admin

Ignoring Science

IBD Editorial

Climate Change: A new scientific paper says that man has had little or nothing to do with global temperature variations. Maybe the only place it’s really getting hotter is in Al Gore’s head.
Because he must be getting flustered now, what with his efforts to save the benighted world from global warming continually being exposed as a fraud. The true believers will not be moved by the peer-reviewed findings of Chris de Freitas, John McLean and Bob Carter, scientists at universities in Australia and New Zealand. Warming advocates have too much invested in perpetuating the myth. (And are probably having too much fun calling those who don’t agree with them “deniers” and likening skeptics to fascists.) But these scientists have made an important contribution to the debate that Gore says doesn’t exist. Their research, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, indicates that nature, not man, has been the dominant force in climate change in the late 20th century. “The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Nino conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Nina conditions less likely” says co-author de Freitas. “We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.” These findings are largely being ignored by the mainstream media. They simply don’t fit the worn narrative that man is dangerously warming the Earth through his carbon dioxide emissions and a radical alteration of Western lifestyles mandated by government policy is desperately needed. They will be ignored, as well, by the Democratic machine that is trying to ram an economy-smothering carbon cap-and-trade regime through Congress. Despite efforts to keep the global warming scare alive, the growing evidence that humans aren’t heating the planet is piercing the public consciousness and alarmists are becoming marginalized. Sharp Americans are starting to understand H.L. Mencken’s observation that “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” That pretty much sums up the modern environmentalist movement.Source

Green Desperation

By Alan Caruba

The environmental movement and, in particular, “global warming”, has become a joke. That is always a sign of decline. Unless you’re a comedian, when people start laughing at you it’s never a good thing.

There are often defining moments in the death of a movement and I think I may have spotted one when the Australian July issue of Rolling Stone featured a naked Miranda Kerr on its “Green Issue” cover, chained to a tree while demurely covering her naughty parts to advance the cause of koala bears. Ms. Kerr is described as a “super model” and terribly concerned that there are only 100,000 koalas left. Apparently, “global warming” has something to do with that.

If you have to use nudity to sell your nonsense, you are scrapping bottom; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals does it all the time.

Back in the U.S. one of the biggest idiots in the U.S. Senate, a former candidate for President, John Kerry, had convened a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which predicted that “massive crop devastation, melting glaciers, water shortages, (and) millions of displaced people…will drag the U.S. military into conflict if global climate change goes unchecked.”

Observers may have noticed that Greens no longer refer to “global warming” much anymore as opposed to “climate change.” This is because (a) there is NO global warming and (b) the climate has always been in a process of change over the past 4.5 billion years. If you wanted to ensure that the U.S. military continued to receive billions for defense, claiming that “rising sea levels” will lead to conflicts is a pretty silly way of justifying it, given the threats to peace in the Middle East and elsewhere.

My friend, John Brignell, a British emeritus professor and expert on statistics, maintains a website that features a page devoted to the endless events, trends, and predictions attributed to “global warming.” It is a hoot.

Among the things attributed to “global warming” are acne, a saltier Atlantic Ocean, a decline in the duck and goose population, and, my favorite, why “global warming” is responsible for blizzards and colder winters. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

A recent story on Discovery.com claimed that the dark-colored sheep of the Scottish St. Kilda islands may fall victim to “rising temperatures”, replacing them with lighter ones. The whole of the British Isles has been experiencing colder weather thanks to a cooling cycle that has been occurring for the past ten years. It’s worse than mere twaddle, a story like this is just one of thousands desperately trying to advance and keep alive the absurd “global warming” theory.

$79 Billion Spent on Climate Change “Science”!

Here in the United States, the Science and Public Policy Institute just announced the publication of “Climate Money”, a study by Joanne Nova that reveals the federal government has a near-monopoly on climate science funding and has spent “more than $79 billion of taxpayer’s money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.”

