admin

The Nine Lies Of Al Gore

By K. Daniel Glover

Al Gore is the principal prophet of doom in the global warming debate, and the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth is his gospel to true believers. But Gore has misled them.

Two years ago, British High Court Justice Michael Burton characterized Gore’s film as “alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.” The court, responding to a case filed by a parent, said the film was “one-sided” and could not be shown in British schools unless it contained guidelines to balance Gore’s attempt at “political indoctrination.” The judge based his decision on nine inaccuracies in the movie. The Gore-loving U.S. media largely ignored the story, but starting premiere night Oct. 18, Americans will hear it in Not Evil Just Wrong. To set the stage, here is a recap of Gore’s claims and why they are flawed:

The claim: Melting in Greenland or West Antarctica will cause sea levels to rise up to 20 feet in the near future. The truth: The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change concluded that sea levels might rise 20 feet over millennia — and it waffled on that prediction. The IPCC envisions a rise of no more than 7 inches to 23 inches by 2100 [which follows the natural trend and is right where it should be]. Gore’s claim is “a very disturbing misstatement of the science,” John Day, who argued the British case, says in Not Evil Just Wrong. The judge said Gore’s point “is not in line with the scientific consensus.

The claim: Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim farther to find ice. The truth: Justice Burton noted that the only study citing the drowning of polar bears (four of them) blamed the deaths on a storm, not ice that is melting due to manmade global warming. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, furthermore, found that the current bear population is 20,000-25,000, up from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s. Day says in Not Evil Just Wrong that the appeal to polar bears is “a very clever piece of manipulation.”

The claim: Global warming spawned Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The truth: “It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that,” Burton wrote in his ruling. A May 2007 piece in New Scientist refuted the Katrina argument as a “climate myth” because it’s impossible to tie any single weather event to global warming.

The claim: Increases in temperature are the result of increases in carbon dioxide. The truth: Burton questioned the two graphs Gore used in An Inconvenient Truth. Gore argued that there is “an exact fit” between temperature and CO2, Burton said, but his graphs didn’t support that conclusion. Recent data also do not support it: The global temperature has been declining for about a decade, even as CO2 levels continue rising.

The claim: The snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming. The truth: The melting has been under way for more than a century — long before SUVs and jumbo jets — and appears to be the result of other causes. Justice Burton noted that scientists agree the melting can’t be blamed primarily on “human-induced climate change.”

The claim: Lake Chad is disappearing because of global warming. The truth: Lake Chad is losing water, and humans are contributing to the losses. But the humans in the lake’s immediate vicinity, rather than mankind as a whole using fossil fuels, are to blame. Burton cited factors like population, overgrazing and regional climate variability.

The claim: People are being forced to evacuate low-lying Pacific atolls, islands of coral that surround lagoons, because of encroaching ocean waters. The truth: By their very nature, atolls are susceptible to rising sea levels. But Burton said pointedly in his ruling, “There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.”

The claim: Coral reefs are bleaching and putting fish in jeopardy. The truth: In his ruling, Burton emphasized the IPCC’s finding that bleaching could kill coral reefs — if they don’t adapt. A report released this year shows that reefs already are thriving in waters as hot as some people say ocean waters will be 100 years from now. Burton also said it is difficult to separate coral stresses such as over-fishing from any changes in climate.

The claim: Global warming could stop the “ocean conveyor,” triggering another ice age in Western Europe. The truth: Once again, Gore’s allies at the IPCC disagree with that argument. Burton cited the panel in concluding that “it is very unlikely that the ocean conveyor … will shut down in the future.” The fact that the scientific understanding of how the conveyor belt works remains unsettled further exposes the flaw in Gore’s claim.

WATCH THE FIRST TWO QUICK VIDEOS ON THIS LINK TO SEE ALL 35 OF GORE’S LIES, SCIENTIFICALLY DOCUMENTED: CLICK HERE.

