Responses to “Climategate”–the leaked e-mails from Britain’s University of East Anglia and its Climatic Research Unit — remind me of the line “Are your feet wet? Can you see the pyramids? That’s because you’re in denial.”Climate catastrophists like Al Gore and the UN’s Rajendra Pachauri are downplaying Climategate: it’s only a few intemperate scientists; there’s no real evidence of wrongdoing; now let’s persecute the whistleblower. In Calgary, the latest fellow trying to use the Monty Python “nothing to see here, move along” routine is Prof. David Mayne Reid, who penned a column last week denying the importance of Climategate.Unfortunately for Reid, old saws won’t work in the Internet age: Climategate has blazed across the Internet, blogosphere, and social networking sites. Even environmentalist and writer George Monbiot has recognized that the public’s perception of climate science will be damaged extensively, calling for one of the Climategate ringleaders to resign.What’s catastrophic about Climategate is that it reveals a science as broken as Michael Mann’s hockey stick, which despite Reid’s protestations, has been shown to be a misleading chart that erases a 400-year stretch of warm temperatures (called the Medieval Warm Period), and a more recent little ice-age that ended in the mid-1800s. No amount of hand-waving will restore the credibility of climate science while holding onto rubbish like that.Climategate reveals skulduggery the general public can understand: that a tightly-linked clique of scientists were behaving as crusaders. Their letters reveal they were working in what they repeatedly labelled a “cause” to promote a political agenda.That’s not science, that’s a crusade. When you cherry-pick, discard, nip, tuck, and tape disparate bits of data into the most alarming portrayal you can in the name of a “cause,” you’re not engaged in science, but in the production of propaganda. And this clique tried to subvert the peer-review process as well. They attempted to prevent others from getting into peer reviewed journals — thus letting them claim skeptic research wasn’t peer-reviewed — a convenient circular (and dishonest) way to discredit skeptics.Finally, people know that a fish rots from its head. The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was considered the top climate research community. It was the source of a vast swath of the information then that was funnelled into the supposedly “authoritative” reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.If scientific objectivity is corrupt at the top, there’s every reason to think that the rot spreads through the entire body. And evidence suggests it has. A Russian think-tank recently revealed the climate temperature record compiled by the Climatic Research Unit cherry-picked data from only 25 per cent of Russia’s climate monitoring sites, the sites closest to urban areas, biased by the urban heat island effect. The stations excluded data from 40 per cent of Russia’s total land mass, which is 12.5 per cent of all the Earth’s land mass.Reid’s indignation about Climategate is beyond ludicrous. “It is wrong,” intones Reid, “to castigate people for things said in private, and often taken out of context.” He equates the response to Climategate with a “lynch mob.” Funny, the professor seems to have highly selective indignation; he is apparently unaware of the unremitting attacks on people skeptical of climate science or policy by climate scientists and politicians.People skeptical of any aspect of climate change have long been called “deniers,” an odious linkage with Holocaust denial, and various luminaries have called for them to be drowned, jailed, and tried for crimes against humanity. One prominent columnist called skepticism treason against the very Earth itself.As for indignation about the release of private correspondence, where was Reid’s indignation when Greenpeace, looking for something to spin into an incriminating picture, stole skeptic Chris Horner’s trash? Where was his indignation a few years ago when scientist Steve Schroeder showed a routine letter of mine to another climate scientist (Andrew Dessler), who posted it to the Internet where it was spun into the scurrilous accusation that I was trying to bribe UN scientists? Reid’s indignation is the chutzpah of a man who kills his family then wants pity because he’s an orphan.The Climategate scandal, like others in biology and medicine erodes the credibility of both the scientists involved, and the institution of scientific research. And it should: it has become evident that there is a lot of rot going on in the body of science, and too little effort made to fix it.A start could be made. They should start by practicing the scientific method: release all data, and release all assumptions and methods used to process the data at the time of publication. Make it available to researchers (even lay researchers) who are outside the clique so the work can be checked. Had the researchers involved in Climategate done this from the beginning, instead of circling their wagons and refusing to allow outsiders to check their work, they would have taken less hectoring. As a bonus for them, Climategate would never have happened.Former IPCC reviewer Kenneth P. Green, has his doctorate in environmental sci ence and engi neering and is an Advisor to the Frontier Center for Public Policy, ( www.fcpp.org).Green is a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.Source by Ken Green
Author: admin
The environmentalists attack schools – Indoctrination alert
I’ve read the story about the high school student who stood up to climate change propaganda and, unfortunately, this kind of thing happens more often than we think and at all levels (from junior kindergarten to post graduate studies)
Here is my fifth grade daughter’s experience with the global warming propaganda apparatus, Canadian edition.
