Global Warming Thread XVI

[Matto]

I've never watched Fox News, how could it effect my ideology?

[David Flick]

I refuse to believe that the bubbles in my beer are a pollutant.

They aren't, Matto, nor are the bubbles in your Pepsi or the CO2 in every breath you exhale. The notion that CO2 causes global warming/climate change is a wild alarmist myth...

That's why I refuse to believe it.

Anyone with an ounce of scientific study knows that the " climate change " is all ideology and not science.

It amazes me how people can be suck holed by this scam.

It's a two fold ignorance I believe.

It's an ignorance of biological systems, and the history biological systems of the past.

Couple this with an ignorance of the energy control agenda, and you have the perfect useful idiot willing to be an agent of change.

Global sized deception through ideological subversion is not new. We saw it with Marxist socialisms class warfare, we saw it with Feminisms gender warfare, and now we see it with the Environmentalist species warfare.

These giant movements were created by people with very different agendas.

The slow Fabian technique of ideological subversion takes a generation or two, but it breeds passionate advocates who do not understand how they have been deceived and controlled.
Their reality and mindset has been forged solid, and nothing on earth can retrieve them. It would crack their psyche to discover otherwise, I have seen it happen.

Keep telling people that CO2 is a pollutant over a generation and they will believe it. Every news clip they have seen with a smoke stack billowing or an exhaust pipe puffing away, every sound bite of propaganda will forge and temper the ideology.

Ideological conditioning carried out by the social engineers is a subtle bombardment of thousands of moments of affirmation through the media.
Never in human history has ideological conditioning been so easy, since the invention of the television, a malleable and gullible population has been able to flourish.
The other method that tempers the ideology is the calculated use of ridicule.

With Marxist socialism they cried ' Capitalist Pig' with Feminism they cried ' chauvinist Pig ' with Environmentalism they cried ' Denier Pig '.

Scientists whose findings go against the politically correct ideology are branded deniers and enemies of the earth.

When I look at a television I see the greatest device of control ever contrived by man, just about every show on it is designed for ideological conditioning.



KeithE: Oh brother- another Flick and ET all rolled into one.


David: Actually, Keith, another fellow with common sense, one who doesn't fall for the Chicken Little alarmist propaganda.
KeithE: If you guys can’t see how Fox News and other TV/radio/internet pundits are conditioning your ideology, you have truly drunk the koolaid. Turn off the TV/Radio and look at scientific DATA wrt GW/CC and country comparable DATA/ economic facts wrt the economy.


David: The so-called " scientific DATA wrt GW/CC" touted by the alarmists is nothing more than propaganda. Genuine data supporting catastrophic AGW and human-caused climate change are completely nonexistent. Man (humanity) has never had the capacity to control global warming or climate change. Furthermore, human-controlled GW/CC will never occur in our lifetime.

[KeithE]

I've never watched Fox News, how could it effect my ideology?

What do you watch, listen to, read down under?

[KeithE]

KeithE: Oh brother- another Flick and ET all rolled into one.

David: Actually, Keith, another fellow with common sense, one who doesn't fall for the Chicken Little alarmist propaganda.

KeithE: If you guys can’t see how Fox News and other TV/radio/internet pundits are conditioning your ideology, you have truly drunk the koolaid. Turn off the TV/Radio and look at scientific DATA wrt GW/CC and country comparable DATA/ economic facts wrt the economy.

David: The so-called " scientific DATA wrt GW/CC" touted by the alarmists is nothing more than propaganda. Genuine data supporting catastrophic AGW and human-caused climate change are completely nonexistent. Man (humanity) has never had the capacity to control global warming or climate change. Furthermore, human-controlled GW/CC will never occur in our lifetime.

[/list][/list]

Well that illuminated a lot. A sarcastic picture and blusterly pronouncements. Real science there David.

Why don’t you look at some of that non-existent DATA:

Growth is CO2 Emissions:


GHGs in atmosphere:


And there are consequences:

Surface Temps (instrument record):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

NASA DATA:


Satellite microwave sounding unit temperature data sets:
RSS:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
UAH:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
(ignore the imagined line)


Satellite and Surface temp on same scale (they’re in agreement):


Sea Level Rise:


Ocean temps:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/temperature.html
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

Sea ice extent data sets:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Sea ice volume (area times thickness):
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSea ... Volume.php


Greenland losing ice mass:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 161819.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Latest- ... -mass.html
Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE - I. Velicogna
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 ... 0222.shtml

Retreat of glaciers:
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glac ... etreat.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... r-retreat/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of ... since_1850
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_mass_balance

Antarctic losing ice mass:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 180504.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/ma ... c_ice.html

Extreme Weather:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... e-reality/


And models (that agree with the DATA above) with and w/o human caused effects demonstrate man-caused global warming.


