Who Are You Calling A "Denier"?

The Label "Denier" Is A Lie

I am not in "denial". I am not part of any "public relations" program. I am not beholden to nor paid by anyone to express my opinion about what I call the myth of man-caused global warming. Oh, and I am an Earth Scientist, a Geologist to be exact. My original interest in this subject has been purely scientific. It is politicians who have made global warming a world-wide political and economic issue. I have all of this well-documented and I've done it purely as a hobby, as ...almost a personal battle against injustice.

 

It is unjust because most people are not scientists and are too busy with their own lives to look into the real science behind the concept of man-caused global warming. As sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, I am sure man's activities are not significantly involved in causing global warming or climate change. People are and have been systematically, callously, relentlessly, calculatingly indoctrinated into believing that the burning of fossil fuels, (coal and oil) is causing global warming, climate change and every weather-related event, the more dramatic and destructive the better.

 And our government just keeps pouring out the false propaganda, and since the government might as well own the mainstream media, theirs is the only side of the story most people hear. It is a travesty and a tragedy. It is being pursued by governments for only one reason: to control the energy industry and use it as a means of further controlling and taxing the people. It is like taxing the food we eat or the air we breathe. When and if people become aware of this, they will become, as I am, outraged.

Read the following typically slanted article and check out my blog linked in the comments section.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwynne/2014/06/26/the-public-relations-debate-about-global-warming-heats-up/

 Opening quote from the linked article in Forbes:

 

"The denial of man-made global warming is one of the greatest PR campaigns in history.  With echoes of the industry-funded research from tobacco companies that denied links between smoking and lung cancer, the well-coordinated PR plan has delayed new regulations for coal and petroleum industries and influenced millions of Americans."

 

The author of this article is wrong, exaggerated, uneducated, and inflammatory in nearly everything he says.  It is little wonder I don't pay much attention to anything printed in Forbes Magazine.  How can they pay someone to write something so stupid?

Glaciers As Global Warming Drama, Part Of The Big Lie

The nonsense about man-caused global warming and climate change just keeps coming.  It is the grandest hoax of our age, and that is saying a lot.  What is the latest outrage to irk me?  Glaciers.  Plain old ice.

Everyone responds to dramatic effects.  The news media knows that.  Hollywood knows that.  We are a culture bred to respond to video or photographic images.  Man was first influenced by verbal story tellers, then accompanied by song, then came the written word, then the drawn or painted visual word, followed by photographs, then moving photographs, now video and everything digitized and available anywhere at the speed of light. 

This is why glaciers are used so often to depict "catastrophic" global warming, because they are visual, huge, dramatic, and awe-inspiring.  Imagine, people take cruises to places like Alaska, Patagonia, Argentina, and Antarctica, for what?  To see big ice cubes (glaciers) melt.  Then they attribute the melting to man's burning of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2).  Apparently, many people are so awed by this melting ice they are willing to open their wallets and freely give money to those who promise stop the calamity of big melting ice cubes.  This melting and freezing of glacial ice has always been going on.  It is nothing new.  Al Gore did not invent it.  It is not a catastrophe because President Obama's teleprompter says so, or because John Kerry is instructed to say it is.  It all sounds insane, doesn't it.  Well, it is.

Why do they continue lying to us about global warming and climate change as being (or implied to be) man-caused in articles like the following? The only answer is we are being manipulated. What is the reason? If this effort is based on lies, it is wrong, and our money (taxes) are being taken unfairly and we ought to be outraged. Can it be much simpler than that? Are we so afraid to dissent and disagree that we march along like sheep to the slaughter? Have we as a people, as a nation, sunk so low, become so passive, so obedient? I hope not, even if recent election results seem to indicate otherwise.
Peter

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229752.600-ice-sheets-may-have-already-passed-point-of-no-return.html#.U6uKCjco6eQ

"THE cracks are beginning to show. Greenland's ice sheets slid into the sea 400,000 years ago, when Earth was only a little warmer than it is today. That could mean we are set for a repeat performance.

The finding, along with data from Antarctica, suggests both of Earth's big ice sheets may have already passed a crucial tipping point, condemning them to collapse – either melting, or sliding into the ocean. That will mean sea levels rising by as much as 13 metres, leading to massive coastal flooding. So how fast will the ice collapse, and can we stop it?"

 

(Is the above statement from the linked article complete sensationalist nonsense, or what?  Of course it is, and it is typical of what our young people are being fed and considered science.  Think of what a steady diet of this poison does.  And we wonder why people vote the way they do?  Peter)

The Big Lie: Global Warming And Climate Change, cont'd.

Man-Caused Global Warming And Climate Change: A Monstrous Lie

It is well known and documented that Alpine Glaciers (those found in mountainous areas) have advanced and retreated many times in recordable history.  This is history witnessed and written of by man during the past approximate 5,000 years.  There is unmistakable and unarguable evidence these glaciers have advanced and retreated many times since the end of the last Ice Age, when Continental Ice Sheets covered much of the Polar Regions and the Northern Hemisphere.  Something caused this glacial retreat, or melting, and it wasn't man-caused.  At least this melting occurred before he burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

These were also at least as rapid climate changes as we see in the world today.  So what is unique about current events?  Why are we in such a frenzy to "stop climate change"?  It is nothing unusual, unless we're being scared and panicked by fear?  Is it so we will happily, or a least willingly, pay more taxes, carbon taxes or otherwise, to solve this imaginary warming problem?  We should be worried, but not about global warming.
Peter

Perito Moreno Glacier, Argentine Patagonia

Scientist Reveals Inconvenient Truth to Alarmists

Tuesday, 17 Jun 2014 07:59 AM

By Larry Bell

Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

 

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”

 

Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

 

Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

 

Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

 

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”

 

Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years."

