Global Warming Causes Cancer? WHAT??????

These people, "scientists", bureaucrats, amoral societal parasites, or whatever you want to call them, are COMPLETELY out of control. They can't scare people enough with pictures of cute little polar bear cubs drowning, so now they're resorting to that old standby scare tactic.....the big C.....CANCER. Unbelievable and utterly shameless. Oh, we know global warming causes mental illness; we need look no farther than Al Gore and his faithful flock of true-believers.
Peter

Government Report Says Global Warming May Cause Cancer, Mental Illness (CNSNews.com) – A new government report says global warming could lead to an increase in both cancer and mental illness worldwide, and it calls for more federally funded research to determine how that might happen. The report was published by an inter-agency group comprised of scientists from the CDC, NIH, State Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Agriculture Department, EPA, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Deliberate Deceipt Of Global Warming Alarmists

The climate scientists exposed as frauds by the ClimateGate scandal did not just make "honest mistakes", they did not simply practice sloppy science, they weren't only being "human". They have been telling carefully formulated lies. By my way of thinking, that makes them despicable and deserving of scorn and ridicule, to say the least.

Politicians, Hollywood self-promoters, and shameless opportunists like Al Gore saw a way to gain power and control over the public by promoting this myth of man-caused global warming. The mainstream media, loving sensational headlines, played along. This charade could not and will not go on forever. More people, like the following Professor from UConn are speaking out and the public is beginning to comprehend that they've been played for fools.
Peter

Open Letter: U.S. Climate Action Report 2010. 5th ed.

From Howard Hayden, Prof. Emeritus of Physics, UConn

Many states around the nation are trying to enact laws to restrict carbon emissions, and industries too numerous to mention have begun making changes hoping to be fully prepared to comply with laws they haven’t seen yet. Congress is considering laws in hopes that they can avoid having EPA impose its own version of CO2 restrictions.

Before jumping on this bandwagon, we should be certain that we understand the science. U.S. Climate Action Report 2010, 5th ed. might be understood by some Americans to be the definitive word; however nary a word in the report even pretends to establish a link between CO2 and putative global warming or show that the increase in CO2 concentration is due to human activity instead of natural causes (such as natural warming of the oceans) or show that either an increase in CO2 concentration or an increase in temperature is, on balance, bad (or worse than laws restricting CO2 emissions) or do any science whatsoever.

Despite screams to the contrary, a vast number of scientists dispute the findings of the IPCC. Perhaps the Department of State believes that “the science is settled.” If so, please let us know which of the two dozen models—see Fig. 1 showing a slight disagreement by a factor of 3000 among the models—settled the science so that all of the others can be thrown into the dustbin of failed science and de-funded.


Figure 1: Graph from IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, showing calculations by various models. Note that the range of values spans a factor of 3,000.

Like an ant crawling out an anthill and concluding that the world is made of 1-millimeter rocks, global-warming activists have looked at the last three-millionths of one percent of the earth’s climate history and made brash conclusions about climate, and especially their understanding of it. They wax eloquent about results from computer models. In the longer view---see Fig. 2—we see that the last million years or so are rather anomalous. The highest CO2 concentrations during the last many ice ages and interglacials are lower than at any other time for the last 300 million years. The dinosaurs lived when CO2 concentrations were 5 to 20 times as high as now. Indeed, such large creatures could not survive without the very verdant conditions afforded by adequate plant food known as carbon dioxide.


Figure 2: Carbon dioxide concentrations for the last 600 million years. Points represent actual measurements; lines represent computerized smoothings. The most recent million years is in a very narrow strip to the left of the graph, with concentrations less than 400 ppmv. The right-hand scale is in multiples of quaternary average.

That long history teaches us something else. We have all been in an auditorium when somebody was testing out the sound system and there was a sudden screech owing to a “tipping point” wherein the amplified sound at the microphone was loud enough to be picked up and made louder yet. If the people did not act immediately to cut the gain of the amplifier, and everybody just left the room and locked the door, the screech would persist forever if the power remained on. This behavior, often called “running to the rail” by electronics folks, is characteristic of all positive feedback systems. Once you reach the tipping point, there is no return. If high levels of CO2 were to cause the earth to reach a tipping point, it would have done so a long time ago, and we wouldn’t be here talking about it.