Sorry if a couple of plots are too large. And there is much more DATA that supports AGW/CC.

[Matto]

I've never watched Fox News, how could it effect my ideology?

What do you watch, listen to, read down under?

The ABC which is our public broadcaster, it has well known leftist bias.

[Matto]

KeithE, scientists now have a serious credibility problem. The climate gate scandal highlighted the disconnect between the raw data and the ideologically driven result.

Scientists were shown in the emails ignoring the raw data in their "modeling", and even destroying the original raw data. They then said oh we don't need the raw data anymore, we've got our modeling.

Why destroy the original raw data anyway.

One prominent scientist here Tim Flannery, said that Austraia wouldn't emerge from the drought, which turned out to be complete lies. We got all the cyclical rains as usual, which exposed him to be a liar.

Flannery then went on national television claiming that islands were sinking beneath the waves in Torres Strait. When asked which islands were under this threat, he couldn't say.

That's just a couple of the hundreds of lies this so called scientist has spread.

All the charts, models and graphs that have been exposed as Bulls..t, proves an agenda that is ideologically based.

When you have so many grant chasing scientists exposed as liars and frauds, the graphs and models are just smoke and mirrors.

[KeithE]

KeithE, scientists now have a serious credibility problem. The climate gate scandal highlighted the disconnect between the raw data and the ideologically driven result.

Scientists were shown in the emails ignoring the raw data in their "modeling", and even destroying the original raw data. They then said oh we don't need the raw data anymore, we've got our modeling.

Why destroy the original raw data anyway.

One prominent scientist here Tim Flannery, said that Austraia wouldn't emerge from the drought, which turned out to be complete lies. We got all the cyclical rains as usual, which exposed him to be a liar.

Flannery then went on national television claiming that islands were sinking beneath the waves in Torres Strait. When asked which islands were under this threat, he couldn't say.

That's just a couple of the hundreds of lies this so called scientist has spread.

All the charts, models and graphs that have been exposed as Bulls..t, proves an agenda that is ideologically based.

When you have so many grant chasing scientists exposed as liars and frauds, the graphs and models are just smoke and mirrors.

I most heartily disagree. No data has been destroyed, and reconstruction of the CRU data with all the DATA has led to the same conclusions. See BEST Study headed up by a former GW/CC skeptic.

The data I have shown (and a whole lot more) is far from BS or ideologically driven. It is measured DATA not easily stated opinions. As for droughts, they have been on the increase (about 3x more frequent than in 1980 as shown in my last plot above). Flannery may have overstated something but the situation is not good globally. When the words are all spoken, the DATA remains and speaks louder than any pronouncements.

[Matto]

David: The so-called " scientific DATA wrt GW/CC" touted by the alarmists is nothing more than propaganda. Genuine data supporting catastrophic AGW and human-caused climate change are completely nonexistent. Man (humanity) has never had the capacity to control global warming or climate change. Furthermore, human-controlled GW/CC will never occur in our lifetime.

It reminds me of the project to revegetate the sand dunes to prevent "dangerous erosion". Millions were given to the project, and scientists and environmentalists went in saying they were going to save foreshore ecosystems.
A massive amount of work and enthusiastic greenies kicking up community volunteer labor were so proud.

One storm rolled in and destroyed all their work. There was absolutely nothing left.
And by the end of winter that entire section of coast was completely altered.

The kicker was, they left a sign in place saying. "Coastal erosion is a completely natural process and ecosystems adapt to the these natural changes"

They looked like a bunch of bell ends, and they wasted a huge amount of money and peoples time in their arrogant fiasco.

The same stupid mindset of " Save the coastline " is in the " Save the planet " crowd. They just don't respect nature.