The study concludes, understandably, that “Most of this spending was unnecessary.”

The entire bogus “Cap-and-Trade” Act languishing in Congress is about selling “carbon credits.” This is just one degree more disingenuous than selling bottled water when the H2O that comes out of your kitchen faucet is as clean and safe as any you will find from an artesian well. Meanwhile, worldwide, the trading reached $126 billion in 2008.

This is why everything about environmentalism is a scam. Can you think of a single good reason to spend $126 billion for the right to emit carbon dioxide when 97% of it comes from nature? The Earth emits CO2 all the time in the form of volcanic activity, the action of the oceans, storing and releasing it. When you exhale six pounds of it every day?

The desperation you’re seeing and hearing represents Green organizations whose entire agenda is devoted to keeping Americans from having access to any form of energy, destroying our economy, and from the bankers like Goldman Sacks who figure to make billions trading carbon credits.

Americans, many of whom are increasingly out of work, losing their homes and cars, putting off vacations, college for their kids, and any prospect of ever being able to retire are growing tired of this insanity. They have more important things to worry about.

Vancouver & Victoria Underwater? Just Another Alarmist Myth

Here we go again. According to the mainstream and misleading Times Colonist in Victoria, Canada, all of us living in Vancouver and on Vancouver Island are in dire danger of sea level rise catastrophe. They “report”:

“The spectre of rising sea levels and ecological change from climate disruption show land-use plans for Vancouver Island and the B.C. coast will need to be revisited and recalibrated to account for rapid and unabated climate change.” “‘Once set in motion, sea-level rise is impossible to stop. The only chance we have to limit sea-level rise to manageable levels is to reduce emissions very quickly, early in this century. Later it will be too late to do much,’ says senior NASA scientist Stefan Rahmstorf in a recent article for the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.”

Oh really? From the NOAA, take a look at this accurate graph showing the past 100 years worth of sea level rise data from Victoria, on Vancouver Island:The sea level rise rate has not changed in Victoria in the last 100 years, and furthermore, worldwide sea levels have been slowly rising at the same pace for thousands of years. Nothing is accelerating, and in fact, it’s slowing down in many parts of the world as we continue our cooling trend and record polar ice packs keep getting thicker and thicker.
From the tone of the Times Colonist article and some “environmentalists” we see crusading every day, they would have us believe that somehow this normal rise over the last 100 years is being caused by driving our SUVs and leaving our cellphone chargers plugged in all day. Yes, yes indeed. I guess we better change the economy of the world and hark back to the stone age in order to save Victoria from yet another great green myth! At the current long-term rise rate the sea will rise 8cm (about 3 inches) in the next 100 years, again following the same path it’s been on since the last big ice age.
If things are too scary in Victoria for all the residents that have bought into Gore & Suzuki’s Big Green Misinformation Machine, then all the folks living there might consider emigrating to the city of Vancouver, on the mainland about 50 miles north of Victoria. They might feel better with the sea level rise rate there… In Vancouver the sea level has risen a whole whopping 3.7 (1.5 inches) cm in the last 100 years, and it’s not accelerating either.Those who don’t wish to leave the Island can also move about 100 miles northwest to Tofino where they will be treated to something completely opposite of the terror of rising seas… Yup, in Tofino they might have to contend with a dropping sea level. At a current rate of minus 1.59 mm per year, the ocean would drop 15.9 cm (about 6 inches) in the next 100 years. This dropping sea level might even be worse than a rising sea level, drying out estuaries and wetlands. Everybody knows the only safe sea level is a “static sea level” that never changes. Just like a “static climate” that never changes. /sarcasm.