 

 

Such changes can occur very rapidly. His research team was stunned to find trunks of huge trees near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier which had all died in just a single year. They determined that time to be 8,200 years ago based upon oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice which showed marked cooling.

Casting serious doubt upon alarmist U.N.-IPCC projections that the Alps will be nearly glacier-free by 2100, Schlüchter poses several challenging questions: “Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the Earth 'tip' in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in the 1880s, 1920s, and 1980s? . . . Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”

 

Although we witness ongoing IPCC attempts to blame such developments upon evil fossil-fueled CO2 emissions, that notion fails to answer these questions. Instead, Schlüchter believes that the sun is the principal long-term driver of climate change, with tectonics and volcanoes acting as significant contributors.

 

Regarding IPCC integrity with strong suspicion, Schlüchter recounts a meeting in England that he was “accidentally” invited to which was led by “someone of the East Anglia Climate Center who had come under fire in the wake of the Climategate e-mails.”

 

As he describes it: “The leader of the meeting spoke like some kind of Father. He was seated at a table in front of those gathered and he took messages. He commented on them either benevolently or dismissively.”

 

Schlüchter’s view of the proceeding took a final nosedive towards the end of the discussion. As he noted: “Lastly it was about tips on research funding proposals and where to submit them best. For me it was impressive to see how the leader of the meeting collected and selected information.”

As a number of other prominent climate scientists I know will attest, there’s one broadly recognized universal tip for those seeking government funding. All proposals with any real prospects for success should somehow link climate change with human activities rather than to natural causes. Even better, those human influences should intone dangerous consequences.

 

Schlüchter warns that the reputation of science is becoming more and more damaged as politics and money gain influence. He concludes, “For me it also gets down to the credibility of science . . . Today many natural scientists are helping hands of politicians, and are no longer scientists who occupy themselves with new knowledge and data. And that worries me.”

 

Yes. That should worry everyone.

 

Larry Bell is a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston, where he directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and heads the graduate program in space architecture. He is author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax,” and his professional aerospace work has been featured on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel-Canada.

see more

19 You must sign in to down-vote this post.

Politicians And Liberal Policy Makers Take Note: Buying Into The Bad Carbon Myth Is Damaging To Your Career

Obama is behind the curve again.  His advisers (or his teleprompter) are putting out totally flawed ideas that other governments around the world are recognizing as abysmal failures.  Here, now, I am referring to the idea of carbon taxes, carbon offsets, or any other schemes to raise tax revenues on the backs of higher energy prices for consumers.
 
Politicians around the world who bought into the idea of fossil fuel-burning, carbon dioxide causing global warming and climate change are realizing what a mistake they have made.  It is costing not only the public in terms of lost jobs, higher energy costs, and a lowered standard of living, but now as near bankruptcy looms, politicians are the ones feeling  the heat.  It will only get warmer in the frying pan these self-serving clowns (politicians) find themselves in.  The following article describes the problems liberal politicians in Australia are encountering because they have bought into the climate fear-mongering.  I have no sympathy.  They should, and do know better.  They have allowed the greed of carbon taxes overwhelm the obvious.  Man's activities are not causing catastrophic climate change, and to try and alter the global climate is political folly, or even suicide.  Eventually, the truth prevails.
Peter

Australia's carbon mess a warning to the world: Clyde Russell

     

 

The evil Mr. Carbon scaring the children.

 

 Source:

• http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/column-russell-carbon-australia-idUSL4N0FN0ER20130717?feedType=RSS&feedName=industrialsSector&rpc=43

 

Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:47am EDT

--Clyde Russell is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own.--
By Clyde Russell
LAUNCESTON, Australia, July 17 (Reuters) - Any government thinking of introducing policies to limit carbon emissions should look at Australia for an example of how not to do it.
Australia's efforts to combat climate change have been poison to politicians from all sides of the debate, contributing so far to the demise of two prime ministers and an opposition leader, and there may be more to come.

The latest twist has seen Prime Minister Kevin Rudd decide to switch from a straight tax on carbon emissions to a floating emissions trading scheme (ETS) a year earlier than planned.

This has nothing to do with improving the workings of the scheme or limiting carbon emissions and everything to do with trying to win back voters angered by rising electricity prices and industries that have seen their international competitiveness eroded by the tax.

The theory is that power and other prices will decline as the cost of carbon permits is expected to be around A$6 per tonne - the level at which European permits are currently priced - compared to the tax of A$25.40 ($23.09) per tonne that had been planned from July 2014.

Assuming European carbon permits don't rise in price, which is a fairly big call given efforts to reduce the supply of permits, Rudd's changes will save the average Australian household A$4 a week in electricity costs.

Whether this is enough to assuage public anger and help Rudd's Labor Party win re-election will become clear in the coming months as he has to call a federal election by end-November.
But Rudd's efforts to remove the carbon tax as an election issue only serve to underline how badly the whole thing has been handled.

When Rudd was first elected prime minister in 2007 he called climate change the "greatest moral, social and economic challenge of our time", signed Australia up to the Kyoto Protocol and proceeded to design an ETS.

This even enjoyed rare bi-partisan support from the then leader of the Liberal opposition Malcolm Turnbull.