[ET]

Ran across this a few days ago. These carbon emissions schemes are nothing more than a shell game:

Britain merely 'outsourcing' carbon emissions to China, say MPs: The fall in the UK's greenhouse-gas emissions is more than offset by the rising consumption of electronics made in China. The UK has "cut" its emissions by 23%.....or rather "shipped their carbon emissions overseas".

Is EU 'juking the stats' of its carbon schemes?: The EU's climate goal is the world's most ambitious, but how much of it is based on false accounting?

The EU has earned a lot of credit on the international climate scene. It has pushed through a roadmap to a second Kyoto deal at the Durban climate change summit, and stood firm on tugging global airlines into a carbon-pricing scheme.....But what if a culture of creative accounting, for reasons of political expediency, was robbing the targets they were working for of any credibility?

[Matto]

Ran across this a few days ago. These carbon emissions schemes are nothing more than a shell game:

Britain merely 'outsourcing' carbon emissions to China, say MPs: The fall in the UK's greenhouse-gas emissions is more than offset by the rising consumption of electronics made in China. The UK has "cut" its emissions by 23%.....or rather "shipped their carbon emissions overseas".

Is EU 'juking the stats' of its carbon schemes?: The EU's climate goal is the world's most ambitious, but how much of it is based on false accounting?

The EU has earned a lot of credit on the international climate scene. It has pushed through a roadmap to a second Kyoto deal at the Durban climate change summit, and stood firm on tugging global airlines into a carbon-pricing scheme.....But what if a culture of creative accounting, for reasons of political expediency, was robbing the targets they were working for of any credibility?

It's a money go round, with no global benefit. A ton of carbon cut from a western nation is a ton of carbon dumped in China, or some other third world country with cheap labor and no emission controls.
Chinas industrial cities are almost unlivable due to industrial emissions.
Interesting link, makes the point.

[KeithE]

Ran across this a few days ago. These carbon emissions schemes are nothing more than a shell game:

Britain merely 'outsourcing' carbon emissions to China, say MPs: The fall in the UK's greenhouse-gas emissions is more than offset by the rising consumption of electronics made in China. The UK has "cut" its emissions by 23%.....or rather "shipped their carbon emissions overseas".

Is EU 'juking the stats' of its carbon schemes?: The EU's climate goal is the world's most ambitious, but how much of it is based on false accounting?

The EU has earned a lot of credit on the international climate scene. It has pushed through a roadmap to a second Kyoto deal at the Durban climate change summit, and stood firm on tugging global airlines into a carbon-pricing scheme.....But what if a culture of creative accounting, for reasons of political expediency, was robbing the targets they were working for of any credibility?

This is why we need a global pact on ghg emissions without special provisions for so-called “developing nations". And why careful monitoring and ACCOUNTABILITY about goal attainment is necessary. China has indeed overtaken the US as the world’s leading emitter.
Details here.

Having a global carbon tax (something I suspect ET you would fight against while Jim Hansen fights for), would lead to fairer competition for manufacturing.

Wrt your second linked article, there are right and wrong ways of doing biomass for energy. Algae, grasses are much better emissions-wise than wood/trees or ethanol (which uses foodstock). If the UK is “juking’ it’s responsibility, that must be stopped by guess what ACCOUNTABILITY. Instead of asking for that, ET, I suspect you are really trying to say ‘forget all this regulation’, and 'let the free-market take care of it all' given your comments about “shell games”.

BTW, the final paragraph of your first linked article is spot on:

The MPs, ministers and UK business groups agree that the best way to deal with the problem is to have a global, legally binding agreement on cutting emissions and dealing with climate change. The current state of international negotiations, however, means that no such agreement can come into force before 2020 – the date by which leading scientists say global emissions should have peaked and begun to be reduced rapidly, if the world is to avoid dangerous levels of warming.

And who is fouling up the international negotiations? - largely oil/gas/RW ideologues in the US and the big multinational corporations. Obama’s lack of leadership is apparent. Bush’s lack of leadership was abhorrent (he is the one who promised in his 2000 campaign to put a lid on coal-fired electric plants, but promptly listened to his cronies instead).
http://www.voterocky.org/climate_change.

The first commitment period of Kyoto Protocol (adopted Dec 1997) is set for expiration later this year. Rio 20+ is our only real hope for continued global control of ghg emissions, although most countries say they will keep their commitment up past then. That agreement should not have exemptions for developing countries, imo, but at a minimum get China and India under full compliance.

