Tom Friedman Whining About The Lack Of Interest In Global Warming

The public is smarter than you think Mr. Friedman, with no due respect to you, you are dead wrong about global warming and its causes. America (and the world) will grow to be thankful for the courageous and determined so-called skeptics who pointed out the obvious fallacies in the absurd notion of man-caused global warming. Whoever exposed ClimateGate should receive the Nobel Prize.

The public will be thankful and blessed if "cap and trade" legislation and all efforts to tax carbon dioxide emissions are trashed. And you Mr. Friedman will go down in history as a naive boy who has been falsely crying fire in a crowded theater. If you had a shred of honesty and humility you would admit your mistakes and confess that you've been duped and blinded by the political ambitions of amoral people like Al Gore and John Kerry and jumping on the popular environmental bandwagons, in spite of all reason. Shame on you to consider yourself an objective investigative journalist.
Peter

NY Times' warmer alarmist Friedman admits general public doesn't care about GW

Posted: 25 Jul 2010 07:30 AM PDT

Tom Friedman and the blame game

In today's NY Times, Tom Friedman blames the failure of the cap-and-tax bill on a public that simply doesn't have an appetite for higher prices or so-called global warming:

"I could blame Republicans for the fact that not one G.O.P. senator indicated a willingness to vote for a bill that would put the slightest price on carbon. I could blame the Democratic senators who were also waffling. I could blame President Obama for his disappearing act on energy and spending more time reading the polls than changing the polls. I could blame the Chamber of Commerce and the fossil-fuel lobby for spending bags of money to subvert this bill. But the truth is, the public, confused and stressed by the last two years, never got mobilized to press for this legislation. We will regret it."

The public is not "confused". They're beginning to wake up to the Bull$hit coming from the liberals in Washington, D.C. and other places. They're realizing they've been played for fools by the likes of the above-mentioned "journalist" propagandist Tom Friedman of the New York Times.

Peter

Man-Caused Global Warming Being Recognized As A Myth

It appears that mainstream media sources around the world are beginning to catch on and admit that man-caused global warming may indeed be a myth. They might not admit to having been fooled, or played for fools and deceived by the alarmist climate "scientists" seeking ever-larger financial support and power, but that is how a growing segment of the taxpaying public is seeing it. As has been said many times, eventually the truth prevails.

However, this sorry saga of global warming hoax has been going on for decades and it will not die quickly, even if Tipper Gore is taking some decisive steps in the right direction. Stay tuned because the Obama Administration is deeply entrenched in this fiasco. They will not abandon the myth of man-caused global warming for fear of losing what little face they have left.
Peter

Sinking 'Climate Change'
Cal Thomas
Thursday, June 03, 2010 (source)

Three modern myths have been sold to the American people: the promise of a transparent administration (President Obama); the promise of a more ethical Congress (Speaker Pelosi); and the myth of "global warming," or climate change.

The first two are daily proving suspect and now the third is sinking with greater force than melting icebergs, if they were melting, which many believe they are not.

After spending years promoting "global warming," the media are beginning to turn in the face of growing evidence that they have been wrong. The London Times recently reported: "Britain's premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures."

It gets worse, or better, depending on your perspective. Newsweek magazine, which more than 30 years ago promoted global cooling and a new ice age -- and more recently has been drinking the global warming Kool-Aid -- headlined a story, "Uncertain Science: Bickering and Defensive, Climate Researchers Have Lost the Public's Trust." Newsweek does its best to cling to its increasingly discredited doctrine, but the growing body of contrary evidence only adds to the public's disbelief.

In Canada, the polar bear -- which has been used by global warming promoters to put a cuddly face on the issue -- is in danger of not being endangered any longer. CBC News reported that the polar bear's designation as a "species of special concern" has been suspended "while the government reviews the polar bear's status and decides whether to renew the classification or change it."

The New York Times recently lamented "global warmism's loss of credibility" in a story about hundreds of "environmental activists who met to ponder this question: "if the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?" The "consensus" never was a consensus. Most of us may not have gotten an "A" in science, but we can sense when we are being bamboozled.