On the second last day of school before Christmas holidays (December 17th) a group of 6 and 7 grade students (recommended as “gifted” by the school’s principal) came to my daughter’s class to make a presentation about the alleged effects global warming have on planet’s life. The presentation, which, in the principal’s words, was the result of “wonderful research made by the gifted students,” showed pictures of melting ice glaciers, flooding cities and drowning polar bears and generally used the scare tactics of the environmental groups to “urge the governments to act in order to save the planet.” But the presentation was not only an information session. The sixth graders had a political agenda too and at the end of the show they circulated a petition addressed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in which they, again, urged him to “act for the future of the planet by signing the Copenhagen Accord.” Needless to say that being pressured (the Principal and two teachers were present in the presentation room and encouraged the students to sing the petition) and not knowing what to do, all the children ended up by putting their names on the list, although some of them, including my daughter, felt deeply uncomfortable doing it. But who cares about little children feelings when is for such a “noble” cause?
The next day I’ve discussed with the Principal and the teachers and they removed my daughter’s signature (and other students’ whose parents complained) from the petition. They also agreed that they will inform the parents regarding any future presentations, so that the parents/legal guardians should decide whether they want their children to participate or not.
Here I’d like to make few points:
1. I’m OK with the freedom of speech. Any individual should be allowed to express their opinions. However, this is a two way street, and one should not impose his or her opinions on others by forcing them to support their views. The teachers showed to be biased regarding the climate change topics and completely disregarded students’ right to question the arguments of the presenters. They didn’t give them the right to refuse to be part of it, and assumed that there was a “general consensus.”
2. The fact that the “gifted students did a great research job” doesn’t give them the right to use other students’ coerced accord to push their agenda. I’m afraid these gifted students have been in fact used by their activists’ parents in desperate search and need for political support. But apparently some parents would do anything, even violate others rights, to impose their views.
3. There is a legal aspect here too. The school doesn’t have the right to disclose its student’s personal information without parents/ guardian consent. In this case a list containing the names and signatures of potentially hundreds of students was allowed to circulate freely with a group of sixth graders. And that with the blessing of the principal and teachers. Is allowing that wise and safe?
4. The presenters used children emotions to push their propaganda. The show implied that the climate change would cause the extinction of polar bears, penguins and other catastrophic effects and suggested that students’ refuse to sign would make them responsible for this. At one point a student asked what would happen it they didn’t sign and one of the presenters answered with a grave tone: “bye-bye world.” This may look unimportant for adults but making 10 year old children feel guilty for the destruction of planet is a despicable act.
All this happened at a number of schools in Canada but I’m sure that, unfortunately, it’s not an isolated case. As mentioned before I managed to have my daughter’s name removed from the petition and the school will inform me about future presentations. It’s a small victory against the system but it’s a victory of truth and freedom of speech.
Sincerely,
Marco Piti,
Canada
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Original Link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Story Source:
Adapted from materials provided by American Geophysical Union, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Journal Reference:
Knorr, W. Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters, 2009; 36 (21): L21710 DOI: 10.1029/2009GL040613
French Revolution! Carbon tax ruled unconstitutional just two days before taking effect
This new French carbon tax was scheduled to go into law on Jan1, 2010. The tax was steep: 14 euros per ton of carbon dioxide (USD $20). In a stunning move, and surely a blow to warmists everywhere, the tax has been found unconstitutional and thrown out. Originally found here (Google Translation). Lord Monckton was kind enough to assist me in deciphering the meaning of the ruling and writes:
In France, if at least 60 Deputies of the House and 60 Senators appeal to the Constitutional Council, it has the power to pronounce on the constitutionality of a proposed law – in the present case, the 2010 national budget of France, which contained enabling provisions (loi deferee) for a carbon levy. The Council found that these enabling provisions were unconstitutional on two grounds: that the exemptions contained within the provisions for a carbon levy vitiated the primary declared purpose of the levy, to combat carbon emissions and hence “global warming”; and that the exemptions would cause the levy to fall disproportionately on gasoline and heating oils and not on other carbon emissions, thereby breaching the principle that taxation should be evenly and fairly borne.
The Press release from the French Constitutional Council is here in English (Google Translated) and in original French Here’s a Deustch-Welle news article on the reversal.