NEJW

Environmentalists Like Green…Green Cash from Your Wallet

By Bob Ellis

Environmentalists like to paint a picture that tells us their interest in robbing us of our money and freedom is altruistic, while the motives of anyone opposing them is all greed and avarice. That has sold well over the years, but as the dominance of the “mainstream” media wanes, we are beginning to see the truth. We are see that environmentalists are like the pigs in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm;” while they want us to think they believe everyone is equal, they actually consider themselves “more equal” (and entitled to a bigger share of things) than everyone else. So it comes as no surprise that while average Americans are going to take a huge hit from the cap and trade global warming tax in the form of lost jobs, higher energy costs, and government mandates, some folks are going to make out like bandits on the deal. When people start talking about taking your hard-earned dollars from you along with your freedom in order to “protect the environment”, don’t buy it. They’re most likely looking not for altruistic fulfillment but for a cash crop, and they’re looking for it in your wallet. David Alan Coia at Human Events outlines some of the bandits who are going to end up with your money if the Senate passes this tax:

Congressmen desperate for campaign cash – Shortly before cap and trade passed by a narrow margin in the House, four key Democrat PACs gave $130,000 to 41 wavering Democrat congressmen to secure their vote
Congressmen desperate for taxpayer money with with to bribe the voters – Shortly before the vote in the House, earmarks totaling $5.45 billion went to the districts of four Democrat congressmen: Bobby Rush (D-IL), $1 billion; Alan Grayson (D-FL), $50 million; Mary Kaptur (D-OH), $3.5 billion; and Frank Kratovil (D-MD), $1 billion.
Congressmen desperate to placate wealthy interests caught in the cross hairs of this fraudulent assault on the American way of life – Emission allowances were given away to threatened areas of industry to buy the votes of wavering congressmen

But here’s one that even a good socialist should get upset about:

Energy companies are among the Waxman-Markey legislation supporters, and the authors cite a story in Forbes magazine in which American Electric Power CEO Mike Morris says his company’s rates “could go up as much as 30% to 50%” as the company begins “to react in a costly cap-and-trade market or deploy carbon-capture and storage technology.” However, carbon law will not negatively affect AEP, he says. “Our business profile actually increases.” “John Rowe — CEO of Exelon, one of the nation’s largest electricity distributors — estimates that for every $10 increase in the price of cap-and-trade permits, Exelon’s annual revenues will increase $750 million,” the report says, adding that “electric utilities support Waxman-Markey, because they stand to make a fortune from it.” “Everyone acknowledges that the cost of Waxman-Markey will fall on citizens and small businesses, not on so-called ‘carbon polluters,’” many of whom, the report says, “can shift their production activities — and the corresponding jobs — to countries with less stringent environmental standards.”

Alas, while such evil profits for diabolical energy companies almost certainly give good socialists indigestion, there are bigger considerations that help them get over this momentary distaste: the expansion of government influence and greater wealth distribution through the sticky fingers of government. Now I have no problem with private companies making a profit. That’s what happens in a free market, and it’s a good thing. The free market is the best, most fair economic system ever devised, working the darker elements of human nature against one another to keep abuses to a relative minimum. Capitalism is a key component in America’s unparalleled success. What I do have a problem with is (a) government imposing a massive new tax that is (b) founded on a fraudulent and unscientific premise, and (c) will kick average Americans in the stomach through the costs that naturally get passed along to them, (d) cost jobs, (e) make our foreign trade deficit even worse, (f) steal our everyday freedoms, (g) and hurt our struggling energy infrastructure…while (h) propping up these congressional enemies of the Constitution and the American people. How about you? Do you have any problem with that? Source

Cap-and-Switch: Hello Sucker!

By Alan Caruba

Here’s a look at the introduction of a draft bill co-sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsored by John Kerry (D-MA). It is the Senate alternative to the horrid “Cap-and-Trade” bill authored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). Call it “Cap-and-Switch.”

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES A BILL
To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.

All those who believe Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Jolly Green Giant are real should stop reading now.

Let’s look at the objectives of the Senate version of a huge tax on all energy use by every American. As I will note later, the bulk of the cost will fall on low-and-middle income households.

“To create clean energy jobs.” This is pure bunk. Such jobs would be primarily in the production of solar and wind energy. Other such jobs involve biofuels such as ethanol. Combined, solar and wind represent barely one percent of all the electricity generated daily in the nation. If solar and wind were profitable, you can be sure that American entrepreneurs would have long ago become more active, but if it were not for taxpayer dollars subsidizing solar and wind, neither would likely exist.

The only thing ethanol has done has been to raise the cost of the corn from which it is made and reduce the mileage of every gallon of gasoline to which it is added.