However, it was Turnbull's support for the ETS that helped undo his leadership and he was ousted by his colleagues in December 2009, being replaced by the more conservative Tony Abbott, who withdrew his party's support for Rudd's plans.

Rudd's own popularity fell as he struggled to gain public support for his carbon scheme and a controversial new mining tax, leading to his ouster in a party coup in June 2010.
His replacement as prime minister, Julia Gillard, scrapped the planned ETS, making a promise that any government she led wouldn't introduce a carbon tax.

This commitment came back to haunt her after the August 2010 election, in which she managed to hang on to power by cutting a deal with Australian Greens and two conservative independent lawmakers to form a minority government.

Part of her agreement with the Greens was the introduction of a carbon tax with a fixed price per tonne of emissions up until July 2015, at which point it would change to a floating, traded price.
The broken promise was seized upon at every opportunity by the Liberal opposition and conservative media commentators, and in turn contributed to Gillard's poor performance in opinion polls.
When these polls showed her Labor Party heading for a massive defeat in an election she scheduled for September, her colleagues once again ousted a prime minister, bringing back Rudd in a party room vote last month.

Rudd's popularity with the public has seen the Labor Party inch closer to the Liberals in opinion polls, putting pressure on Abbott, who courted ridicule as a climate sceptic earlier this week by describing the ETS as a "so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance".
However, the Liberals are still ahead in opinion polls and if they win the upcoming election, Abbott has promised to scrap the carbon tax and the move to an ETS, replacing it with what he terms "direct action" on climate change.

But even if his party does win the election, it may not control both houses of parliament, and the lack of a majority in the upper house Senate may cruel Abbott's plans, as legislation has to clear both chambers.

It's little wonder that businesses and the public want some kind of resolution to the issue, but the upcoming vote may not deliver this, at least not immediately.
Part of the problem with Gillard's carbon tax is that it was more of a welfare programme than a plan to reduce emissions.

The tax raised was used to fund a raft of welfare measures to compensate for the higher prices caused by the tax.
The plans of both Rudd and Abbott would see the revenue from the tax fall dramatically or disappear altogether, but the welfare payments would remain, leaving the nation's budget with the worst possible outcome.
Rudd said his plan to move earlier to an ETS would cost the budget some A$4 billion, which would be recouped through spending cuts and tightening rules around company-funded vehicles for employees.

Abbott has so far only promised to end a small portion of welfare payments and seek spending cuts across the government.
Absent from both plans is much talk about climate change and carbon emissions.
Australia is the world's 15th-largest polluter and the highest per capita in the developed world, largely as a result of 80 percent of power being coal-fired and the prevalence of carbon-intensive industries such as mining and liquefied natural gas plants.

The existing carbon tax may actually be able to claim some credit for reducing emissions, with Australia's overall greenhouse gas emissions dropping 0.2 percent in 2012 from the prior year, and those from electricity generation by 4.7 percent.
But this success, while modest, is completely drowned out by the political machinations.
What the Australian experience shows is that any government tackling climate change needs as broad a consensus as possible, and that it should be done for the right reasons, not political expediency

Planet Earth Does Not "Lose" Ice

Breaking news: planet Earth does not "lose" ice or water.  Ice either melts into water and is stored in the oceans, lakes, rivers, atmosphere or underground reservoirs.  When ice is not melting, water is being added to glaciers as snow and ice.  This cycle of cooling and warming, melting and freezing, has been going on essentially since the creation of the Earth.  Note this has been going on longer and is controlled by forces far greater than humans burning fossil fuels.

Here is a summary of what is known as the Earth's Hydrologic Cycle, taken from this blog.  You can do a search of this blog and find much more.
Peter

The Earth's Hydrologic (Water) Cycle - Pete'sPlace

Jan 24, 2008

It seems a refresher course in the basics of the Earth's hydrologic cycle is in order. First of all, it needs to be understood that there is a finite, or relatively fixed amount of water on or in the Earth. This does not, has not, and can ...

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/

Chilling Report: Earth Loses 300 Billion Tons of Ice Each Year

Takepart.com – 6 hrs ago

It is amazing to see because it feels so clearly out of place, but in some spots along Antarctica’s coast you can actually find hints of grass and other plant life—green evidence that in parts of the long-frozen continent the ice is thinning, and fast.

 

But just how much ice is being lost? A new, ten-year study conducted by Bristol University’s Glaciology Centre says that between Antarctica and Greenland, the answer is 300 billion tons a year.
That’s a lot of ice cubes.

In scientific terms, a decade makes for a short study; this one can’t forecast whether this kind of loss will sustain into the future. (Though reasoned experts believe it will and may even accelerate.) But if it continues at this pace, goodbye Miami, Hong Kong, New York City, etc., as well as the homes of hundreds of millions who live on estuaries, deltas, coral atolls and great city river basins around the globe.

The two massive ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica combined—the ice in Antarctica is three miles thick at some places—contain 99.5 percent of the earth’s glacier ice. If it were all to melt (which would admittedly take centuries), sea levels would rise by 500 to 600 feet.

I’ve been to Antarctica on a couple dozen different trips, mostly along it’s long, skinny Peninsula, which because it is surrounded by warming ocean on both sides is the area most-impacted by the planet’s changing climate. It’s there each austral summer that more shorelines are exposed thanks to disappearing ice, and where you find hints of plant life. (How did the seeds get there? Most likely hitchhiking on fishing boats and visiting tourist ships, both growing in numbers.)