France’s Constitutional Council says the country’s proposed carbon tax is illegal. This is a severe blow to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s plans to fight climate change.
France’s Constitutional Council has struck down a carbon tax that was planned to take effect on January 1st. The council, which ensures the constitutionality of French legislation, said too many polluters were exempted in the measure and the tax burden was not fairly distributed. It was estimated that 93 percent of industrial emissions outside of fuel use, including the emissions of more than 1,000 of France’s top polluting industrial sites, would be exempt from the tax, which would have charged 17 euros per ton of emitted carbon dioxide. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has argued the tax is necessary to combat climate change and reduce the country’s dependence on oil. However, the council’s ruling is a severe blow to both Sarkozy’s environmental plan as well as France’s budget for 2010. The government now has to find a way to come up with about 4.1 billion euros in revenue that was expected from the tax. h/t to WUWT reader Dirk HSource by Anthony WattsMaybe Premiere Gordon Campbell right here in BC will take notice…
Taxpayer Robbery Gate
Aside from ideologues, hydrocarbon haters, Gaia worshipers, profiteers and power-grabbing politicians, most of the sentient world is beginning to realize that the hysteria over global warming disasters is based on dubious to fraudulent temperature data, analyses, models, reports and peer reviews. Climate Research Unit emails, HARRY_READ_ME.txt computer memos, and blatant tampering with Australian, Russian, UK and US temperature data make the scandal impossible to ignore or explain away. They also helped ensure that Copenhagen descended into an expensive, carbon-emitting gabfest – and that China and India rejected any deal that would force them to curtail their energy generation, economic growth and poverty reduction programs. Senator Barbara Boxer is an exception. She is ignoring the obvious and doing her best to divert attention from the scandal, circle the alarmist wagons, cover up the fraud, obstruct justice – and ram through another legislative power grab. “This isn’t Climategate,” the California Democrat insists. “It’s email theft gate.” The problem isn’t the fraud; it’s that a hacker or whistleblower revealed the fraud. She needs to wake up and smell the cesspool. It’s not theft gate. It’s Taxpayer Robbery Gate. We, the taxpayers, We the people – paid for this bogus “research.” We paid billions of dollars for it – and providing the data, computer codes and analytical methods is a condition of the employment and research grants for these scientists. The work belongs to us. We own it. We the People, our elected representatives and our climate realist scientists have a right to examine this supposed evidence of planetary disaster, to ensure that it’s driven by science, and not ideology. That it’s complete, accurate – and honest. That it backs up the alarmist scientists’ call for draconian, life-altering restrictions on energy use. That the CRU cabal did not alter, lose, ignore, toss or destroy “inconvenient” data and evidence that might get in the way of their agendas and predetermined results. Not only were we stonewalled for years, while these UK and US scientists refused to divulge their data, computer codes and methodologies. Not only did the scientists who wrote these emails and did this phony research refuse to let taxpayers, other scientists, and even members of Congress and Parliament see their raw data and analyses. Not only did they prevent debate and replace peer review with a perverted system that allowed only a small network of like-minded colleagues to examine – and applaud – their work. They also excluded, denounced and vilified anyone who asked hard questions or challenged their actions. In short, they robbed us! They took our money, and defrauded us. Even worse, the Taxpayer Robbery Gate scientists are working hand-in-glove to pressure the United States, Great Britain and world into spending trillions of dollars fighting “catastrophic manmade climate change” … slashing our energy use, living standards and employment base … enacting unaccountable global government … redistributing wealth and technology … restricting our liberties and civil rights … and keeping millions of families deprived of energy and in permanent destitution. This is the same California Senator who berated an Air Force general for calling her Ma’am. Who treated scientist, physician and author Michael Crichton like a child molester, for daring to disagree with her on global warming and suggest that double-blind climate studies would guard against errors and fraud. Who displays an un-American intolerance for any witnesses who question her views. The Boxer-White House effort makes the Watergate cover-up and obstruction of justice look like a juvenile prank. It’s paving the way for cap-tax-and-trade laws that would nationalize the entire US economy – by the same divisive, dictatorial elements that are nationalizing our banking and healthcare systems. They understand, even if the general populace still does not, that by controlling carbon they will control our lives. Just imagine the Boxer, White House and media outcry and denunciations if these emails and fraudulent actions had involved oil companies and climate disaster “deniers.” But of course, if Boxer & Co. didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards “We’re honest. We have nothing to hide,” the accused scientists keep saying. That’s wonderful. But then they need to back up their protestations with action. They need to come clean. Stop manipulating data and hiding documents and emails. Cooperate with investigators. Honor FOIA