But seriously folks…

The rate of sea level rise varies form place to place and depends on a lot of factors. Changes in ice inventories every year (both up and down from year to year), ocean currents, the rising and falling of the land masses, geological effects, etc, all contribute. But they should not be used to foster panic for political ends by the likes of alarmists such as Vancouver’s own senile David Suzuki and his clueless sheep.
Discussing the effect of sea level rise on the Island or the BC sea coast would have to include the data I have shown above. So why isn’t any of this even mentioned in the Times Colonist article? Probably the same reasons newspapers like The Vancouver Sun all the way to The New York Times will continue to publish stories about “global warming” on an almost daily basis even though the planet has been cooling for over a decade straight. You would think a journalist who is seeking the truth, wherever it may lead, would manage to find this data. But it turns out that the author of this recent article in the Times Colonist is not a journalist, but rather he is Chris Genovali, the executive director of Raincoast Conservation. Chris Genovali is probably a fine person, and Raincoast Conservation may be a fine organization – I don’t know. But Genovali is not an objective person when it comes to the issue of sea-level rise in British Columbia or Vancouver Island, and is no doubt just another greenwashed climate change propagandist, whether he realizes it or not.Maybe he’s hoping for a piece of this massive $79 billion pie…
🙂

Graphs

Climate Funding Exposed: $79 Billion

By Joanne Nova

For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?

The Summary

The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

Read the Full Report at the Science and Public Policy Institute.

There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction”.

Billions in the Name of “Climate”

In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments. The real total can only grow.

In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000 million per annum, around 50 fold higher. Tax concessions add to this. (See below for details and sources.)

This tally is climbing precipitously. With enormous tax breaks and rescue funds now in play, it’s difficult to know just how far over the $7 billion mark the final total will stand for fiscal year 2009. For example, additional funding for carbon sequestration experiments alone amounted to $3.4 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (not included in the $7 billion total above).

The most telling point is that after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate.

If carbon is a minor player in the global climate as the lack of evidence suggests, the “Climate Change Science Program” (CCSP), “Climate Change Technology Program” (CCTP), and some of the green incentives and tax breaks would have less, little, or no reason to exist. While forecasting the weather and climate is critical, and there are other good reasons to develop alternative energy sources—no one can argue that the thousands of players who received these billions of dollars have any real incentive to “announce” the discovery of the insignificance of carbon’s role.

Click on the graph for a larger image.

…

“Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)”

By setting up trading networks, tax concessions, and international bureaucracies before the evidence was in, have we ensured that our understanding of the role of carbon in climate science would be sped up, but that our knowledge of every other aspect of climate science would be slowed down to an equal and opposite extent?

Monopolistic funding creates a ratchet effect where even the most insignificant pro-AGW findings are reported, repeated, trumpeted and asserted, while any anti-AGW results lie unstudied, ignored and delayed. Auditing AGW research is so underfunded that for the most part it is left to unpaid bloggers who collect donations from concerned citizens online. These auditors, often retired scientists, are providing a valuable free service to society, and yet, in return they are attacked, abused, and insulted.

The truth will come out in the end, but how much damage will accrue while we wait for volunteers to audit the claims of the financially well-fed?

The stealthy mass entry of bankers and traders into the background of the scientific “debate” poses grave threats to the scientific process. The promise of “trillions of dollars” on commodity markets—with all of that potential money hinging on finding that human emissions of carbon dioxide have a significant role in the climate—surely acts like blanket of mud over open dispassionate analysis.

All of this means we must be extra diligent in only focusing on just the evidence, the science, the empirical data. Illogic and unreason cloud a debate already loaded with bias. When there are so many incentives encouraging unclarity and overcomplexity, the simple truths need help to rise to the top. But who funds the counter-PR campaign—now that even Exxon has been howled out of the theater of science. There is hardly any money promoting Natural Causes of Climate Change, while billions upon trillions promote Unnatural Forces.