Another satellite study, conducted over the past 20 years by NASA and the European Space Agency, confirms the Bristol study, reporting that the planet’s ice sheets have melted faster in the last 20 years than in the last 10,000.

According to this study, melting ice from both poles has been responsible for a fifth of the global rise in sea levels since 1992. The rest was caused by the thermal expansion of the warming ocean, the melting of mountain glaciers, small Arctic ice caps and groundwater mining. The share of the polar ice melt, however, is rising and most concerning.

When it comes to Antarctica, though, it can be tricky to generalize. It is a huge continent; the U.S. could easily fit inside its borders. In the huge area of East Antarctica, where the ice is mostly above sea level, the air temperature is also much lower, and the experts do not expect the ice to melt on account of rising temperatures. In this part of Antarctica, the ice sheet is actually growing as a consequence of increased snowfall.

But today, using a variety of satellite reports and on-the-ice studies that have been going on for many decades, even conservative scientists say sea levels are rising 60 percent faster than what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2007.

No Sea Level Rise, No Consensus, No Surprise

The fact that scientists cannot measure, nor predict any future world-wide sea level rise is certainly no surprise to me.  The same should be true to anyone with any knowledge of basic Earth history.  Actually the same should be true of any thinking person who has been to the beach, looked out over the vast ocean, flown over the ocean, looked at a globe, or watched any of many video documentaries shown often on television.  If fact this should be true of anyone who has not been totally brainwashed by one of Al Gore's pseudo scientific "documentaries" like "An Inconvenient Truth", or to anyone who has not been totally mind-numbed by our public education system.

In spite of a lack of consensus about future sea level rise, and it being an obviously politically-motivated, fear-driven hoax, the fearful spectre of catastrophic sea level rise continues to be rammed down people's consciousness' by the liberal controlled mainstream media.  Wow, major scandal, right?  No, it seems people have been lulled to sleep.  But anyone who is the least curious about the subject ought to read the following article.
Peter
 

'There is no scientific consensus' on sea-level rise, say scientists

Written by Lewis Page, The Register on July 16 2013.

There isn't enough data to say with any certainty what will happen to sea levels around the world this century, and there is no "scientific consensus" to suggest that the rate of the seas' rise will accelerate dangerously.
That's according to a group of eminent specialists based in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. Writing in hefty boffinry journal Nature Geoscience this week, the assembled experts have this to say [Our emphasis]:

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been reported to be losing mass at accelerating rates ... However, at present there is no scientific consensus on whether these reported accelerations result from variability inherent to the ice-sheet–climate system, or reflect long-term changes ...

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are very important factors in forecasting the rate at which the seas might rise in the coming century, which is perhaps the primary reason to be concerned about global warming and associated climate changes.
During the 20th century, sea levels as measured by tide gauges rose about 17cm, just short of 2mm a year. The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that "no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th-century data alone", but the organisation nonetheless forecast rises in the 21st century of 26-59cm as many scientists think that the rate of rise will increase seriously due to global warming.
Many others boffins assess that the ice sheets are so massive that they will take centuries to respond to likely levels of warming. Recent first-of-its-kind analysis pulling together all the factors in play suggested that the worst possible case in 2100 would be 30cm with the likely result less - in other words, no major change from the 20th century situation. And that was before new studies came out reflecting the fact that global warming has been basically on hold for the last decade and more, meaning that warming forecasts should be revised downwards.
Be all that as it may, the next IPCC report is now being produced. It will attempt to reflect what the various committees and advisors believe to be the scientific consensus on various matters including sea levels. But it appears that there simply isn't any scientific consensus on the Antarctic and Greenland melt rates - and therefore there isn't one on sea levels either.
You wouldn't necessarily know this. Various organisations, for instance the Google-funded alarmist activism organisation Climate Central, say that there is a consensus and that it centres on a much higher figure - one or even two metres of rise by 2100. ("Scientists expect" this, we are told by the Google mouthpieces.)
One of the authors of the new study today, Professor Jonathan Bamber of Bristol uni, carried out a previous effort to work out what scientists think sea levels will do, in which metre-range rises were described as "conceivable" but highly unlikely.
"Expert opinion is shown to be both very uncertain and undecided," that study said.
The scientists compiling the new assessment say that there simply isn't enough data yet (especially from the GRACE satellites which have lately produced such surprising results on glacier and ice sheet mass) to know what will happen. In the case of the Greenland ice sheet, at least another ten years of data will be required.
According to a Bristol uni statement released to highlight the research:

As a result, extrapolation of the current contribution to sea-level rise of the ice sheets to 2100 may be too high or low by as much as 35 cm. The study, therefore, urges caution in extrapolating current measurements to predict future sea-level rise.

IPCC drafters, take note.
Source

Ignorance and Bias Passed Off As Global Warming Journalism?

It is amazing that anyone so uneducated and ignorant about the basics of science would write an article about global warming, its causes and its effects on climate.  What is sad is there are so many people who believe things like written in the following article.  Sad and dangerous.  This is akin to playing the race or the gender card in politics.  Oh, and this writer even dragged in the perennial "bad guy", by speculating that oil companies are paying off Congressmen.  That is not only inaccurate, it is way too old, disproved, and not even imaginative.  The equation the author of the following article is really trying to prove is 2+3 = 4.
Peter

When It Comes to Climate Change, This Is the Only Equation You Need to Know

Takepart.com – 10 hrs ago

 

I didn’t go to science school, or anything amazing like that, but I’m fairly certain the following mathematical equation—which I just made up like 20 minutes ago—accurately and succinctly summarizes the current state of the climate-political complex in the United States.