The German online news magazine "Focus" recently carried a story, "Warm Times Will Soon Be Over!" Commenting on the "new NASA high temperature record," which may be set, the magazine blames it on El Nino. Meteorologists, like Joe D'Aleo of The Weather Channel, are publicly distancing themselves from the false doctrine of global warming. D'Aleo says, "We'll have La Nina conditions before the summer is over, and it will intensify further through the fall and winter. Thus we'll have cooler temperatures for the next couple of years."

Remember the scare ignited in 2007 by supposed melting Arctic ice caps? The Star Canada says a new analysis shows that the apparent change was the result of "shifting winds," while an expedition last year to the North Pole discovered the ice "100 percent thicker than expected."

Much of this information -- and more -- is available at the useful Website www.climatedepot.com.

It is a given that America needs new sources of energy. Environmentalists have inhibited efforts at exploration by supporting policies that have forced some domestic exploration too far offshore (thus increasing chances of an ecological disaster as is occurring in the Gulf of Mexico).

Instead of trying to sell us a dubious doctrine at an estimated cost of $100 billion a year worldwide (so far), environmentalists would have done themselves and the world more good had they chosen a different strategy, such as not sending oil money to countries that want to destroy us. This would have increased our patriotic spirit and had the additional benefit of not only diversifying our energy supply, but also depriving our enemies of money they use to underwrite terrorism.

Watch for the hardcore "global warming" cultists to continue clinging to their beliefs; but also watch increasing numbers of scientists and eventually politicians to abandon this once "certain" faith and to look for other ways to control our lives. In that pursuit, the left never quits. Rather than acknowledge their error, they will go on to make new mistakes, knowing they will never be held accountable.

The Un-Making Of Al Gore And His Global Warming Alarmists

Not only has Tipper Gore seen the light and wants to distance herself from Al Gore (and his fraudulent activities), but the public seems to finally be catching on to what an enormous hoax the entire myth of man-caused global warming is and has been.

Wouldn't we all love to have those Billions of dollars spent on this "wild goose chase" returned to the government coffers and use that money for something based on sound, honest science instead of a socialist, leftist agenda? Maybe the tide is turning. Maybe the global economic and financial crises are causing people to take a second look at how taxpayers money is being spent. Maybe simple common sense will prevail after all.
Peter

Climate alarmists on the run (source)

FROM-The Washington Times

Former Vice President Al Gore was at his peak when the film "An Inconvenient Truth" made its initial Hollywood splash. Faith in man-made global warming had never been more widespread, with liberal academics and media subjecting to ridicule any who dared question the "settled science." Only a fool could deny that elevated carbon-dioxide levels had melted ice caps and stranded polar bears on rapidly diminishing ice floes.

How the tables have turned in a short time. On May 20, Oxford Union, the prestigious 187-year-old English debating society, formally considered the question of whether it was more important to focus on growing the economy or solving global warming. Climate realism won the day, 135 to 110. It's no wonder, considering how the purportedly scientific arguments advanced in support of the scaremongering conclusions have fallen apart since the Climategate scandal invited verification of the left's previously unexamined claims.

During the debate, Lord Whitty, former environment minister under the Labor government, claimed 95 percent of scientists were in agreement that man was responsible for a coming climatic cataclysm. Lord Monckton, representing climate realists, asked him to provide a reference backing up the claim. The audience jeered Lord Whitty for having none beyond, "Everyone knows it's true."

When the best the warmists can come up with is an appeal to authority, their case is lost for good. That's why, just a few days earlier, climate realists gathered in triumph on this side of the pondat a Heartland Institute climate-change conference in Chicago. Eminent scientists presented a wealth of evidence suggesting nature is, in fact, a much more powerful factor affecting the climate than man. That realism suggests the need for moderation when it comes to political action based on climate data.

"We think we need public policy that's based in facts, rather than facts that are based on a public agenda," Colorado State University professor Scott Denning said.