Testifying, Sept. 30 before the House Committee on Small Business, Manning Feraci, vice president of federal affairs for the National Biodiesel Board was seeking a continuation of the industry tax incentive. He said “the industry is in the midst of an economic crisis. Plants are having difficulty accessing operating capital. Volatility in commodity markets and reduced demand for biodiesel in both domestic and global markets are making it difficult for producer to sell fuel.” Nobody wants it!

There will be few “clean energy jobs” as compared to the employment that coal, oil and natural gas industries currently provide and could expand upon if the government wasn’t trying to put them out of business.

“Achieve energy independence.” Are you stupid? Boxer, Kerry, Waxman and Markey think you are. So does the President and many members of Congress.

How does America achieve “energy independence” when it will not allow the oil in Alaska’s ANWR to be extracted? When 85% of the nation’s offshore continental shelf, home to estimated billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, is off-limits to any exploration and drilling? When the President wants to eliminate the current subsidies that encourage oil companies to invest billions to find new reserves? When there is a full-scale attack on America’s coal industry even though coal provides half of all the electricity we use?

Just how does America “achieve energy independence” under such circumstances? How, indeed, do we heat or cool our homes, run our businesses, or even turn on the lights if Congress is opposed to the acquisition and use of our known and estimate energy reserves? Pretty soon, for reasons that defy understanding, Americans will not even be able to purchase an incandescent light bulb in the nation where it was invented!

“Reduce global warming pollution.” First of all, there is NO global warming. Why would Congress pass a law intended to deal with something that is a complete hoax? And what is global warming pollution? Is it the second most essential gas to all life on Earth, carbon dioxide (CO2)? If so, this law is scientifically absurd and baseless. CO2 never had anything to do with the warming that occurred after the end of the last little ice age, around 1850.

No matter what the Supreme Court and others have ruled, if CO2 is a “pollutant”, than we should all be in jail because that’s what we and other mammals exhale. It also occurs when energy sources such as coal and oil are used to keep factories producing, along with hospitals, schools, airports, seaports, and the Capitol of the United States functioning.

“Transition to a clean energy economy.” Oh sure, just as soon as we cover hundreds of thousands of acres of America with solar mirrors and wind turbines, we can make that transition. We have an economy that is dependent on coal, oil and natural gas. We have abundant natural reserves. What we don’t have is a President and Congress with the intelligence to understand that China is building a new coal-fired plant every week to meet its energy needs, that India has an aggressive nuclear energy program going for its economy, and this single piece of legislation will destroy any hope that the American economy can recover and grow strong again.

According to a study of the Waxman-Markey bill by Andrew Chamberlain, it will be the shareholders, not ratepayers, that will be the primary beneficiaries of cap-and-trade’s absurd creation of a market for the purchase and sale of “carbon credits.” It will be based on how much CO2 a utility, industrial, or any other entity is producing. The credits will literally permit them to keep on “polluting” even though that means “global warming” would, in theory, just get worse. Even though there is NO global warming. Make sense to you?

Chamberlain succinctly says, “These new findings should send a clear message to the American people (that) cap-and-trade helps the powerful and hurts the rest of us. And as Congress’ corporate allies receive the bulk of the benefits Waxman-Markey has to offer, our environment, along with our struggling economy, will suffer for years to come.”

“Congress needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers and allow the market to determine which energy and electricity sources should power our economy.”

I leave you with a short list of just some of the U.S. corporations seeking to benefit from this hideous piece of legislation. Twelve of them sent an open letter to the U.S. Senate urging swift action on the climate change bill. They are Bumble Bee Foods, Dell, DuPont, FPL Group, Google, HP, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson Diversity, Levi Strauss & Company, Nike, PG&E Corporation, and Xanterra Parks and Resorts.

Time to let your Congressman and Senators know you think this is a very bad idea.

IPCC Climate Models Amazingly Ignore 4 Billion Years of Earth's History

By C3 Headlines

Read here. Earth’s climate and environment has suffered from a wide range of extremes over billions of years. Yet climate models extrapolate their predictions from conditions experienced during mid-1970’s to late 1990’s – definitely, an incredibly microscopic view of actual Earth climate history.

Source

When Did Energy Become the Enemy?

By Alan Caruba

One of the most curious and, frankly, frightening aspects of environmentalism is its hatred of the use of energy. One can draw a straight line between the Carter administration that imposed a windfall tax on the U.S. oil industry and the present Obama administration that is all for offshore oil drilling just as long as it takes place in Brazil, not America.