 

 

X + Y = we’re screwed

Please sit tight as I define the variables of my newfangled equation:
X = The World Meteorological Organization recently released a report on the years 2001 to 2010. As reads go, it was royal snooze. As warning shots go, it was a howitzer of the first order. According to the study, the first decade of the twenty-first century was the hottest since the start of modern measurements in 1850. The hottest. In 160 years!

This heat surge lead to “a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the world’s glaciers.”

The most tragic thread of the report? That'd have to be the 370,000 people that were killed by climage-change fueled extreme weather events like hurricanes and droughts in the last decade. This is a 20 percent increase from the 1990s.

And now for the really depressing news:
Y = Last week, Climate Progress published a truly vexatious infographic that exposes just how deeply intertwined the tentacles of the fossil fuel industry are with some members of the one hundred thirteenth Congress.

Says the report: 115 current beltway baby-kissers have welcomed with open arms—and no doubt smug smirks and sly winks—more than $51 million in campaign contributions from big oil and gas. As part of this quid pro quo deal, these members of Congress are then responsible for standing in lockstep opposition to any legislation—be it Obama’s appointment to the EPA or, say, the House's 2009 climate change bill—that would in any way, in any way, curb greenhouse gas emissions. These are the very same emissions, need I remind you, that 97 percent of peer-reviewed climatologists unquivocably say is causing climate change.

So, to summarize:

We’re speeding for the climate cliff and the traffic cops have dropped their radar guns to count their bribe money with both hands.

More fear-mongering and stupid stories from the same source.  Go here to read more:
http://news.yahoo.com/comes-climate-change-only-equation-know-032821325.html

• Obama’s Climate Plan: Buh-Bye, Big Coal
• Will Climate-Change-Fueled Superstorms Wipe Out London?
• Climate Change Crime Wave: Study Links Global Warming to 30,000 Additional Murders by 2099

Department of Defense Afraid Of Global Warming And Climate Change?

Unsubstantiated fear mongering?  Politically motivated liberal propaganda?  Global warming a threat to "national security"?  A far, far more serious threat is the people who believe in this kind of hogwash.  The frightening thing is many of them can vote.  Does anyone think the Defense Department is playing on people's fears in order to secure more funding?  They don't do that, do they?  For a good laugh, or cry, read the article.
Peter

U.S. Military Prepares for Global Unrest Amid Climate Fears (Op-Ed)

By Marlene Cimons, Climate Nexus | LiveScience.com – 6 hrs ago

• U.S. Military Prepares for Global …

 

Though Earth's shifting climate evokes many images, civil unrest usually isn't one of them. Yet, a warming planet could have a profound impact on national security, both in the United States and abroad. This time, the threat isn't from terrorism or a single enemy, but from natural disasters occurring on an unprecedented scale.

Acts of nature fueled by a warming climate — for example, floods and prolonged drought — may lead to disrupted migration, food and water shortages, and other public health crises — which, in turn, could prompt civil and political instability. Those impacts would pose a particularly profound threat for people in countries with fragile governments, including key U.S. strategic interests.

This threat has Pentagon officials worried enough to speak out and to invest in research to better understand the relationships among conflict, socioeconomic conditions and climate. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) plans to use the data to predict future threats and develop ways to cope with them.

Under its highly selective Minerva social-science program, the DOD has awarded researchers at the University of Maryland a three-year, $1.9 million grant to develop models that will help policymakers anticipate what could happen to societies under a range of potential climate-change scenarios.

To read the entire article click on the following link:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-military-prepares-global-unrest-amid-climate-fears-214356511.html

Sea Level Rise Will Drown Us All --- The Big Lie Continues

It doesn't matter how irrational their message is, or how often and thoroughly their predictions have been proven wrong. The global warming doomsayers just keep repeating themselves, hoping if they repeat themselves often enough, someone will listen to them.  I think their devious strategy is proving wrong.  People get weary and wary of the hype. 

The problem is people then become jaded, and don't believe anything.  Taken farther, people lose trust in their political leaders, even their educators who they see as either being stupid or "part of the big lie".  Then what happens?  A lack of respect for authority leads to a general breakdown in society.  Do you think I'm exaggerating?  Take a look around.  Consider the growing lack of respect for law enforcement officers because of the abuses of a few.  Consider the lack of trust generated by the NSA leaks.  Add the admitted spying on ordinary, law-abiding people by the FBI, the IRS, the EPA, then tie all of that into the "Affordable Health Care Act", or Obamacare as it is more popularly known.  The continual effort to get us to believe in the great myth of man-controlled global warming , or as they now call it, "climate change"  is just part of the big hoax, the big effort to rule, control, and abuse ordinary people.  It is not good friends.

This kind of distrust leads to people not taking immunization shots because they distrust doctors.  How many people lie about their income, hide their income, or do everything they can to avoid paying taxes.  That is what leads to black markets and smuggling in broken countries.  Ban alcohol, ban drugs, ban guns and ammunition?  Guess what, people will find a way, illegally or not, to get what they want.  Why are people buying guns in record numbers, and hoarding ammunition?  They're doing it because they don't trust our government.  So continually promoting this man-caused global warming nonsense is wrong, counter-productive and produces nothing but harm, to our society, tragically to our environment and the planet we all love and refer to as Mother Earth.

