admin

Temperatures are normal, it’s the Politics that are Wrong

By Dr. Tim Ball, Climatologist

There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and
accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result
to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.
– A.N.Whitehead.

In a massive irony President Obama spoke of global warming at the G8 on July 8, the same day his political hometown of Chicago recorded the coldest July 8 in 118 years.

Global temperatures are declining but politicians keep speaking of warming. After sea level rise the biggest alarmism and misinformation is about global temperatures. Unlike sea level threats temperature data is more easily understood and difficult to ignore, but that doesn’t stop extremists or politicians with a narrow political agenda.

A few events are easily dismissed as weather, but a pattern indicates a climate trend. Reports of record cold began in the Southern Hemisphere 20 years ago but became global over the last 10 years. This contradicts predictions of warming and indicates the claimed cause of human produced CO2 is wrong.

Official predictions are Consistently Wrong and Getting Worse

Temperatures declined between 1940 and 1980. From the mid-1980s to 1998 temperatures rose and the cause was identified as human addition of CO2. But the biggest temperature rise in the 20th century was prior to 1940 when human production of CO2 was minimal. Then temperatures declined when human CO2 production was increased most after 1940. The claimed mechanism did not match the data. They claimed it was addition of sulfates that caused the cooling. The problem is sulfate levels continued to rise after warming resumed in the 1980s.
Every Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) temperature prediction has been wrong. Why? For accurate predictions the temperature data is not adequate, you must know the physical causes. Clearly the IPCC understanding is wrong.

READ REST

The Horrid Dr. Holdren

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs

England had “Mad King George” who was probably bipolar and eventually went completely insane around 1810. It would take another ten years before his suffering ended and he passed away, but his powers had passed to the Prince of Wales by then. In those days they knew when people were crazy and even provided an asylum from which we get the word “bedlam.”

As the days and week go by, they might as well post a sign outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue where our President conducts the affairs of state. It should simply say, “Welcome to Bedlam.”

One example of the kind of dangerous insanity circulating like swamp gas around the White House is Dr. John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor. He is so nuts that even The New York Times reporter, John Tierney, asked “Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor?”

When Bjorn Lomborg published “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, Holdren joined in an attack published in Scientific American that The Economist called “strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance.”

In a book that Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man who is now responsible for U.S. science policy advocated that women be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not, not unlike the Chinese one-child policy. Holdren also thought that single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies taken from them and given to other couples.

Holdren thought it would probably be a good idea that the population in general should be sterilized by intentionally putting infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water or food.

Holdren believed that those who “contribute to social deterioration” should be required by law to “exercise reproductive responsibility” or to put it in its purest Nazi terms, they should be sterilized.

As history reveals, the Nazis began by gassing the mentally challenged and moved on to wholesale genocide for Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and everyone else deemed an enemy of the state.

Holdren, who served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2006, holds views that are seriously out of touch with reality and totally out of synch with actual climate data.

Writing in Scientific American, he said, “the ongoing disruption of the earth’s climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable.”

Virtually no climate scientist believes that “man-made greenhouse gases” have anything to do with “global warming” because (a) there is no global warming and (b) greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide play no role whatever in climate change.

On July 13, the Space and Science Research Center called for the firing of Dr. Holdren and of NOAA administrator, Dr. Jane Lubchenko, while denouncing the Cap-and-Trade act, more formally and, in a spectacular act of mass deception, named the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

“These two individuals,” said the Center, “and other agency heads orchestrated and then signed off on the recently released government report, ‘Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.’ This report was a piece of blatant, politically motivated bad science and pure propaganda intended to reinforce the ‘big lie’ that global warming is still a threat to the planet.”

Meanwhile, over at the Environmental Protection Agency, a 37-year employee and analyst who offered a report seriously challenging the accuracy of global warming data found himself literally silenced and then alleged to be mentally unstable.

The Environmental advisor at the White House is Carol Browner, a former EPA Director during the Clinton years, close friend of Al Gore, and someone who shares his radical views on the environment and global warming. She answers to no one, not even the White House press corps who has not been able to get a word out of her. For all we know she is in her office assaying chicken entrails and shiny stones to come up with more environmental advice for the President.