As for the current Kyoto participation.

Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, where green indicates countries that have signed and ratified the treaty (Annex I and II are in dark green, “developing countries” in lighter green), grey is not yet decided, brown is no intention of ratifying, and red is intention to withdraw.

US signed the accords in 1998 but it has not been ratified due to political pressure and calls of unfair exemptions granted to “developing countries”. In Dec 2011 Canada announced it’s intention to pull out given their Tar Sands opportunity .

[David Flick]

Ran across this a few days ago. These carbon emissions schemes are nothing more than a shell game:

Britain merely 'outsourcing' carbon emissions to China, say MPs: The fall in the UK's greenhouse-gas emissions is more than offset by the rising consumption of electronics made in China. The UK has "cut" its emissions by 23%.....or rather "shipped their carbon emissions overseas".

Is EU 'juking the stats' of its carbon schemes?: The EU's climate goal is the world's most ambitious, but how much of it is based on false accounting?

The EU has earned a lot of credit on the international climate scene. It has pushed through a roadmap to a second Kyoto deal at the Durban climate change summit, and stood firm on tugging global airlines into a carbon-pricing scheme.....But what if a culture of creative accounting, for reasons of political expediency, was robbing the targets they were working for of any credibility?

This is why we need a global pact on ghg emissions without special provisions for so-called “developing nations". And why careful monitoring and ACCOUNTABILITY about goal attainment is necessary. China has indeed overtaken the US as the world’s leading emitter.
Details here.

Having a global carbon tax (something I suspect ET you would fight against while Jim Hansen fights for), would lead to fairer competition for manufacturing.

Wrt your second linked article, there are right and wrong ways of doing biomass for energy. Algae, grasses are much better emissions-wise than wood/trees or ethanol (which uses foodstock). If the UK is “juking’ it’s responsibility, that must be stopped by guess what ACCOUNTABILITY. Instead of asking for that, ET, I suspect you are really trying to say ‘forget all this regulation’, and 'let the free-market take care of it all' given your comments about “shell games”.

BTW, the final paragraph of your first linked article is spot on:

The MPs, ministers and UK business groups agree that the best way to deal with the problem is to have a global, legally binding agreement on cutting emissions and dealing with climate change. The current state of international negotiations, however, means that no such agreement can come into force before 2020 – the date by which leading scientists say global emissions should have peaked and begun to be reduced rapidly, if the world is to avoid dangerous levels of warming.

And who is fouling up the international negotiations? - largely oil/gas/RW ideologues in the US and the big multinational corporations. Obama’s lack of leadership is apparent. Bush’s lack of leadership was abhorrent (he is the one who promised in his 2000 campaign to put a lid on coal-fired electric plants, but promptly listened to his cronies instead).
http://www.voterocky.org/climate_change.

The first commitment period of Kyoto Protocol (adopted Dec 1997) is set for expiration later this year. Rio 20+ is our only real hope for continued global control of ghg emissions, although most countries say they will keep their commitment up past then. That agreement should not have exemptions for developing countries, imo, but at a minimum get China and India under full compliance.

As for the current Kyoto participation.

Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, where green indicates countries that have signed and ratified the treaty (Annex I and II are in dark green, “developing countries” in lighter green), grey is not yet decided, brown is no intention of ratifying, and red is intention to withdraw.

The map simply reveals how many of the world's countries have been royally duped by global warming alarmists. (i.e. Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, et. al...)

US signed the accords in 1998 but it has not been ratified due to political pressure and calls of unfair exemptions granted to “developing countries”. In Dec 2011 Canada announced it’s intention to pull out given their Tar Sands opportunity .

[David Flick]

.
.

Human-caused catastrophic global warming exposed as big lie

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012 12:00 am.

By MIKE SATREN

COEUR d'ALENE - World-famous aircraft designer and North Idaho resident Burt Rutan looked at climate data and found deception - even fraud - behind the assertions of global-warming alarmists intent on implementing a world-wide climate fix that could bring about economic chaos.

Rutan found there was an enormous amount of data available to the researcher who might want to question these findings: thermometer measurements, ice cores, pine-cone and tree-ring proxies, thousands of different sources of data.
NIC Really Big Raffel

"Are they being ethical with the use of this data?" he asked. "You can cherry pick data."