There is, in fact, offshore oil exploration and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly near Florida. The problem is that it is being undertaken by China and Russia.

In America, Ken Salazar, Obama’s Secretary of the Interior, is likely to slow offshore development, but it should be noted that 85% of the nation’s continental shelf has long been under a ban against exploration and development, and was throughout the eight years of the Bush Administration. The same holds true for vast oil deposits in Alaska’s ANWR area.

Until the 1970s, America’s economy thrived on affordable energy. Fully 85% of all the energy we need and use comes from coal, oil and natural gas. That is not going to change despite all the blather about “renewable energy” sources such as solar or wind. Neither of these has proven to be either reliable or affordable without huge government subsidies wherever they have been tried.

As Seldon B. Graham, Jr. notes in his book, “Why Your Gasoline Prices Are High”, in 1981 a windfall profits tax was imposed, “This tax, in effect, sent U.S.A. Oil’s exploration and drilling budgets straight to the government to spend as it pleased; thereby leaving little or no exploration and drilling budgets for USA Oil.”

The result was “a death notice” to the industry. “Many U.S. oil and gas companies went bankrupt because of the windfall profits tax. Those U.S.A. oil companies which survived were forced to go overseas to explore and drill in foreign countries.”

The result of the windfall profits tax was that it forced “the U.S.A. to defend Middle East oil.” And that, dear reader, is why we are still in the Middle East providing an umbrella of protection, rescuing Kuwait from Iraq, then having to re-invade Iraq, and now faced with a decision to militarily end Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons with which to threaten other Middle East nations.

Graham, with more than fifty years experience in the oil industry, has also been vocal in opposition to yet another idiotic government mandate, the addition of ethanol to every gallon of gasoline drivers must purchase.

Ethanol is touted as another “clean” energy alternative, but Graham notes that even as it reduces the mileage available from each gallon, it also emits more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. “Clean biofuel is the big lie”, says Graham. That said, carbon dioxide not only plays no role in “global warming”, but there is no global warming; the Earth being in a cooling cycle for the past ten years.

Just like Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama regards oil, natural gas, and coal as the enemy. Jerome Corsi of World Net Daily recently warned that “President Obama declared war on oil and natural gas at the United Nations global warming summit and he made the same pitch to the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh.”

Obama told the UN, “I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge.”

On September 10, Buddy Kleemeir, chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of America told a Senate Finance Committee that “The Obama administration’s budget request would strip essential capital from new American natural gas and oil investment by radically raising taxes on American production.”

A recent New York Times article noted that “The oil industry has been on a hot streak this year, thanks to a series of major discoveries…these discoveries, spanning five continents, are the result of hefty investments that began earlier in the decade when oil prices rose…”

First, note that the discoveries are the result of risks taken nearly a decade ago. It takes a long time to find new oil reserves and it requires billions of dollars. Second, note that these discoveries have largely been in other continents.

Third, if U.S. policy deliberately reduces the ability to make those investments by phasing out “fossil fuel subsidies”, it ensures that the nation remains dependent on Middle East and other foreign oil imports. Fourth, it puts the lie to the endless talk of America becoming “energy independent.”

America has been systematically stripped of access to its own interior and offshore energy reserves since the 1970s and at the heart of this conspiracy have been the many environmental organizations that have first secured legislation to enable their obstruction and second to impose, often through the courts, measures that attack, not just energy, but agriculture, timber, and other formerly thriving elements of the nation’s economy.

The destruction of America is moving apace and we have a president who continues to lie about “global warming” in order to further its decline.

Caruba blogs daily at factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com

Not Evil Just Wrong Vancouver Premiere – On the big screen!

Great news for all our readers here in Vancouver, BC!

Global warming alarmists want everyone to believe that humans are killing the planet. But Not Evil Just Wrong proves that the only threats to America (and the rest of the world) are the flawed science and sky-is-falling rhetoric of Al Gore and his allies in environmental extremism.

The planet is cooling, not warming. Extreme weather is lower now than ever before. Carbon dioxide is greening the planet, not killing it. Environmental campaigns are threatening the world’s poorest people, and threatening our own freedoms and liberty.

We’ve managed to arrange an exclusive screening of this important film at Vancouver’s famous Hollywood Theatre for the premiere night! This theatre is a stones throw away from our headquarters in the heart of Vancouver’s Kitsilano neighbourhood and only a few minutes away from the University of British Columbia.