All in all, there is a best policy to direct toward climate change, and that is to have the courage to do nothing. We humans have precious little to do with climate. When and where did you read anything from climate alarmists that said that humans are responsible for about 3% of all CO2 emissions? When and where did you read anything from climate alarmists that said that warming oceans emit CO2? When and where did the climate alarmists tell you about CO2 levels that were up to 20 times current levels when dinosaurs roamed the earth? When and where did alarmists tell you that the conditions they openly worry about have repeatedly happened without turning the earth into an oven?

Nowhere and never, did you say? Perhaps you should consider that you have been deliberately misled.

SOURCE

Advisors To Obama Speak Out About Global Warming

The following might be humorous if the comments didn't sound so much like what is actually coming from the Obama Administration.
Peter

Danny Glover is a Genius (source)

Glover on Haiti:

“What happened in Haiti could happen to anywhere in the Caribbean because all these island nations are in peril because of global warming,” Glover said. “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?”

And the man that makes Glover look like a steely-eyed rocket scientist, Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi:

“Many women who dress inappropriately … cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes”

No, really, he said that. Out loud and everything.

The Global Warming Alarmists Are Growing Desperate....Sending Out Armies of Trolls

What is an internet troll? The following article might help explain where these idiots come from who come onto a blog like this and post ignorant, inflammatory comments trying to discredit what is being said here in honesty and sincerity. They can't argue science so they attack the messengers, those trying to tell the truth about the myth of man-caused global warming. It is a calculated, ideological assault, using the same tactics revealed by the climate "scientists" exposed in the ClimateGate scandal. Read on.
Peter

"In Internet
slang, a troll is someone who posts
inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as
an online discussion forum, chat
room or blog, with
the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response^[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[2]"

Get your trolls off my lawn, Monbiot

Written by James Delingpole, Telegraph 18 April 2010 (source)

George Monbiot, tied for crazy with Bill McKibben

You may have noticed the strong stench of troll lurking below this blog of late. (Hat tip Barry Woods)

And here’s the reason:

Sceptic alerts

Are you fed up with sceptics and pseudo-scientists dominating blogs and news articles with their denialist propaganda? Well, fight back! We are trying to create an online army of online volunteers to try and tip the balance back in the favour of scientific fact, not scientific fiction.

To sign up, enter your e-mail address in the box below:

You will receive one e-mail alert per day containing links to various climate change news articles. We need you to politely explain in the comments section why global warming is actually happening and why it’s not a big conspiracy. You can contribute to as little or as many articles as you like, just dive in.

It comes from an organisation called the Campaign Against Climate Change. Its honorary president is George Monbiot; its vice-presidents are three politicians – self-hating public school socialist Michael Meacher; Norman Baker (who he?); overpromoted Green MEP Caroline Lucas; and its advisers include the usual crazed rag-bag of yoghurt weaving, Atomkraft-Nein-Danke loons.

Apparently the reason we sceptics and evil deniers are doing so well at the moment is because of all the massive funding we receive from Big Oil.

It has recently been revealed that Koch Industries, a little-known, privately owned US oil company, paid nearly US$50 million to climate denial groups and individuals between 1997 and 2008. In a similar period Exxon Mobil paid out around $17 to $23 million. Closer to home, it has been suggested that Shell’s funding of an exhibition at the Science Museum may be linked to the museum stepping back from its earlier strong stance on climate change.

Also, we’re psychologically damaged and love making stuff up:

Those who actively promote climate scepticism are well networked, and have been termed ‘deniers’ rather than sceptics because many show scant regard for the facts, while seizing avidly on any error in the work of climate scientists

Luckily, the Warmists have thought up a brilliant counter to our wicked plan to fill the world with lies and carbon emissions. They’re going to, get this, lurk at the bottom of our blogs and make snarky remarks and post links to RealClimate proving that we’re completely wrong. Hurrah! Thus, through the mighty power of the blogosphere will the world be saved.

Oh, and guess who the Warmist trolls (UK branch, anyway) think the most evil denier of all is?

Modesty forbids me from naming him. But here’s a clue from the home of impotent, sphincter-bursting libtard rage that is Left Foot Forward, in yet another piece on how to deal with Climate Sceptics:

For now, though, let me close with a challenge for progressive readers: one of the study’s more obvious conclusions was how effective climate sceptics are at commenting on forums, posting stock arguments, and linking back to sceptic sites. This is unsurprising for anyone who has ever trawled through comments left behind after any climate change article. By the time you read this, there will doubtless be sceptical comments posted beneath this blog, too.