Here is another of the stories in the media that keep repeating the same old party line.  The big "boogie man" SEA LEVEL RISE is going to submerge us all.
Peter

Seas may rise 2.3 metres per degree of global warming-report

By Erik Kirschbaum

BERLIN, July 15 | Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:22am EDT

BERLIN, July 15 (Reuters) - Sea levels could rise by 2.3 metres for each degree Celsius that global temperatures increase and they will remain high for centuries to come, according to a new study by the leading climate research institute, released on Monday.
 Anders Levermann said his study for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research was the first to examine evidence from climate history and combine it with computer simulations of contributing factors to long-term sea-level increases: thermal expansion of oceans, the melting of mountain glaciers and the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
Scientists say global warming is responsible for the melting ice. A U.N. panel of scientists, the IPCC, says heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels are nudging up temperatures. A small number of scientists dismiss human-influenced global warming, arguing natural climate fluctuations are responsible.

"We're confident that our estimate is robust because of the combination of physics and data that we used," Levermann told Reuters. "We think we've set a benchmark for how much sea levels will rise along with temperature increases."

continued here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/climate-ice-study-idUSL6N0FJ0A720130715?feedType=RSS&feedName=industrialsSector&rpc=43 

Liberals Keep Flogging The Dead Horse of Man-Caused Global Warming

No, this is not an example of the emotional fear mongering used continuously and repetitively by the liberal media to promote the belief in man-caused global warming.  (Sarcasm now off).  Yet the political sheep following this on-going hoax act outraged that anyone would  dare accuse them of manipulating people's emotions to achieve their political objectives.  They are just digging themselves deeper and deeper into a moral and factual hole.  Eventually it will cave in on them.  Read the entire article here.
Peter

We’re in Deep Water: What Climate Change Could Do to Your City (PHOTOS)

Fish flopping on Venice Boulevard, dolphins circumnavigating palm trees, whales beached on the boardwalk—these are the mental images that artist and researcher Nickolay Lamm’s climate change creations bring to the surface.

 

Lamm, from the self-storage search engine StorageFront.com, crafted chilling illustrations that depict how climate change could have Venice, San Diego and many other metropolitan cities gasping for air.

With the help of Climate Central’s sea level rise maps and flood formulas, Lamm used data to create realistic images of American towns completely submerged in seawater. He started with stock photos of a city and cross-referenced their location to topography maps. Lamm then implemented a formula that determined what that city would look like using elevation, tide and sea level forecasts.

“By illustrating what sea level rise will look like in real life,” Lamm tells Mashable, “I'm hoping to make our rising oceans a bigger issue on peoples' minds.”

Climate Central forecasts that the Earth’s temperature will rise by between three and seven more degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Since climbing temperatures mean melting polar ice caps and rising seas, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research predicts that the sea level is expected to rise between two and seven feet by the century’s end.

So what are we waiting for? If we go with the flow and let climate change swell, our greatest cities could be in deep water. 

Insane Waste Of Money On Global Warming And Climate Change Continues

The absurd notion that mankind is causing global warming and hence climate change continues to be spread by the liberal controlled media.  It is not seriously questioned often enough because too many people are making and stand to make Billions of dollars from the "biggest hoax of all time."  It has become such a political hot-potato that even people in positions to know, like scientists, are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs, their funding, or worse.  Yes, there is THAT much money involved.  Now we learn that the NSA, IRS, FBI, EPA, etc. is listening in on, and sometimes selectively blocking or censoring everything we read and write.  Are we living in a "Police State"?  Yes, beyond a doubt.  Watch, I'll be shut down just for saying this.

The idea that we could actually change and control the Earth's huge and complex atmospheric climate system is even more absurd.  People won't even go close to asking the question "could we really control climate change even if we put every last human effort and dollar to work on the issue?"  The answer is obviously NO.  I mean 1/3 of the people in the U.S. are on food stamps, tens of millions of people are unemployed, or underemployed, and people want to spend Billions more to try and change the climate?  Insane.

To the ignorant trolls lurking out there: you bet it's a political issue.  It has to be.  New bills and taxes are being forced down our throats by our legislators on this issue every day.  It has long gone way past being a scientific question, which I originally, naively assumed.  As a scientist, I had faith in logic, reason, facts, and the scientific method.  No longer.  We have lost control to big business, and big politics or big government.  So we must fight the insanity using every method we can.

Politicians look at a "carbon tax" on everything we do, and they DROOL; because most of the energy we use requires the release of simple (and harmless) carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  They salivate or dream about grabbing all that potential tax revenue.  It is literally like being able to tax the air we breath.  We do produce and release carbon dioxide every time we exhale.  Simply speaking, we breath in oxygen, use it for vital physiological functions, and our bodies convert it to carbon dioxide.  And our government wants to tax it!!!!  Amazing  (and sad) that so many people are so uneducated that they accept such absurd tax proposals.  Obviously most of our public school teachers have also fallen for or are intimidated into accepting the global warming/human connection hoax.

Now we get some egomaniac control-freak, like Billionaire NYC Mayor Bloomberg making proposals like the one described in the article below.  Such idiocy is actually treasonous, if you think about it.  What destroys America's economy, destroys America.
Peter

Mayor Bloomberg Pledges $20 Billion NYC Doesn't Have To Address Global Warming Which Isn't Happening

Written by Jeff Dunetz, The Lid.