Thanks to generous help from the Fraser Institute and the film’s producers, we will be presenting the feature documentary on the big screen at exactly 5PM on October 18th.

Hundreds of thousands of people all around the world will be watching the film in community centers, churches, cinemas, universities, and in their homes, all pressing play on their DVD players at the same moment on October 18th. We will be attempting to break a world record for the largest simultaneous film premiere in history!

UPDATE: Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore (who appears in the film and is now very critical of Greenpeace) will be attending this premiere in Vancouver, along with producers Phelim McAleer and Barton Sidles!

Join the fightback against global warming hysteria and environmental extremism. Please join us at the screening! If you have any questions simply contact us.

Who’s invited: You, your family, your friends, people who’ll absolutely love and people who’ll absolutely hate the documentary and therefore must see it.

When: October 18th, 2009

Time: 5pm PST

Where: Hollywood Theatre, 3123 West Broadway, Vancouver, BC

Cost: FREE

If you aren’t in Vancouver and cannot make it to the theatre, you can host your own premiere with friends and family by clicking here. Here’s the trailer:

> CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE FILM!

Climate Science: Funding Hypocrisy

By Dr. Tim Ball, Climatologist

“Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing” Edmund Burke

I experienced two apparently disparate events recently. Both speak to the magnificent hypocrisy Burke identifies. They also illustrate Burke is wrong when he said it costs nothing. We’re all paying and will continue to pay for hypocrisies in climate science and research funding.

The first event involved a stay in an upscale hotel. I’ve learned to ignore moral lectures in the bathroom – reuse the towels and save the planet – because I know the real beneficiary is hotel profit. Now it’s gone further. This time there was a “green” card I could hang on my door to stop the room being serviced at all. I didn’t use it because of the profit issue, but it would also put hotel support staff jobs in jeopardy. I have no problem with profit, free enterprise and capitalism; however, the hypocrisy of corporations exploiting the environment and people’s guilt purely for profit is obscene.

Guess Who is Funding Them Now.

The second event was participation on a radio program about a report by researchers at Simon Fraser University (SFU) predicting increased disasters from severe weather because of global warming.

One of the authors was a former Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) at Environment Canada but this wasn’t in the press release. He also chaired the meeting at Villach in 1985 that led to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. Now a retired bureaucrat he fosters claims of an increase in catastrophic events identified by IPCC Working Groups II and III. Like them the paper accepted without question claims of Working Group I (the Science Report) that human CO2 is causing warming. Both ignore the fact their theory would result in less severe weather. It claims polar air will warm more than tropical air, which would reduce temperature contrast, thus reducing the potential for severe weather. But science and facts have nothing to do with the hypocritical scientific, political and economic exploitation of climate.

Sarcastically one can argue the SFU paper had credibility because the major sponsor was not an oil company. Instead, support came from the government of British Columbia and the corporate insurance giant Zurich. The latter’s web page notes; Our Climate Initiative takes a market-based approach to addressing the risks that we and our customers face from climate change.

Hypocritically funding from these sources somehow does not influence or bias like money from other corporations or agencies. I’ve made this point on several occasions by answering the question, “Who is funding you?” with “Greenpeace”. There’s always a stunned silence apparently confirming this as an acceptable source. It isn’t true as I explain, but neither is the charge I am paid by the oil companies. If insurance companies need to know what impacts climate change will have, isn’t the same true for energy and other companies?

Increased Profit is Not a Solution For Climate Change

Insurance company involvement in climate research is not new. Swiss Re one of the largest insurance companies in the world has long sponsored climate research as their web page proclaims, “As a leading global reinsurer we actively research, model and reinsure natural catastrophe risks from floods through winter-storms to hurricanes. We have therefore followed the development of climate change for over 20 years and participated in, or sponsored, 100’s (sic) of events and projects ranging from research and awareness building to product development and managing our own carbon footprint.”

They were a founding sponsor of Climate Week NYC this year attended by those great climate experts former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

Their presence and the error-filled address by President Obama reflect the concern that the public is not buying their climate story and Copenhagen will fail. Swiss Re’s comment that “Climate Week NY°C is an important step for us on the “Road to Copenhagen” where policy makers will make important decisions on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation funding including the use of risk- transfer mechanisms” takes lobbying to a new level.

Swiss Re increased activity in climate research after hurricane Andrew.