So here’s what I’d like you to do:

• Read the comments, and if you notice any that cast doubt on the validity of climate science, post a response, be polite and use facts;

• You might like to make use of the handy checklist of arguments to counter deniers over at Skeptical Science;

• Link to some of the dirt dug up on sceptics’ funding by SourceWatch; or

• Refer to the discussions at RealClimate and Climate Safety.

Oh, and remember to check out James Delingpole’s column at the Telegraph. If any of it makes you angry, you might like to let him know. Did I say be polite? Scratch that.

Pip! Pip! Off now to eat some foie gras stuffed with truffles – courtesy of Big Koch – while I dream up a few more climate lies.

Source

The EPA: A Tool Of Tyranny.......

What the Obama Administration can not get Congress to do, they can have the EPA do, without the consent of the people they are supposed to be serving. This is not democracy. It is socialist tyranny. Obama is the puppet spokesman for the leftists determined to control every aspect of our lives. Creating fear about climate change is a cold, calculated, long-term plan to tax and control people's use of energy, and to make us (the people) believe we're doing a good thing, by "going green" and saving Mother Earth. Talk about the ultimate scam, the epitome of a grand hoax! Perhaps most insidious, they're brainwashing our children and young adults into believing nonsense like man-caused global warming. Read this, think about it, and weep as you see your freedoms being taken away at an ever-increasing rate.
Peter

EPA choking freedom (source)

FROM- OC Register

Mark Landsbaum

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined." –
James Madison

We've previously suggested what to say to a global warming zealot (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/%20-234092--.html), and even what to say to California's warmist-in-chief, Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/%20-236562--.html).

Unfortunately, the ultimate discussion on global warming may require talking to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If you thought zealots and celebrities-turned-politicians could be difficult to persuade, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Those who would remake the economy in their own image and conform your lifestyle to their vision of a globally cooler utopia are advancing their quasiholy mission with the heavy hand of the unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy at the EPA.

Call it government by, of and for the bureaucracy. Where's James Madison when we need him?

There's nothing as insulated, nothing as isolated, nothing as arrogant as a federal bureaucracy. Think this thought: "I'd like to have a reasonable discussion with someone who will consider my point of view." Now think: "IRS. FBI. Homeland Security." Ouch. The EPA epitomizes the aloof, authoritarian worst of all federal bureaucracies. Don't expect a warm reception.

Several key decisions begin this spring, not the least of which is the beginning of EPA enforcement. With this in mind, here are some EPA talking points, in case you're able to get a word in edge-wise:

Presumptions

We start with the understanding that this nation's founders never intended a massive government bureaucracy to dictate how Americans must live, what they can and cannot consume or manufacture, let alone how much of the stuff they exhale may legally be emitted. The EPA begins with the assumption that we've got all of this 100 percent wrong.

Change of venue

Congress, bless its misguided hearts, at least is a representative body held accountable by voters. That's why Congress, once hell-bent on shoving down our throats an economy-killing, freedom-squashing carbon cap-and-trade law, has backed off. Politicians still can be cowed by public outrage. That's also why global warming alarmists shifted the venue from the comparatively responsive Congress to the utterly insulated EPA. Faceless bureaucrats don't stand for election.

Changing rules

Once upon a time this overbearing regulatory agency restricted its intrusions to matters that pretty much everyone agreed needed attention. Air pollution was a serious problem not long ago. It's debatable whether the might of the federal government was the only, let alone the best, solution. But at least real pollution was a real problem. The EPA has changed that game, perhaps forever, by declaring CO2 to be a harmful pollutant that must be regulated.


Quasiscience

The excuse the EPA uses to exert its regulatory version of martial law over everyday activities is that the globe allegedly is dangerously warming, and manmade greenhouse gas emissions are to blame. Nevermind, that temperatures are, at most, flat over the past 15 years. The only place a cause-and-effect relationship exists between rising greenhouse gases and rising global temperatures is in manmade computer models. Looking beyond the problem of garbage in and garbage out, history tells us a quite different story. As for blaming mankind for rising temperatures, there were far fewer people and absolutely no smokestacks or Hummers centuries ago when temperatures were higher and CO2 levels much higher.