In this scientific debate, one side is gagged while the other side has a government-funded media campaign.
Read rest

Also see: Climate Money – Big Government Outspends Big Oil

Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate

By Marc Morano, Climate Depot

Nature not man responsible for recent global warming
Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity. The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling. “The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely” says corresponding author de Freitas. “We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.” Climate researchers have long been aware that ENSO events influence global temperature, for example causing a high temperature spike in 1998 and a subsequent fall as conditions moved to La Niña. It is also well known that volcanic activity has a cooling influence, and as is well documented by the effects of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption. The new paper draws these two strands of climate control together and shows, by demonstrating a strong relationship between the Southern Oscillation and lower-atmospheric temperature, that ENSO has been a major temperature influence since continuous measurement of lower-atmospheric temperature first began in 1958. According to the three researchers, ENSO-related warming during El Niño conditions is caused by a stronger Hadley Cell circulation moving warm tropical air into the mid-latitudes. During La Niña conditions the Pacific Ocean is cooler and the Walker circulation, west to east in the upper atmosphere along the equator, dominates. “When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modellers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall,” says McLean. “The IPCC acknowledges in its 4th Assessment Report that ENSO conditions cannot be predicted more than about 12 months ahead, so the output of climate models that could not predict ENSO conditions were being compared to temperatures during a period that was dominated by those influences. It’s no wonder that model outputs have been so inaccurate, and it is clear that future modelling must incorporate the ENSO effect if it is to be meaningful.” Bob Carter, one of four scientists who has recently questioned the justification for the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme, says that this paper has significant consequences for public climate policy.

“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”

“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”

Source

Environmentalists & Population Control

By Ann McElhinney, Producer, Not Evil Just Wrong

One of the more enduring but most appalling characteristics of environmentalists is their dislike of people. While they have immense time and compassion for furry animals and gnats and the double breasted whatever this concern does not seem to stretch to people. Humans, according to environmentalists, are actually a problem. In fact they are the problem. As Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, but now one of its sharpest critics, says in Not Evil Just Wrong “[Environmentalists] don’t seem to realise that people are also part of the environment.” When I was filming Mine Your Own Business we spoke to an environmentalist in Romania who opposed a Canadian company that wanted to open a gold mine in Transylvania. We had a long and very friendly chat. He was college educated, wore a woolly jumper and sandals and had facial hair. He was what most women go for in a big way at college. Well into the conversation I said how great it was to be alive and how progress was allowing people to live longer and eliminating diseases that in the past wiped out enormous populations. Then he dropped the bombshell. Yes, all the progress was great he agreed but there was a downside it interfered with the “natural cull”. Barack Obama’s choice of John Haldren for Science Czar I am sure has nothing to do with the fact that he has facial hair (which he has) but a whole lot to do with his ideology. So what does John Haldren believe in? His book Ecoscience from 1977 gives a clear insight into the thinking of the man. 1. People who “contribute to social deterioration… can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility.” 2. “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” 3. “One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.” 4.”A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. ” 5. “The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.” 6. “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.” So for environmentalists it is essential we save the spectacled bear, the vaquita (I know!), the Eurasian lynx, the black spider monkey and of course who can forget the unfortunate bearded vulture. They always want to save a double titted something or other. But the humans? They don’t need to be saved. On the contrary. Abort, cull or better yet let just them die a slow and painful death. Sounds absurd? Everyday in Uganda 370 children die from malaria. There is a simple and effective way to stop this Silent Slaughter. It would involve using DDT which environmentalists have made sure is banned. They continue campaigning to keep the ban in place. And the children keep dying. I think the death of 370 children every day is a tragedy that all compassionate and campaigning people should want to stop. However I can’t find the Ugandan child on any environmentalist endangered species list.Source

Global warming believers aren't about science

By Debra J. Saunders, Statesman Journal

No wonder skeptics consider the left’s belief in man-made global warming as akin to a fad religion — last week in Italy, G8 leaders pledged to not allow the Earth’s temperature to rise more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