Rutan started his career working as a civilian flight test engineer for the U.S. Air Force where there was no room for error in interpreting data - all the data. Later he found that some homebuilt aircraft kit builders were knowingly using bad data to sell their products, which gave him a healthy skepticism.

Propagandists know that if a lie is big enough and told often enough, it will then come to be seen as the truth. Al Gore's charge that human-caused global warming was leading to imminent cataclysmic climate changes spelling the end to life as we know it, fueled fears worldwide and helped to justify a second U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janero on June 20-22 to impose crippling carbon-use taxes on mostly first-world nations.

"If you want something to be, maybe a theory that you've modeled in a computer, you can 'prove it' with data and you can convince anybody who doesn't really look at all the data," Rutan said. "It's really easy to convince somebody that this is true and I found out real early that it's not true.

"I found out immediately that they weren't being ethical."

If someone is aggressively selling a product, whether airplanes or carbon credits, based on complex experimental data, he is likely lying, Rutan contended.

In November 2009 when Great Britain's University of East Anglia revealed emails exposing a pattern of deception and collusion between scientists propagating the global warming myth. Earlier that year in July, Rutan had unveiled his 96-page PowerPoint report questioning Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) theory to attendees of the Experimental Aircraft Association's AirVenture fly-in and airshow in Oshkosh, Wis. The unorthodox presentation may have come as a surprise to some aviation enthusiasts but not the truthfulness of Rutan's inquiry once he had trained his microscope on the global question of the century.

"The amount of CO2 that we add to the atmosphere by our emissions is minuscule and it's tiny compared to the amount of CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere," he said.

Earth had six to eight times as much CO2 in the atmosphere when dinosaurs roamed. That period also held the greatest diversity of species ever and the earth was green from pole to pole with no deserts.

"If you want a green planet, then you want our air to be like your green house where you pump CO2 into it," he said. "CO2 is not a pollutant, it is the essence of life for plants."

Within the last several million years, earth's atmosphere got down to only about 180 parts per million (PPM) of CO2. That was a severe threat, since below 150 PPM, all plants die. Now, we are being told we are at risk of catastrophe because we have a small increase of plant food in our atmosphere, even though the increase is beneficial.

Rutan also found that we are currently at what could be the tail end of an unusually long and stable 11,000-year warm period between ice ages, which occurs every 80 to 100 thousand years.

"The recent previous warm periods were brief," he said. "And they were all hotter than now."

It is during these warm periods when all the planet's species proliferated but it's during the ice ages when they die.

"Who is to say that the temperature is perfect and we've got to hold it right here?" he queried. "Our ability to feed the population will improve if the planet is warmer than present."

But then Rutan found out that the climate alarmists were even messing with the data that shows that we are warming.
Continue reading...

[David Flick]

.
.

The UN defines “climate change” as being man-made: Orwell could not have done it better

By Joanne Nova

Sloppy language works for cheats and charlatans. In the search for the truth only accurate language will do. Orwell understood the power of language to change the way we think, indeed to fence off some possible options completely.

Roger Pielke Snr put out a call today asking for precise definitions and protesting about the misuse of the term “climate change”. But when did this nonsensical term start? Where else, but with the UN.

All the way back on May 9th 1992, UN defined “climate change” as man-made. See The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, (paragraph 6):

“Climate change is defined by the Convention as “change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (article 1 (2).”

In other words, there is no “climate change” without humans because there cannot be, and by extension, the climate did not change, could not have, for the 4.5 billion years before 1880 when the first coal powered electricity station was fired up.

Such nonsense is what international treaties are made of. Only millions of taxpayer dollars could have propagated an inanity so profoundly inane, and so abjectly silly. No mere student report could have swept around the world destroying sensible conversation for two decades (and taking the entire field of paleoclimate as collateral damage too).

By misusing “climate change” so audaciously (and getting away with it), the UN ensured that an army of distracted or not-too-sharp supporters would adopt it, and it would reduce conversations about the role of man-made emissions down to a caricature. “Do you believe in climate change” — ask the thought police, it’s a loaded question that invites any sane person to say “Yes” — because who believes in climate-sameness?

The term “climate denier” springs from this sick well — as if, somewhere on the planet, in asylums or day care centers, there might be someone who denies we have a climate. Bystanders watching a debate at this nonsensical level don’t accidentally step into the dissenter camp — by default, they are “with the UN”. Continue reading...