requests. Share data and computer codes. Stop attacking scientists who disagree with them. Make all climate studies, for and against manmade global warming disaster claims, subject to real peer review and open to public examination. They need to engage in full-blown public debates with climate change realists and skeptics. The profiteering scientists, their highly suspect work and the institutions that sponsor them need to be investigated – thoroughly, by an independent, incorruptible team of knowledgeable scientists, modelers, statisticians and law enforcement officials. If they are convicted, they need to be penalized for defrauding and robbing us. They deserve jail time, dismissal and permanent bans from any future federal grants to them, their research labs and their universities or government offices. The hacker or whistleblower should get a Congressional Medal of Freedom or Nobel Peace Prize – not a congressional investigation. At the very least, he has revealed how petty, shameful and corrupt the four-alarm climate “research” establishment is, and how the hypothesis of manmade climate chaos is a house of cards built on a foundation of sand. In so doing, he may have prevented further unjust enrichment of the perpetrators of this billion-dollar funding and science scam. This bogus science is behind every US, EU and UN proposal to restrict and control our energy, economy, living standards and fundamental liberties – in the name of preventing computer-conjured global warming disasters. By inaugurating Climategate, the whistleblower may have forestalled or prevented wars over increasingly scarce energy and resources caused by this phony science. We need to start over on the global warming science – with honest scientists who do everything in the open. Or just scrap the entire process, accept that climate change is mostly natural and cyclical, and adapt to it the same way our ancestors did, using the wealth and technology that hydrocarbon fuels have given us. _______________ Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which sponsors the All Pain No Gain education campaign and petition against job-killing global warming policies and the ClimateDepot website for the latest news and views on climate change. He is also a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.Source by Paul Driessen
Graphical timeline of Climategate related events and emails available
The scandal that has rocked climate change science encompasses a 30 year time span and dozens of the world’s top climate scientists. A thorough analysis of all of the Climategate emails entailed an extraordinary amount of work to correlate the emails with the events that were happening at the time – until now. A new chart puts the entire event and the last 30 years of applicable climate science in an easy to use format. Created by Mohib Ebrahim, the new graphical timeline provides a complete picture of the events in the emails in an easy to read and use format. “ClimateGate: 30 years in the making” digests all of the pertinent emails, documents, historical events and graphs down to one large chart that can be viewed on screen or printed. The chart is hosted on the Australian website JoNova and will be updated regularly as new information is discovered and analyzed. It is an important document for anyone interested in the scandal and all of the events leading up to it. Follow the link below to download the chart.
- ClimateGate: 30 years in the making – Download chart in various formats
- Complete Climategate coverage from the Climate Change Examiner
Source by Tony Hake
Sue You for Breathing
The Global Warming Church must be getting impatient. Cap and tax won’t happen any time soon. So instead of just waiting to legislate, today’s WSJ writes, they litigate:
A group of 12 Gulf Coast residents whose homes were damaged by Katrina are suing 33 energy companies for greenhouse gas emissions that allegedly contributed to the global warming that allegedly made the hurricane worse. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and seven state AG allies plus New York City are suing American Electric Power and other utilities for a host of supposed eco-maladies. A native village in Alaska is suing Exxon and 23 oil and energy companies for coastal erosion.
What nerve. Build a house near the ocean in a hurricane zone. Then when there’s a storm, blame carbon-emitting firms. But these lawsuits do bully ahead. [And hurricane activity has been at an all time low for years now]
“My hope is that the court case will provide a powerful incentive for polluters to be reasonable and come to the table and seek affordable and reasonable reductions,” Mr. Blumenthal told the trade publication Carbon Control News.
I bet he wants them to “come to the table” so that they will give him campaign contributions that match those he gets from trial lawyers. We asked Blumenthal’s office for a comment on that, but they ignored the trial-lawyer money question. Instead, they sent this from Blumenthal:
“My hope is that the companies and Congress will do the right thing, recognizing global warming is incontrovertible fact and acting to curb greenhouse gas pollution … [The utilities companies] are contemplating changes in their conduct, trending toward compliance rather than defiance, which is the good news that both the Journal and this blog miss.”
If these cases succeed, much of America will be in court, all the time.
… [T]he courts would become a venue for a carbon war of all against all. Not only might businesses sue to shackle their competitors—could we sue the New York Times for deforestation?—but judges would decide the remedies against specific defendants. In practice this would mean ad hoc command-and-control regulation against any industries that happen to catch the green lobby’s eye.