For its next act, the G8 can part the Red Sea. The worst part is: These are the brainy swells who think of themselves as — all bow — Men of Science.The funny part is: G8 leaders can’t even decide the year from which emissions must be reduced. 1990? 2005? “This question is a mystery for everyone,” an aide to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said.And although President Obama led the charge for the G8 nations to agree to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in industrial nations by 2050, the same Russian aide dissed the standard as “likely unattainable.”No worries, the language was nonbinding. Global-warming believers say that they are all about science, but their emphasis is not on results so much as declarations of belief.Faith. Mystery. Promises to engage in pious acts. Global warming is a religion. While Obama was in Italy preaching big cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, he was losing some of his flock in Washington. The House may have passed the 1,200-page cap-and-trade bill largely unread, but Senate Democrats are combing the fine print and not liking what they see.Republicans who oppose the legislation are positively gleeful. For some issues, it can be more fun being part of the opposition, as Democrats are discovering.When the GOP was in the White House, Democrats got to play scientific martyrs. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, would go running to the New York Times or Washington Post with the lament that the Bushies were trying to muzzle his pro-global-warming science. No matter how many times he appeared on TV, the stories kept reporting on allegations that Bush was censoring science.Now GOP senators have their own Hansen: Alan Carlin of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Be it noted, Carlin is not a scientist. He’s an MIT-trained economist, albeit with a degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology, who has worked as an analyst at the EPA since 1974. In March, he co-wrote a 98-page paper that began, “We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming.” He fears politics are steering what should be scientific research.

The analysis noted that global temperatures have declined in the past 11 years while carbon emissions have increased. It cited a 2009 paper that found “solar variability” may have had more to do with any warming during the past few decades than rising greenhouse gas levels. Carlin also wondered why the EPA bought into global-warming doom scenarios, when, despite increased greenhouse gas levels, U.S. crop yields are up, air quality is improved and Americans are living longer.

Did the EPA welcome a dissenting voice? Au contraire. According to e-mails released last month by Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank, Carlin’s supervisor told him not to “have any direct communication” with anyone in-house or elsewhere on the issue. And: “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”Now, you can argue that the Obama administration simply wanted to present a clear message on a policy on which it already had settled. But why is it muzzling science when Bush did it, but not worthy of a New York Times story when Obama does it?Don’t say that Obama has science on his side. As the Carlin paper noted, “We do not believe that science is writing a description of the world or the opinions of world authorities on a particular subject … The question in our view is not what someone believes, but how what he or she believes corresponds with real world data.”The global-warming community’s reaction to real-world data — and the lack of warming in this century — has been to remain true believers. Except now they call it “climate change.”Debra J. Saunders is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103. Send e-mail to dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.

Source

868 Lowest Max temps and 651 Low temps recorded for week ending 19 July 2009

HAMweather (July 20, 2009). Once again, cold records are far more frequent than warm records these days. In fact, record low temperatures are occuring 300% to 400% more often than record warm temperatures. This holds true to the fact that our planet has been cooling for over a full decade now.

Record Events for Mon Jul 13, 2009 through Sun Jul 19, 2009

Total Records: 2481

Rainfall: 441

High Temperatures: 204

Low Temperatures: 651

Lowest Max Temperatures: 868

Highest Min Temperatures: 317

Source

Great Global Warming Swindle, Part 1

By Bob Ellis, Dakota Voice
The Global Warming Swindle is a devastating rebuttal of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda. It was produced in 2007 by WAG TV, one of Great Britain’s top production companies, and provides testimony from many respected scientists which reveals the lack of foundation for global warming hysteria. As Part 1 points out, the religion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has become the “new morality” of a politically correct age. No dissent will be tolerated, and is even viewed as dangerous by its acolytes. This video pulls no punches when it says that despite the fact that “experts” like Al Gore tell us AGW is “settled science,”

You are being told lies.