Building on sand

The EPA, incapable of distinguishing pollutants from harmless air, based its war on global warming on findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a governmental body, not a scientific body. The IPCC drew on scientific studies, except for those it excluded. IPCC hand-picked representatives, some of them scientists, summarized the findings, selectively including and excluding from the already-screened conclusions. The IPCC came up with an unsurprisingly political document drawn from sometimes one-sided, other times flatly flawed, research, while ignoring inconvenient contrary evidence. Since last year, there's been news aplenty about the IPCC report's frauds and mistakes. Good enough for government work, apparently.

Real science

The EPA's declaration of CO2 as a pollutant ignores its amply demonstrated benefits. Even if manmade emissions did cause higher temperatures, the consequences are likely beneficial not dire. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a network of scientists not funded by governments that stand to gain control. It was established to examine the same climate data used by the U.N.'s panel. But the nongovernmental panel reached "the opposite conclusion – namely, that natural causes are very likely" responsible for whatever changes have occurred in global temperatures. Even so, its conclusion was: "[T]he net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife."

Arbitrariness on steroids

The 1970 Clean Air Act, which was improperly invoked to regulate CO2, is explicit in determining the level at which atmospheric pollutants trigger mandatory government regulation. As a result of extending Clean Air Act authority to CO2, 41,900 previously unregulated small entities will require preconstruction permits, and 6.1 million previously unregulated small entities will need operating permits. It's impossible for the feds to clamp down on every car, tractor, lawnmower, commercial kitchen or other mom-and-pop establishment. So here's what will happen: Bureaucrats arbitrarily will decide where to draw the line. A line drawn today doesn't mean it won't be redrawn tomorrow. Authority creep is inevitable, except, of course, in the cases of the well-connected, who game the system or grease the skids. Instead of quoting Madison, we should quote George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

'It's too late' defense

It can be argued that the EPA is acting rashly based on wrong-headed legal interpretations, and justified this with rigged research with a blind eye to contrary evidence. It might be argued that the EPA should hold off regulating until underlying scientific claims can be verified. Don't hold your breath. "It is impossible to independently test or verify (England's Climate Research Unit's) calculations because raw temperature data sets have been lost or destroyed," noted Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, who has sued to block the EPA diktats.

Fix is in

The EPA's power grab officially began at the end of March with press releases declaring the agency's "final decision" that issuing "construction and operating permit requirements for the largest emitting facilities will begin." Today, the "largest." Tomorrow "the not-so-large?" The next day, who knows? At this rate you might want to hold your breath. Exhaling soon may be an emission law violation.

Nearly last ditch

Congress will have a chance this spring to reassert authority over the bureaucracy when it considers reining in the EPA. A pending resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would veto the EPA's "endangerment finding" that declared CO2 to be a harmful pollutant. Stay tuned.

Last ditch.

The EPA's unprecedented claim to sovereignty over things that move and many that remain stationary is being challenged in court by no fewer than 15 states' attorneys general, and private plaintiffs, including 500 scientists, who dispute the IPCC's science. The nut of the challenges is that the government exceeded its authority in declaring CO2 a harmful pollutant, and that underlying science is fatally flawed.

Forecast

We're usually optimistic, but the short-term outlook is bleak, and the long-term is bleaker yet – unless someone derails the high-speed, runaway EPA. Otherwise, James Madison's homeland and yours is in for a stormy climate of arbitrary bureaucrats picking and choosing winners and losers, allowing you less and less to say about it as the government expands its control over American life even further.

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)

Putting The Screws To Al Gore

Here's hoping the media begins hounding Al Gore like this on a daily basis. He needs to be confronted, challenged and made to answer for the fraud about man-caused global warming that he has been putting over on the people of America and the world. Good for Fox News!

Peter

Watch as Al Gore refuses to answer any questions about Arctic Ice, Climategate or whether or not he'll profit if cap and trade is passed in the United States. Click on the following link to view the video clip....Al Gore is like a cowardly rat avoiding the light of day.

http://www.climategatecountryclub.com/video/fox-confronts-al-gore

Visit Climategate Country Club at: http://www.climategatecountryclub.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network