Once outcasts on the fringe of the scientific community, these individuals braved the ridicule of the self-appointed "enlightened" members of society to dismantle systematically the hockey sticks and other frauds crafted by leftists over the years.

In 1895, the New York Times suggested the Earth was headed toward a "second glacial period" in which "countries now basking in the fostering warmth of the tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions." By 1923, the Gray Lady had decided, "The Arctic seems to be warming up" as "so little ice has never before been noted." By the 1970s, schoolchildren were indoctrinated by textbooks blaming a new ice age on man's Earth abuse.

All this begs the question of how long it will take the warmist crew to readjust their scare story to win back the public. The majority firmly rejects their socialist prescription to solve an imaginary problem.


More...

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)

Al Gore Exposed

Al Gore is being revealed as a charlatan and a fraud like never before. Every time he speaks now he digs his hole deeper. He is becoming an ever-growing source of richly-deserved ridicule. Al Gore makes Tiger Woods look like an honest man. How do these people look themselves in the mirror? The best thing they could do is give all their money to charity and disappear, forever. Both of them have the morals of a sewer rat. Note that in the cartoon below even the polar bears are laughing at Big Al.
Peter

In Denial

The meltdown of the climate campaign.

BY Steven F. Hayward

March 15, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 25 (source)

It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago—changed the narrative decisively. Additional revelations of unethical behavior, errors, and serial exaggeration in climate science are rolling out on an almost daily basis, and there is good reason to expect more.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hitherto the gold standard in climate science, is under fire for shoddy work and facing calls for a serious shakeup. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the self-serving coalition of environmentalists and big business hoping to create a carbon cartel, is falling apart in the wake of the collapse of any prospect of enacting cap and trade in Congress. Meanwhile, the climate campaign’s fallback plan to have the EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the cumbersome Clean Air Act is generating bipartisan opposition. The British media—even the left-leaning, climate alarmists of the Guardian and BBC—are turning on the climate campaign with a vengeance. The somnolent American media, which have done as poor a job reporting about climate change as they did on John Edwards, have largely averted their gaze from the inconvenient meltdown of the climate campaign, but the rock solid edifice in the newsrooms is cracking. Al Gore was conspicuously missing in action before surfacing with a long article in the New York Times on February 28, reiterating his familiar parade of horribles: The sea level will rise! Monster storms! Climate refugees in the hundreds of millions! Political chaos the world over! It was the rhetorical equivalent of stamping his feet and saying “It is too so!” In a sign of how dramatic the reversal of fortune has been for the climate campaign, it is now James Inhofe, the leading climate skeptic in the Senate, who is eager to have Gore testify before Congress.

The body blows to the climate campaign did not end with the Climategate emails. The IPCC—which has produced four omnibus assessments of climate science since 1992—has issued several embarrassing retractions from its most recent 2007 report, starting with the claim that Himalayan glaciers were in danger of melting as soon as 2035. That such an outlandish claim would be so readily accepted is a sign of the credulity of the climate campaign and the media: Even if extreme global warming occurred over the next century, the one genuine scientific study available estimated that the huge ice fields of the Himalayas would take more than 300 years to melt—a prediction any beginning chemistry student could confirm with a calculator. (The actual evidence is mixed: Some Himalayan glaciers are currently expanding.) The source for the melt-by-2035 claim turned out to be not a peer-reviewed scientific assessment, but a report from an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which in turn lifted the figure from a popular magazine article in India whose author later disavowed his offhand speculation.

But what made this first retraction noteworthy was the way in which it underscored the thuggishness of the climate establishment. The IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri (an economist and former railroad engineer who is routinely described as a “climate scientist”), initially said that critics of the Himalayan glacier melt prediction were engaging in “voodoo science,” though it later turned out that Pachauri had been informed of the error in early December—in advance of the U.N.’s climate change conference in Copenhagen—but failed to disclose it. He’s invoking the Charlie Rangel defense: It was my staff’s fault. (continued here)