A major misdirection was created when increased cost for hurricane insurance claims was incorrectly used to say hurricane frequency had increased. Zurich and Swiss Re both promote the false science of the IPCC without questioning its validity because it benefits them. Is it good business? Yes. Is it moral, scientifically accurate and good for society? No. It is pure, unadulterated, hypocritical, exploitation. Would they sponsor research that showed climate variations were quite normal and risk levels were not elevated? Of course not, any more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change entertains climate skeptics.

Most IPCC members are bureaucrats chosen by their governments and whose jobs depend on adhering to the political line. The others are researchers also funded by governments.

The Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada apparently was involved in who would represent Canada on the IPCC. Wikipedia lists him as a Canadian climatologist. He is not. His degrees are in physics and oceanography.

He is also listed as chair of the board of trustees of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), which is “Canada’s main funding body for university-based research on climate, atmospheric and related ocean work.”

This means almost total government control, as they are the main source of climate research, a pattern repeated in most countries. The graph shows the increase in US government funding and illustrates the problem as the total now exceeds $70 billion a year.

Graph from WUWT

Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova found, “that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism.” (Monopsony – a market situation in which there is only one buyer).

Combine this with funding from corporations also exploiting the climate change issue and balanced science has no chance.

Another measure of hypocrisy occurs because environmental groups, such as the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF), promote the false climate change story, while receiving funds from oil and other energy companies as well as government funding and/or tax benefits. Apparently money from regular energy companies does not sully their hands, as it does those who disagree with them. A member of the DSF and chairman of the Board for years was James Hoggan whose public relations firm includes several alternative energy companies as clients. Hypocritically money from alternative energy companies who benefit from reductions in CO2 is not directing and influencing.

There is Money in Hypocrisy

Apparently if you promote a solution then any vested interest is acceptable even if the problem doesn’t exist or is based on false information. But how is charging more for insurance promoting a solution? How is exaggerating risk using false and bad science creating solutions? Hypocrisy abounds with those providing and those receiving the funding. They protect their vested interest by perpetuating false information and blocking any attempt to determine the truth. They have assured that in the kingdom of the blind the blind man is king. As Frederick W. Robertson said, “There are three things in the world that deserve no mercy, hypocrisy, fraud, and tyranny.” We have all three in abundance in climate science. Hypocrisy in claiming some funding is untainted and supporting research that increases profit; fraud by using false information – a practice that would bring criminal charges in most other areas of business; and tyranny by bullying and suppressing those who seek balance and all the facts. But the ultimate hypocrisy is that the practitioners of all three claim to be our saviors. Save us from them.

“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”

Dr. Ball can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com

Source

FORECAST: A COOLING TREND ON CLIMATE CHANGE

By Dr. Stephen Murgatroyd

The United Nations is pulling out the “big guns” in an attempt to create a climate of urgency about climate change so that the meeting of over one hundred world leaders in Copenhagen some 75 days from now can produce an agreement to replace to failed Kyoto accord.

Nature, however, is not co-operating. Average global temperature is rising at 1.40C per century, not the 3.90C indicated by the IPPC models. We are in the seventh year of global cooling. Sea levels, despite messages to the contrary, are rising at normal rates – eight inches per century – much less than the IPPC models suggested. There has been no significant rise in sea levels over the last four years. Arctic sea ice, currently in its summer state, is more extensive in 2009 than it was in 2007 and 2008. Antarctic sea ice is at record high. Global sea ice shows relative stability over the last thirty years. While CO2 levels are rising, the rate of growth has slowed considerably – the IPPC suggested that CO2 levels would grow at around 468 parts per million (ppm) per century, when in fact the observed growth in CO2 is 204 ppm per century – less than half of the IPPC model suggestion.

Hurricane activity, which does not appear to be connected to CO2 emissions, is at the lowest level since satellite monitoring and observation began in 1979. In the Northern Hemisphere, hurricane activity is currently one of the quietest in a decade. Reefs off the Keppel Islands on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef have shown rapid recovery of coral dominance, despite repeated coral bleaching events that many ascribe to CO2-induced global warming. All in all, nature does not seem to be co-operating with Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon and the climate change negotiators.

Neither is China. Despite high expectations that they would enter into a global agreement which involves a commitment to curb green house gas emission by an agreed targeted amount, China indicated that they see this issue as a national one, requiring balance between China’s need to continue rapid development and manage its environmental conditions. It will not be told what to do by the international community. Neither will India.