In this video, you’ll hear from Professor Tim Ball of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg, Professor Nir Shaviv of the Institute of Physics at the University of Jerusalem, Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby, Professor Ian Clark of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa, climate forecaster Dr Piers Corbyn, Professor John Christy of the IPCC, Professor Philip Stott of the Department of Biogeography at the University of London, Professor Paul Reiter of the IPCC and the Pasteur Institute in France, Professor Richard Lindzen from the IPCC and MIT, Professor Patrick Michaels of the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, economist and author James Shikwati, former New Scientist editor Nigel Calder, NASA Weather Satellite Team Leader Dr. Roy Spencer and even Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. The video points out how we have been force-fed a diet of AGW pap for years, and it’s a wonder that a solid majority of the public doesn’t believe this farce. As one scene from the BBC shows, we see the area in London near Parliament flooded from the Thames River, along with Trafalgar Square, and as someone who once lived in England and walked these areas a number of times, I can testify that it can be a little disconcerting to see places you know appearing to be flooded, even though you know it’s just special effects. As you see in this video, even members of the IPCC point out that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (a UN group) is a political organization, that the number of people in the group is inflated, and that a number of members do not agree with the hysterical findings published by the leaders of the group. Professor Shaviv points out that evidence indicates the earth once had three times as much or more CO2 in the atmosphere as we see today, yet these could not be blamed on human activity. Indeed, as the film points out, the earth has been considerably warmer in the last 1,000 years or so, and has been coming out of a “Little Ice Age” a few hundred years ago–all of this prior to SUVs, power plants or any industrial human activity. Why does NASA perpetuate this bunk, especially when a great deal of their own data points to natural causes of climate change? As Dr. Spencer points out, “Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.” True believers in AGW like to claim that those of us who realize the theory doesn’t pass the smell test are simply minions of a powerful profit-driven oil industry. But the inconvenient truth they ignore is that there is even more money–free, easy, taxpayer money–flowing to the green movement based on the perpetuation of this fantasy. Their motives aren’t nearly so squeaky-clean as they would have you think. As the narrator summarizes so well of the film, “This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology.” Over the next several days, I will post a new part of this important film at Dakota Voice. I hope you will come back for all the parts, if you have the courage to face the truth about this massive swindle.

Read about parts 2 through 8 here.

Green Tea Party!

Location: Lafayette Park, Washington DC
Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009
Time: 1:00 – 5:00 PM

T.A.G. (TruthAboutGreen.org) will be hosting the nation’s first Green Tea Party!
T.A.G. was formed in 2009 to respond to the constant barrage of misinformation currently available regarding climate change. Our hope is to bring commonly ignored, scientific facts into the mainstream dialogue about environmental change.The Green Tea Party planning committee has attracted Author, Steven Milloy, who wrote Green Hell, and has been featured on the Glenn Beck Program. Mr. Milloy is also the founder and publisher of www.junkscience.com, a website devoted to defending the truth of science.Also included in our program at the Green Tea Party are:~International documentarians, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer who recently completed Not Evil Just Wrong, a rebuttal film aimed at uncovering the falsehoods presented in Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.~Andrew Langer, creator of the Institute for Liberty, www.instituteforliberty.org an organization whose initiatives include Truth in Voting, which promotes the reading of legislation prior to it’s passage into law; and Liberty Belles, an organization designed to empower and inform concervative women on political issues.~Charles Lollar, Chairman of New Day Maryland, a group of Republicans, Democrates and Independents who are working together to achieve the goals of less government involvement and fewer taxes in the lives of Marylanders. ~~~~~~The Green Tea Party is still adding to our list of guests and is awaiting news from potential headlining speakers and musical entertainers who have expressed an interest in our cause. Please plan to attend this event and spread the word so that we may have a large turnout.We also seek financial donors, please strongly consider how you can assist or support this effort. If you able to contribute financially or offer a contact or other assistance, please contact Nancy Sabater, Chair, at nancy@truthaboutgreen.org, (301) 751-0006. Thank You & We Hope To See You There!