no surprise to most customers that as veterinarians we become quite experienced in dealing with matters pertaining to elimination, be it of the urinary tract or digestive tract. To get to the point, be it feces, excrement, bowel movements, or "bullshit", we learn to recognize it and call it what it is. For simplicity and time efficiency, I outline my thoughts on this subject. 1. Cap and Trade is based upon the assumption that CO2 emissions cause "global warming" in a significant manner. 2. There is no definitive proof of this concept. It is controversial. 3. Nancy Pelosi refused to hear testimony or introduce a 95 page report from a senior EPA scientist refuting the claims that CO2 Emissions are causing global warming. For starters, the global temperature is not rising. Other groups of scientists are being ignored as well. 4. The effects of the Cap and Trade legislation will drastically tax and increase the cost of production of electricity in the United States, especially in Texas, since coal is the primary source of electricity generation. Some estimates suggest a rapid doubling upon the prices of electricity. 5. Large polluting countries like China and India will likely continue to ignore such measures, continuing to be price competitive, and take more and more jobs from America. Is there anything else that's not made in China or serviced in India? That's why we owe China so much debt. This debt makes the value of the American money worth less and less. 6. If the cost of electricity for this animal clinic goes from $12,000 a year to $24,000, I will have to pass on such costs to customers. Other businesses will in turn pass on their costs, drastically raising the cost of veterinary medicine. 7. If our nation's leaders wish to burn less coal for electricity generation, they should make it possible to build more nuclear power plants or petroleum or natural gas powered plants, not tax the prices of our electricity. 8. I am all for preserving resources and taking care of the environment, but taking draconian measures that automatically punish users of electricity, small and large, based upon highly debated science is inappropriate. 9. When legislation doesn't seem to make sense, always "follow the money trail". I will provide some other links to help in this matter.

(source)

The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming Is Evil And Kills

The myth of man-caused global warming is evil because it kills people, literally. Consider for a moment what it must be like to be one of the billions of people on Earth who have no electricity, no fuel and no vehicles. These are people who can barely produce enough food to feed themselves, much less provide the other necessities of life.

Now consider how cruel it is to deny them the fossil fuels needed to generate that electricity, power those vehicles, produce and deliver that food, provide needed jobs, and do a host of other things most of us take for granted. Then think about how unrealistic it is to claim that this needed energy can be provided by wind turbines, solar panels or ethanol from food crops like corn.

Now consider the efforts to stop global warming or control climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Ask yourselves who is truly evil, those who produce those fossil fuels and generate that electricity, or those who promote "cap and trade (taxation)", all in the name of "saving the environment". Al Gore, how can you look at yourself in the mirror. Consider the following article.
Peter

"Notable Quotes"

"The real problem isn’t questionable or fake science, hysterical claims and worthless computer models that predict global warming disasters. It’s that they’re being used to justify telling Africans that we shouldn’t build coal or natural gas electrical power plants. It’s that the almost total absence of electricity is keeping us from creating jobs and becoming modern societies. It’s that these policies KILL.

Those anti-electricity policies are keeping us impoverished. Not having electricity also means disease and death. It means millions die from lung infections, because they have to cook and heat with open fires ….. Telling Africans they can’t have electricity and economic development – except what can be produced with some wind turbines or little solar panels – is immoral. It is a crime against humanity. "

Source

Fiona Kobusingye, a Co-ordinator of the Congress of Racial Equality Uganda:
More...

(Another) Professor Denies Man's Effect On Global Warming

The title of this article is misleading. Prof. Freitas is not denying the "greenhouse effect", he simply (and rightly) doubts that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is having a significant effect. He is a climate scientist and knows the issue from all sides. One of his statements is worthy of remembering. It is: "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this."

Also please note that the following statements were heard in a courtroom, which is where the debate about the causes of climate change should be exposed.
Peter

Published on Otago Daily Times Online (http://www.odt.co.nz)
Professor denies greenhouse effect
By Rosie Manins
Created 30/01/2009 - 05:00
Hugh Rennie Theories of climate change were challenged during an Environment Court appeal hearing for Meridian Energy's proposed $2 billion Project Hayes wind farm yesterday.
Sediment concerns raised [2]
As a witness for appellant Roch Sullivan, climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas was questioned on his evidence, which had been contested in the evidence of other climate witnesses called in the hearing.
Prof Freitas, of the University of Auckland, said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change.

"Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.
"People are being misled by people making money out of this," Prof de Freitas said.
He said mild warming of the climate was beneficial, especially in a country such as New Zealand, which had a prominent agricultural industry.

"One could argue that carbon dioxide is quite beneficial. There may be benefits of wind farming that I may not be aware of, but there is no data to show benefits in terms of mitigating potential dangerous changes in climate by offsetting carbon dioxide," he said.
Prof de Freitas said the Kyoto Protocol was a "politically and economically motivated instrument to deal with a perceived problem".

"I don't think anyone will benefit one way or another by adhering to it. It's not a well-formulated treaty . . . the so-called or claimed environmental benefits, I am not aware of," he said.
Prof de Freitas was questioned by Meridian Energy lawyer Hugh Rennie QC, about an article published in The New Zealand Herald in 2004, in which Prof de Freitas expressed his thoughts on wind power, the Kyoto Protocol, and climate change.
"You refer to New Zealand's need to meet its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol [in the article].
"Would you accept that any selection of generation which avoids the emission of substances controlled by that protocol is beneficial to New Zealand?" Mr Rennie asked Prof de Freitas.
Prof de Freitas took exception to the question.
"You are using legal gymnastics to corner me into a position I would not otherwise take," he said.
Prof de Freitas admitted there was debate about climate change, when questioned during cross-examination by Central Otago District Council lawyer Graeme Todd.
"The debate centres on causes. There is a possibility climate change could be impacted by human beings, but it is not a significant impact," he said.
In response to a question by commissioner Alex Sutherland, Prof de Freitas said the jury was out on climate change, and preemptive action could be dangerous.
"There's no basis for alarm. We might be shooting ourselves in the foot if we act on what turns out to be a bubble-less pot," he said.
Day 26Panel: Environment Court judge Jon Jackson, commissioner Alex Sutherland, commissioner Heather McConachy, and deputy commissioner Ken Fletcher.
Yesterday: Otago Regional Council water resource scientist Matthew Dale, of Dunedin; climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland; Electricity Commission director of transmission John Gleadow, of Wellington.

Scheduled for today: Mr Gleadow will continue to give evidence.
Quote of the day: "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this."
- climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland.
Source URL (retrieved on 01/02/2009 - 07:56): http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/central-otago/41301/professor-denies-greenhouse-effect

Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming.....New Data Shows

Here is another article from ICECAP summarizing the state of understanding of the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. The conclusion? As I have been saying all along, and many, many other scientists agree: Carbon emissions do not cause global warming.

Dispute the data, but please don't shoot the messenger.
Peter

from: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_emissions_dont_cause_global_warming/


Thursday, November 29, 2007
Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming
Guest Blog by David Evans, Science Speak
Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:

• 1. 1985 – 2003. Old ice core data led us strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.
• 2. 2003 – 2007. New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
• 3. From Aug 2007: Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.

The paper discusses how the ice core changes, missing greenhouse signature in the real data and the recent waning of the warming all suggest that carbon emissions are not behind the changes we have experienced in recent decades.
See larger image here.

The IPCC 2007 report (the latest and greatest from the IPCC) is based on all scientific literature up to mid 2006. The Bali Conference is the bureaucratic response to that report. Too bad that the data has changed since then! See the full paper here.

David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak. David is also a former believer in man-made warming who converted to skeptic.