Sounds destructive.
Blumenthal is not new to this game. The Connecticut AG ha partnered with his parasitic trial lawyer friends for years, pushing expensive, politically-driven lawsuits against tobacco companies and gun makers. His involvement in the nationwide tobacco settlement allowed him to steer $65 million to his allies, including his own former law firm.
It’s joked that AG stands for “aspiring governor.” I’d worry about that being Blumenthal’s next step, but attorneys general, partnering with private lawyers, probably do even more damage to consumers.
Source by John Stossel
Climategate Round-Up #9
How better to spend the dog days between Christmas and New Year than to catch up on your favorite climate conspiracy. Grab another eggnog and a mince pie, I have a mini-linkapalooza for you. If you missed them, Climategate Round-Ups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
The Leak/Hack
Thou Shalt Not Delete. So sayeth the Department of the Environment, in lawyer speak. The notice is too late for the very absent Phil Jones, who has received a few bucks from the DoE, but also has been careless with data. Oops. The Russki’s point a finger at CRU and accuses them of manipulating data to show more warming. Ouch, da? More on the Russian accusations:
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. …The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. …
Global warming believers react to the Russian accusation, by attempting to discredit the accusers instead of questioning their faith. The revelations aren’t over yet, there’s more gold in them thar emails.
Climategate Inconvenient Emails/Data
Climategate brought very inconvenient science to light, and the neo-deniers try to explain away their deceit and corruption with terms like ‘noise’. Here’s a post that takes the ‘noise’ excuse and shoves it where the Sun don’t shine. Take that, alarmists. How bad was the CRU code and programming? Let’s ask a professional: .. Jo Nova charts the 30 years it took to manufacture Climategate. If you look at nothing else, check out her chart, it’s a work of art. Climate scientists, or common thugs and bullies? You decide.
Climategate in the Media
The Tyee bemoans the inept response of the ’scientific’ community to Climategate. Can’t say why they’re upset, the PR response is about as coherent as the science, so at least the global warming alchemists are consistent in their incompentence. Will Heaven, the appropriately named Telegraph writer on Catholicism and religion (I kid you not) met Delingpole face to face. Poor Will still can’t understand why the world’s newest religion is falling apart. The ripples of the Climategate fallout have reaches the doorstep of railway engineer Rajendra Pachaury, and the laundry list of his conflicts of interest makes Al Gore look like a rank amateur. Monckton piles on. Pachauri calls it a ‘pack of lies’, but that won’t save him when the UN starts looking for a scapegoat.
Pachauri celebrates China’s surrender. Or something.When polls attack. Even loaded questions from alarmist organizations fail to hide the fact that fewer people than ever believe the carbon scaremongers hoax.
Hippie Heads Exploding
One of the IPCC authors turns on his own, and blows the lid off how IPCC reports are put together.
The second problem is that the technical publication is not completed by the time the IPCC reports. Instead, it produces a Summary for Policy Makers. Writing the s ummary involves the co-ordinators, the reviewers and the IPCC functionaries as before, and also various chairmen. The summary goes out in a blaze of publicity, but there is no means of checking whether it represents what the scientists actually said, because the scientific report isn’t published for another four months or more. In the Fourth Assessment, the summary was quietly replaced several months after it was first published because some scientists who were involved complained of misrepresentation.
The New Scientist decides that enough is enough, it’s time to hit back against Climategate. But instead of trying to answer the growing list of questions raised by the CRU leak, NS just tries to discredit skeptics with tired old arguments. That rushing sound you hear is the NS haemorrhaging subscribers, read the comments. 
Uh Oh, dirty rotten hippie scoundrels are discovering that the burden of proof has suddenly reversed polarities:
You can feel that most crucial of propaganda processes happening with Climategate: the reversing of the burden of proof. Unfair to all the fraud detectives (Watts, McIntyre, and the rest of them, including Monkton himself) though it undoubtedly was, those noble toilers, until the Climategate revelations erupted, had to prove everything, in defiance of the default position. Their every tiny blemish was jumped upon. Their major claims were ignored. Now the default position is slowly mutating into: It’s all made-up nonsense. And the burden of proof is shifting onto the shoulders of all those who want to go on believing in such ever more discredited alarmism.
The wikipedia global warmist-in-chief William Connolley has been working overtime to hide the effects of the ‘hide the decline’ fallout, but has his activism finally caught up with him?