Build a Boat! It's Gonna Start Flooding! (sometime soon). According to Mommy Mayor Bloomberg NYC is about to be flooded because of global warming, so he's announced a $20 billion dollar plan to prevent the big apple from becoming the worlds largest bobbing for apples game.  Its a reasonable plan with only two problems, the City doesn't have that kind of money and the sea level isn't rising, in fact temperatures haven't risen in 15+ years.
Mayor Bloomberg unveiled a $20 billion plan to defend New York City from what he claim will be the ravages of global warming in the coming decades. His  plan will cost the average New York City household nearly $3,000.

Bloomberg’s 430-page plan, Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency, includes approximately 250 recommendations ranging from new floodwalls and storm barriers to upgrades in the city’s power and telecommunications infrastructure. The plan also calls for $1.2 billion in loans and grants to help owners make buildings more resilient to floods and proposes changes in the city’s building code.

New York has always had to deal with the threat of flooding. Hurricanes and severe tropical storms have struck the area periodically since the founding of New Amsterdam (today’s New York) in 1624.Bloomberg announced the plan by claiming New Yorkers could either “do nothing and expose ourselves to an increasing frequency of Sandy-like storms” or “make the investments necessary to build a stronger, more resilient New York.”

 

Bloomberg is correct about the frequency of bad hurricanes, there was Hurricane Donna in 1960 (a category 2), Hurricane Gloria in 1985, Irene in 2011 and Sandy in 2012.  See--a-15-year-gap followed by a 26-year gap and a 1-year gap (there were other storms but these were the bad ones).  Come on Mayor! Four bad hurricanes in 52 years and you are freaking out!

“I have trouble seeing exactly how spending $20 billion—that’s billion with a ‘b’—will prevent bad weather or climate,” said climate scientist Willie Soon. “In general, to be more prepared is a good thing. But preparing, as New York City is apparently doing, using the faulty climate modeling scenarios offered by the UN IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is a serious distortion of basic science.”

 

As far as sea levels---that's also nonsense. The President forgot  ever since the last ice-age 10,000 years ago, sea levels have been rising. So unless the Neanderthals were imitating Al Gore and flying private jets and driving gas guzzlers, rising sea levels are not caused by man but by natural phenomena.

The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 20 feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).

But Mother Nature was never good at computer science.  Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What's even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006.  Just like there has been no warming since 1998.

Gotta feel bad for the Mayor, he must be having some pretty bad nightmares to believe the City that never sleeps is going to become the city that can't keep its head above the water. Maybe he should stop having spicy food before he goes to sleep.  Perhaps instead he could relax with a nice 44 ounce Slurpee.
Source

The Truth About CO2 Destroys The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

Here are some key points from the following linked article:

Al Gore backlash: Why environmentalists are celebrating rising CO2 levels

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040588_carbon_dioxide_environmentalists_Al_Gore.html#ixzz2VG8CxPBt

#3 - The current level of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is 400ppm. By comparison, Oxygen exists in the atmosphere at 210,000ppm. When you exhale, your own breath contains 40,000ppm of CO2, and if you know anything about emergency first aid, then you know that breathing this 40,000ppm of CO2 into another person's body (mouth-to-mouth resuscitation) is a lifesaving action. It's not uncommon for CO2 to reach levels of 3000ppm in homes, schools and offices. OSHA allows workers to work in environments with up to 5000ppm of CO2. (Because, again, oxygen is present at 210,000ppm, vastly out-weighing the CO2.)

So all this talk of carbon dioxide threatening the entire planet at just 400ppm -- less than one-half of 1/1000th of the air -- is pure nonsense. Total quack science fearmongering.

In fact, most of what we've all been told about CO2 over the pat few years is a complete lie. It's time to stop believing these lies and wake up to reality. Most importantly, stop defending the CO2 / global warming hoax. Yes, CO2 is rising, but it's mostly from non-human activity, and rising levels actually support forests and plants everywhere.

How did I "wake up" to this information? It's simple: I used to be a believer in the CO2 hoax until I really began to study plant physiology and aquaponics production. Only then did I discover that CO2 is a vital nutrient for plant growth and that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were radically deficient for optimal reforestation and plant biology. My awakening to this in no way means I endorse coal or oil industries, both of which are dirty polluters of the planet. But I am no longer allowing myself to be conned by the likes of Al Gore who has successfully convinced far too many people that their own breath is a global pollutant that needs to be regulated and taxed.

The CO2 scam is nothing more than a global tax moneymaking scheme being pushed by people who hope to get rich off our collective guilt for a problem that's entirely fabricated and fictional.

Man-Caused Global Warming...A Big LIE All Along

"Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence." 

Al Gore isn't a fraud, is he?  Our government wouldn't lie and cover up the truth, would they?  Scientists wouldn't tweak the data a bit to get continued funding , would they?  Obama wouldn't use the EPA to enforce his agenda, would he?  Or the IRS?  No, our government couldn't possibly be that corrupt.
Peter

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html#ixzz2U1ePAaAJ

Lies, Lies, And More Tall Tales About Global Warming And Climate Change

History will show most of the work done and efforts made to convince the public of a relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming and/or climate change is based almost completely on faulty science, doctored data, and politically motivated lies.  It is and has been a shameful record of mixing so-called science and politics.  It is worse that Soviet-style central planning, the kind that lead to the failure of the Soviet Union and the suffering and deaths of millions of people.  More and more people are belatedly coming to the same sad realization.
Peter

Global warming as real as Obama's jobless numbers, GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says

Written by Ben Wolfgang, The Washington Times.

       

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher - WikimediaIf you believe in man-made climate change — and think the nation’s unemployment rate truly has fallen to 7.5 percent — then Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has a bridge to sell you.