[David Flick]

.
.

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!!! Jesus is now a greenie. He has joined the ranks of the CAGW alarmists. Maybe I should phrase it another way. The CAGW alarmists are now claiming that Jesus is on their side. The global warming alarmism movement is a full-fledged religion. They have taken propaganda science and moved straight into the religious realm. I guess us poor little skeptics don't have a Jesus to honor and worship since he's now an AGW alarmist...

Christ Turns ‘Green’ at U.N. Earth Summit — Literally

By David Rothbard & Craig Rucker
June 20, 2012 11:47 A.M.

Green guru James Lovelock was right. He warned last week that “the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion.”

Now at the U.N. Earth Summit, even the image of Christ has been made a forcible convert to the eco-faith, as the city of Rio is bathing the iconic statue of Christ the Redeemer (Christo Redentor) in green light: Continue reading...

[Haruo]

Oh no, not Lenin too!!??

Oh, no, that's a green star, so it must mean Lenin (and maybe Jesus) are now Esperantists!

espistoj-estas.jpg (23.65 KiB) Viewed 733 times

[David Flick]

.
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Seriously Humorous

June 26, 2012

Prediction: Global Warming Will Cause Everything
By Daren Jonescu

The following news headline appeared on the internet last week: "Scientists warn global warming will fuel spread of ticks that carry Lyme disease."

The corresponding article begins this way:

Another effect of climate change may be crawling up your leg this summer as you frolic in the woods.

Scientists say our warming world is speeding the spread of ticks that carry potentially debilitating Lyme disease.

Okay, given that many in the climate change fraternity -- including, famously, Phil Jones of East Anglia University -- have been forced to concede that global warming has been on "pause" since 1995, how exactly is it "speeding the spread" of disease-carrying ticks?

Don't read this news article for an answer. In fact, from the third paragraph on, the article is a straightforward discussion of the slow spread of the tick population into various southern regions of Canada, and the new risk of Lyme disease that this brings. There is no further mention of global warming, and no attempt is made to establish a significant relationship -- or even a coincidental one -- between the movements of the ticks and changes in mean annual temperatures in the relevant regions.

So why mention global warming in this context at all? Because the first rule of all modern discourse related to weather, disease, happiness, poverty, famine, wildlife, or almost anything else is that tribute must be paid to the god Climate Change Theory. One cannot discuss the spread of disease without mentioning climate change. So the article mentions it. No further reason is required. It is simply a matter of faith, of public policy, and of good breeding to acknowledge climate change as a preface to any observation about anything.

(If you think this seems overstated, I recommend this 2007 American Thinker blog post, listing over six hundred nasty effects that have been attributed to global warming. One suspects that if you mentioned that number to one of our sustainability experts these days, he'd earnestly tell you that the list is far too conservative.)

Continue reading...

[David Flick]

.
.Exposing the truth about the "Hockey Stick" king...

Michael Mann's Hissy Fit Shows Why Global Warming Alarmists Fear Debate
By James Taylor 6/27/2012

Last month I received a worried telephone call from a government official in California. An Orange County government agency was holding a water summit, just days away, and one of the speakers was throwing a last-minute hissy fit about a fellow speaker scheduled for his panel. According to the official, the speaker throwing the hissy fit, Climategate central figure Michael Mann, was expressing indignation that the other speaker allegedly did not have the scientific credentials to share a stage with him. The official worried that Mann would back out of his speaking appearance, after Orange County had extensively advertised Mann’s appearance there, if they did not remove the scientist to whom Mann objected. Continue reading...

.
.

[Matto]

[url]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3bH3_-dQVs<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3bH3_-dQVs>[/url]

Green movement on last legs according to Monckton, the mood is very anti- green in Australia at the moment.
Monckton refers to the greens as traffic lights, the greens are too yellow to call themselves reds.

Show me the most ardent green and I'll show you the most ardent Marxist. Green is the new Red.

It's funny how anti- green people are becoming now. Someone mentions " climate change " and people automatically reach for their pistols.

People hate the term " climate change " now, they are totally sick of the doomsdayers, fraudulent science, and propaganda.

[Matto]

.
.Exposing the truth about the "Hockey Stick" king...