Climategate Hottie
In Soviet Union, not everything is gray and cold. CRU might feel like to manipulate Russian data, but smarter skeptics prefer to admire the statistics of Russians like Anna Kournikova, da? 
Thanks for reading.Source by The Daily Bayonet
Globalis Warminitis
Globalis Warmanitis is a serious disease infecting hundreds of millions. The symptoms start slowly, even one or two of the early warning signs are cause for concern. If you have a family member or friend experiencing these symptoms, act quickly and get professional medical attention. They could be the result of early onset Globalis Warmanitis. Symptoms should be treated as an emergency, as the progress of the disease is rapidly approaching a tipping point. Serious end stage physical symptoms have been reported, including; dizzyness, blurred vision, urge to paint protest signs, hysteria, hot flashes, confusion, dementia, spontaneous nudity (leading to frostbite) and eventually psychosis. If you have any of these early warning symptoms, please contact The Air Vent immediately for guidance. All inquiries are kept 100 % public, guidance will be handled in a tough love manner by Dr. Id – B.S….M.D. 
End stage symptoms include: 1. Belief in the unbiased truth of government funded science. 2. Belief that snow is a significant sign of global warming 3. Belief that drops in global temperature are falsified by the guys drawing the squiggly lines. 4. The absolute knowledge that every credible scientist believes in CO2 global warming 5. A deep warm feeling that the UN IPCC has our best interests at heart 6. Knowledge of the complex science which shows that the sun does NOT heat the earth. 7. Belief that big energy wants global warming to go away, because sales of expensive renewable energy are not in their best interest. 8. Understanding the reasons why Al Gore deserved his Nobel Prize. 9. Belief that legislation of the right kind can regulate global temperature. 10. The belief that the earth has remained at the same temperature, unchanged for thousands of years. If you, your family or friends are experiencing any of these symptoms, take heart because Dr. Id – B.S.M.D is here to help. Together we can stop this pandemic before it’s too late.Source by Jeff Id
Record Snow Hits Again…And Again and Again in 2009
America has been getting hammered with record snowfall on the east coast. Washington, D.C. and Baltimore received 16.4 inches and 21 inches respectively, and that’s just for Saturday.
This weekend’s storm was enough to top Washington’s record for the entire month of December, which was set in 1962, when the total reached 6.2 inches. For the month, Washington has received 16.6 inches. The storm was also notable for the amount of snowfall in a single day. Washington received 15 inches, the third-highest single-day total since 1884.
Here’s some other recent headlines:
The above headlines are just from December, most of the concerning storms that hit before the first day of winter. This cold weather has been hitting around the world all year. In February, the UK was hit with the worst blizzard in decades. Washington, D.C. global warming protesters were greeted with a record foot of snow in March. Montana took a snowy beating in April:
By Wednesday evening, the National Weather Service office in Great Falls had recorded 13 inches of snow for the day – that’s on top of 8 inches from the previous day – and the flakes were still falling. The previous high for snowfall on April 29 in the city was 5.4 inches, set way back in 1913. “So we broke that record pretty handily,” said Jerome Saucier, operation program leader for the NWS Great Falls office. It was also the record for precipitation of any kind for the date in Great Falls, with the equivalent of .6 inches of rain falling. The old record, also in 1913, was .43 inches. And the Electric City didn’t get the worst of it – not by a long shot. Around Duck Lake, near Babb, the storm dumped more than 4 feet of snow, the NWS reported.
In May, we saw “Record Early Season Snow in New Zealand.” Remember when North Dakota had record snow…in June.
It’s been 60 years since there was snowfall in western North Dakota in June. According to reports, that record has finally been broken and it snowed in Bismarck.
I remember needing a jacket on July 4th because it was so cold. I wasn’t alone. It was the coldest July on record in six states. In the Falkland Islands this August, “Forty-three centimetres of snow were recorded, a new record at Mount Pleasant.” In October, Denver was hit with the worst snow in 12 years. In November, “Italian ski resorts [were] killing it with record snow.” With 2008 being the coldest winter in seven years, or as some like to put it, the coldest winter this century, and this winter being especially brutal already, I have to wonder why CO2 isn’t keeping this at bay. Or, stick with me now, could it just have something to do with the lack of activity from a fiery mass that just happens to make up 98% of the solar system’s mass. Seventy four percent of 2009 was without a sunspot. There were multiple months with record low temperatures. I don’t think that is a coincidence. What do you think?Source by Duane Lester