At a Tuesday-morning House hearing on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the outspoken Mr. Rohrabacher, California Republican, took aim at environmentalists’ claims that mankind is fueling global warming by continuing to use fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal.

That notion, he suggested, is as false as the idea that the U.S. jobless rate really is as low as the just-announced 7.5 percent. The Labor Department on Friday reported that the U.S. economy added 165,000 jobs in April and that the unemployment figure fell to its lowest level in five years.

“The American people understand how fragile we are economically, even with a supposed 7.5 [percent] unemployment rate. Anybody who believes that probably also believes in global warming,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. “I believe the global warming theory that mankind is impacting climate change has been so exaggerated, … that it will bring down the standard of living of the American people.”
Read rest…

Will The Debate On Global Warming/Climate Change Ever Be Over?

So many people have a vested interest in maintaining the big public scare about global warming and/or climate change, the debate will go on forever.  Many people's careers, in fact entire university science departments depend upon government funding for continual, "ad infinitum" research on climate.  With that understood, in order to justify this spending to the tax-paying public, these "researchers" absolutely must keep up with the scare tactics.  They must just love heat waves, floods, tornados, hurricanes, blizzards, and all the other usual weather phenomena.  The more destructive and headline-making these things are, the better.  It is all rather shameless, and in my opinion, much of it is despicable.
Peter


Announcement

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week held its first hearing on climate science since 2009. Politico incorrectly claimed that no star witnesses testified. In fact, University of Alabama-Huntsville Professor John Christy, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, provided outstanding testimony. Professor Christy’s written testimony is available here, and video of his opening statement is available here.

Among the alarmist witnesses, Stanford Professor Chris Field’s testimony was convincingly refuted in this response by University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr.

Biofuels Lead To Food Crisis

This is unfortunately so predictable.  It has been said here by me, and others all along, that using food crops to make fuel is insanity.  What is worse is it being done in the name of "stopping global warming" (now they call it climate change) by using less of those evil fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal).  And these people call this being "green".....and call themselves "Progressives".  They're not progressive in any way.  To put it politely, they are regressive.  They would have us living in the stone age, or using horses and buggies, if that.

It is becoming painfully clear that solar power and wind power and geothermal energy can not meet the demand either.  Thank goodness we've discovered what can be done with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling to increase the production of oil and gas, the only fuels that can meet the world's demand.  See here for more information on oil and gas: http://geopetesview.blogspot.com/
Peter

The Biofuels Disaster: ‘Green’ Politicians Cause Another Food Crisis

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF | July 20 2012

A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity. The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger. The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels. It was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. --Grant Ferrett, BBC News, 27 October 2007
The world is running short of corn. That is the message being delivered by the market, where on Thursday prices pushed above $8 a bushel for the first time. With no obvious abundance of international suppliers to make up for the drought-ravaged US corn crop and stocks close to record lows, traders and analysts believe demand must be pegged back.The biggest potential for a reduction in corn demand comes from the ethanol industry, which is using roughly 5bn bushels of corn, or nearly 40 per cent of the US corn crop, each year to make fuel for cars and animal feed. -- Financial Times, 19 July 2012

read the remainder of the article here:

Doomsday Environmental Fearmongers Will Not Go Away

These "scientists" and the United Nations make a living from instilling fear in people, coercing them to pay higher taxes giving them more control.  The late, lamented Michael Crichton was "spot on" with his book "State of Fear".  Nature will pretty much take its course, no matter what us "insignificant" humans do.  Giving money to these self-serving "scientists" and the United Nations is a total waste.

Do a search for Michael Crichton on this blog for much more information on his expose' of environmental fear tactics.

Peter

Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists

 

• People walk together in a city …
• Climate change, population growth …
• The Khumbu Glacier at Everest-Khumbu

Climate change, population growth and environmental destruction could cause a collapse of the ecosystem just a few generations from now, scientists warned on Wednesday in the journal Nature.

The paper by 22 top researchers said a "tipping point" by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.

The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.

The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.

The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.

The factors in today's equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.

Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.

To support today's population, about 43 percent of Earth's ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.

On current trends, the 50 percent mark will be reached by 2025, a point the scientists said is worryingly close to the tipping point.

If that happened, collapse would entail a shocking disruption for the world's food supply, with bread-basket regions curtailed in their ability to grow corn, wheat, rice, fodder and other essential crops.

"It really will be a new world, biologically, at that point," said lead author Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at the University of California in Berkeley.

"The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations."

The authors stressed it was unclear when this feared tipover would happen, given blanks in knowledge about the phenomenon.

And they said there were plenty of solutions -- such as ending unsustainable patterns of growth and resource waste -- that mean it is not inevitable.

"In a nutshell, humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren't there," said Arne Mooers, a professor of biodiversity at Simon Fraser University in Canada's British Columbia.

"My colleagues who study climate-induced changes through the Earth's history are more than pretty worried," he said in a press release. "In fact, some are terrified."  (Yes, they're terrified they're going to lose their funding and government pensions.)

Past shifts examined in the study included the end of the last Ice Age, between 14,000 and 11,000 years ago, and five species mass extinctions which occurred around 443 million, 359 million, 251 million, 200 million and 65 million years ago.

Earth today is vulnerable to fast change because of the growing connectedness between ecosystems, voracious use of resources and an unprecedented surge in greenhouse gases, the authors concluded.

In a report on Wednesday issued ahead of the "Rio+20" summit, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that burgeoning populations and unsustainable patterns of growth were driving Earth towards "unprecedented" eco-damage.