The United States is ambivalent. While President Barack Obama clearly sees climate change as a clear and present danger, legislatures are deeply divided about the appropriate response. The House of Representatives has approved a bill that provides for a cap and trade for carbon credits, the free allocation of a large number of carbon credits to polluting companies and regulation of vehicle emissions. The Senate, however, is delaying consideration of the issue and is not likely to pass any legislation before Copenhagen.

The current US proposals will not have any substantial impact on either carbon emissions in the US or on global temperature. They will, however, have an impact on the economy – higher energy prices, changes in transportation systems and in consumer behaviour. They may also help to stimulate the creation of green jobs, but at the expense of jobs in other sectors. What will certainly happen is that the emerging financial services (carbon trading, carbon offsets) and climate research will expand and grow. The carbon trading industry is currently worth $100 billion worldwide and research on climate change is a $7 billion industry worldwide.

Most committed are the member states of the European Union. Collectively, they have determined emissions targeted, new transportation standards and have been operating a cap and trade system for a number of years. They are also now considering the scale of technology transfer and financial aid to developing countries. They have also enacted, through EU regulation, constraints on consumer behaviour – making it illegal to sell certain kinds of light bulbs, creating incentives for smart energy purchases and smart grid technologies.

It will be a long meeting in Copenhagen and it looks unlikely that it will be able to conclude the kind of comprehensive agreement Ban Ki Moon is seeking – the fractures between the parties and the challenges of securing agreed targets are likely to be significant.

The G8 summit showed that this was the case with just eight nations – there will be over one hundred in Copenhagen.

Some climate change scientists are becoming concerned that the momentum for Copenhagen is already fading and that the possibility of agreement is looking more unlikely than it was at the beginning of the year. They are beginning to use science to argue the polemics of the case rather than just draw attention to the science – the lines between scientific inquiry and political action are becoming blurred.

It will be an interesting time between now and December, with the voices of concern already becoming shrill. What is needed are some calm, reflective and realistic minds focused on what is possible and the consequences of the possible actions for both the environment and the economy. They may well be in short supply and will almost certainly find themselves castigated for not being committed to environmentally-sound change or as “deniers” – but we need such objective analysts to provide support for the general public in their attempts to assess the work of their governments.

Source

God Bless Vaclav Klaus; Shut Up Kids!

By Greg Gutfeld So, at the opening of the U.N. climate change summit on Tuesday, a hundred or so world leaders (including our own President) were greeted by a thirteen year old girl from India, named Yugratna. Her name might seem complicated to western ears, but her message was simple: we’re just not doing enough to fight global warming. She added, “Please help: Qaddafi asked me to Applebee’s.”
Yugratna Anyway, here’s a key rule one must know about left-wing propaganda: that once they trot out the kids, you know you’re being fed a pile of crap the size of Al Gore’s houseboat. Using pubescent pawns is based on the successful belief that no one dare question children – because they’re smaller and weaker than adults – and for the most part, sincere. Also: they’re adorable and can make up damaging stories about you if you don’t submit to their fickle wishes. So you know if anyone at that meeting were to stand up to Yugratna, and say, “Hey kid, shouldn’t you be in school instead of trying to ruining our economy based on phony science,” you’d be stoned to death. With knives. Made of stone. Shaped like knives. So, dammit: God bless Czech President Vaclav Klaus. The world’s gutsiest leader went after the U.N. for this shameless BS, saying “It was sad and …frustrating. It’s a propagandistic exercise where 13-year-old girls from some far-away country perform a pre-rehearsed poem. It’s simply not dignified.” See, Klaus is a skeptic on global warming – and he’s no dope. He realizes, like a growing number of experts in the scientific community, that climate change is more likely naturally based – not the fault of evil humans. It’s too bad, however, that politicians, like our own Obama, would choose to listen to a teenage girl instead. Maybe if Klaus got pigtails, things would change. And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist.Source

An Inconvenient Question: The Age of Stupid NYC Premiere

NOT EVIL producer kicked to the curb by greens

Kristen McMurray, part of the NEJW team, said:

Our director, Phelim McAleer, went to NYC on Monday to ask “Age of Stupid” premiere attendees an inconvenient question, “How did you get here?” Not surprising is most of them flew in but it is incredibly ironic given that planes are one of the great evils in the film. Also ironic, and wrong, is that they blocked free speech by kicking our director to the curb.