Michael Mann's Hissy Fit Shows Why Global Warming Alarmists Fear Debate
By James Taylor 6/27/2012

Last month I received a worried telephone call from a government official in California. An Orange County government agency was holding a water summit, just days away, and one of the speakers was throwing a last-minute hissy fit about a fellow speaker scheduled for his panel. According to the official, the speaker throwing the hissy fit, Climategate central figure Michael Mann, was expressing indignation that the other speaker allegedly did not have the scientific credentials to share a stage with him. The official worried that Mann would back out of his speaking appearance, after Orange County had extensively advertised Mann’s appearance there, if they did not remove the scientist to whom Mann objected. Continue reading...

.
.

The doomsdayer frauds don't like real scientists to debate them, or expose their fraudulent claims.

With the change of government here we will have a royal commission into this climate change fraud, and greenie frauds will be jailed.
It will come under the criminal code of creating a false belief. And because it has cost taxpayers so much money, it should carry a penalty of a minimum 20 years.

[KeithE]

The doomsdayer frauds don't like real scientists to debate them, or expose their fraudulent claims.

With the change of government here we will have a royal commission into this climate change fraud, and greenie frauds will be jailed.
It will come under the criminal code of creating a false belief. And because it has cost taxpayers so much money, it should carry a penalty of a minimum 20 years.

Meanwhile in the areas of scientific global warming/climate change research, Greenland's melting is accelerating due to reflectivity losses (a feedback effect)


The projected global sea level rise have increased threefold since the IPCC 2007 (aka A4R)


We are also experiencing record temperatures across the US consistent with Global Warming.

Not to mention the droughts, wildfires and extreme storms we are experiencing also consistent with global warming warnings.

And globally an El Nino is already returning meaning 2012 will probably be the hottest surface air temperatures on record returning some of the consistent rise in ocean heat content

to surface air temperature increases. I’ll predict that 2012 will be >0.65C, and possibly >0.7C on the chart below.

which already shows the 2000’s as the hottest decade ever recorded as far as global surface air temperature goes.

[David Flick]

.
.

It's Called Summer

It occurs every year, usually with the onset of the first major heat wave. The Chicken Little AGW alarmists saunter out of their coops boldly announcing once again that the sky is falling. This time, they alarmingly declare, it's for real. They post brightly colored and elaborately plotted charts and graphs created by the masters of man-made global warming propagandists (ThinkProgress.Org & SkepticalScience.Com). There may be a slightly different twist every year, but basically it's the same old tired, worn out, "sky-is-falling" propaganda. The propaganda is inaccurate and false.

They never seem to grasp the reality that when Summer arrives, it's going to get hot somewhere on planet earth. With each passing year, they up the ante, declaring that it's never been so hot in the history of the world. For nearly a quarter of a century, the alarmists have been prophesying gloom and doom, declaring that human activity and the man-made creation of CO2 are the cause of all climate changes. Yes, it's all man's fault. Yet nary a one of their prophetic utterances have come close to being true. Since the beginning of time, as summer arrives, global climate changes from cold and cooler to warm and hot. Regardless of how they spin it, it's called Summer. Regardless of how they propagandize it, there's nothing alarming about Summer.

In the scheme of things, the Summer of 2012 is certainly not the hottest. Nor will it be the hottest on record. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has falsely declared that Oklahoma endured the hottest summer ever recorded in U.S. history in 2011. In a wild effort to rewrite history the EDF website wrote:

It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand the disconnect between Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and the threat of rising temperatures to his own constituents. Last year, Oklahoma endured the hottest summer ever recorded in U.S. history. According to the National Climatic Data Center, Oklahoma’s average temperature last summer was 86.9 degrees.

The previous record for the hottest summer was set in the midst of the Dust Bowl, again in Oklahoma. The Dust Bowl literally blew Oklahoma’s farmers off their land, along with their topsoil. No one wants a repeat of that.

What’s alarming is that the previous record of 85.2 degrees, set in Oklahoma in 1934, was almost two degrees cooler than summer 2011 Source...

As the masters of propaganda, which they are, the EDF is/was completely oblivious to the true history of record high temperatures in my home state. The truth of the matter is that the Dust Bowl years were much hotter and much drier in Oklahoma. Oklahoma City had 55 days last year over 100 degrees, compared to 72 days in 1936, 68 days during 1913, and 58 days during 1934. Disinformation is the stock and trade of the modern AGWarmisits. By comparison to 2011, Oklahoma City had more 100 degree days in 1936, 1913, and 1934.

Three Oklahoma summers have had maximum temperatures averaging over 100 degrees, but 2011 was not one of them. June through August maximum temperatures averaged 102.2 degrees in 1936, 101.7 degrees in 1913, 100.5 degrees in 1934, and 99.3 degrees in 2011.

But what really stands out is the number of very hot days over 110 degrees. Almost all of Oklahoma City’s 110 degree days occurred before 1960.

Here is the real kicker. The summer of 1913 had twenty-two days over 110 degrees, compared to two days during the summer of 2011 – which NOAA says was the hottest summer. (Source...)

Here's another set of records which the AGW propagandists overlooked. Meeker, OK, which is located 38 miles east of Oklahoma City has the distinction of having had the most days of 110 degree and above. Meeker has had 28 days of 110 degrees and above. Twenty-five (25) of the 28 days which on which had 110 degree or higher occurred prior to 1960, which, incidentally was years prior to the days when CO2 reached 350 ppm. The hottest month on record in Meeker was August of 1913 (106.4) (Source...)



The bottom line is that AGW alarmists in their efforts to claim current temperatures to be the hottest ever recorded in Oklahoma are oblivious to the true history. They are clueless and and dishonest with their propaganda.

[David Flick]

.
.

It's Called Summer

Regarding my previous post (immediately above), Dr. Roy Spencer said it far better than I did. His post is well worth citing here. Contrarary to what the alarmists are claiming, the sky isn't falling... (Red highlighting mine)

June 2012 U.S. Temperatures: Not That Remarkable

July 6th, 2012 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I know that many journalists who lived through the recent heat wave in the East think the event somehow validates global warming theory, but I’m sorry: It’s summer. Heat waves happen. Sure, many high temperature records were broken, but records are always being broken.

And the strong thunderstorms that caused widespread power outages? Ditto.

Regarding the “thousands” of broken records, there are not that many high-quality weather observing stations that (1) operated since the record warm years in the 1930s, and (2) have not been influenced by urban heat island effects, so it’s not at all obvious that the heat wave was unprecedented. Even if it was the worst in the last century for the Eastern U.S. (before which we can’t really say anything), there is no way to know if it was mostly human-caused or natural, anyway.

“But, Roy, the heat wave is consistent with climate model predictions!”. Yeah, well, it’s also consistent with natural weather variability. So, take your pick. Continue reading...

.
.

[KeithE]

What is Causing the Climate to Unravel by Jeremy Symons, VP for the National Wildlife Foundation(NWF).
Answer:

This cannot continue w/o more extreme weather and many other degradations to our habitat.

We now have 395.77 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere as of 5 July 2012 when previously (<1900) that CO2 level oscillated between 180-280 ppm.

It was about 280 ppm from Christ’s time until the dawn of the Industrial Era ~1900.


Please read the whole article from the Senior VP for the National Wildlife Foundation (NWF) and read its links.

Don’t believe him, well then try the National Academy of Sciences report:
America’s Climate Choices or the IPCC's Report on Extreme Weather

Or just think on the increasing frequency in extreme weather in your lifetime.

The Win-Win solution is staring us in the face as given in NWF article:

To supply the energy we need, we have to rapidly accelerate the switch away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as wind, geothermal and solar—energy sources that don’t pollute and don’t run out. These homegrown energy sources create jobs installing and maintaining the technologies. America already has 2.7 million clean economy jobs building a healthier environment, and clean energy is one of the fastest growing sources of good paying jobs in the nation. In addition, we depend on America’s great outdoors for 6 million jobs in the outdoor recreation industries, contributing $730 billion to the U.S. economy.

Wishful thinking won’t make this happen. America has vast wind, solar and geothermal resources, and the affordability and efficiency of renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar have been improving by leaps and bounds. But solar, wind and geothermal still account for less than 3 percent of U.S. electricity. The growth of these industries is being held back by the entrenched fossil fuel energy companies who are quite happy selling us coal and oil.

Jobs and mitigating action on the harm that has already been done.


It’s not just “It’s Called Summer"

[David Flick]

.
.

It's Called Summer

Believe it or not, the sky is also falling in Kentucky.