Did I mention that the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, thinks we can save ourselves from global warming by painting the roofs of our buildings white?

There must surely be a few sane people among the mounting number of “czars”, advisors, and assistants, but so far the results of their accumulated advice have been frightening.

The economy is in free fall, the Cap-and-Trade bill in the Senate is based on climate fiction, billions are being given to the least practical form of energy generation, wind and solar, and the White House is talking about “reforming” the nation’s health system.

Every day the White House treats Americans to the Crisis-de-Jour; the latest nonsense being a Swine Flu “pandemic” and a questionable vaccine that will be forced on school children and others.

Source

This Is What Panics The Eco-Fascists?

By C3 Headlines

What Does 800 ppm CO2 Look Like vs. 300 ppm?
Eco-fascists, such as Al Gore and his useful-idiots, are attempting to convince the public that if CO2 in the atmosphere grows from green-to-blue-and-then-to-white (see below chart) the following will happen:1. Greenland ice sheet will slip off Greenland and flood the world.
2. Antarctic ice sheets will melt and drown the world’s coast lines.
3. Millions of species will become extinct.
4. The ocean conveyor belt will slow down, thus freezing Europe.
5. Mass starvation will occur because crops will fail from drought.
6. Severe hurricanes and floods will wreck the planet.
7. Polar bears will lose their food source because there is no more Arctic ice.
8. Millions, possibly hundreds of millions, will perish from heat waves.
9. Tropical diseases will spread from pole to pole.
10. And, etc, ad nauseum.They say not only will this happen, but Democrat House Representatives (+8) insist the above has already started.Is it even remotely reasonable to wildly claim the world will suffer the above or become “unlivable” because of a ‘green-to-blue-to-white’ CO2 change as depicted below in the actual representation of CO2 growth? Can Al Gore and the eco-fascists produce a list of even 250 physical scientists who will actually sign a petition that states that going from ‘green-to-blue-to-white’ will actually cause the above catastrophic effects (claims)? To give Al Gore and the useful-idiots a little competitive challenge, here’s a list of 31,000 scientists (9,000+ PhD’s) who say the below (see chart) will not cause the above events to happen. (Click to enlarge)Note: If you are on speaking terms with a useful-idiot, a public school teacher, a Hollywood celebrity, a CNN reporter, or a Senator who believes Al Gore fanatical claims, share this chart with them. Explain to them, very slowly, that this is why the vast majority of climate alarmist scientists (or even a decent number of physical science scientists) will not sign a petition categorically stating they believe that small trace amounts of human CO2 will cause global catastrophes, as claimed by Al Gore and other eco-fascists. The reason they won’t is because the claims are literally non-scientific hysteria.

Source

Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong

By Eureka Alert, eScienceNews.com

No one knows exactly how much Earth’s climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists’ best predictions about global warming might be incorrect. The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth’s ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM. “In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.” During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth’s atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth. In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius — about 13 degrees Fahrenheit — in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years. Many of the findings come from studies of core samples drilled from the deep seafloor over the past two decades. When oceanographers study these samples, they can see changes in the carbon cycle during the PETM. “You go along a core and everything’s the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different,” Dickens said. “This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world.” Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM. That’s significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two. Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today’s climate models include accepted values for the climate’s sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago. The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.”Source

H/T: CCF

Website Redesign

By Justin Credible, ILCD Editor

This site has received over 40,000 unique visitors and half a million page hits…in just a few months. We would like to thank all our readers and supporters for spreading the word, all the scientists and editors submitting stories, and all the websites listed on our links page for top-notch content.

In celebration, I’ve redesigned the look and feel of the site. As well, I’ll be launching new features over time, including a new section just for YOU, the readers, to express your opinions. I know there is a lot of frustration out there relating to this giant scam known as man-made climate change, and a lot of you need to vent. Especially after the disaster in Congress a couple weeks ago. I want your voice to be heard.

We’ll be calling the new section “You ♥ CO2” and will be publishing your own articles and stories as we receive them. (May be edited for clarity, space, and spelling. Must be relevant to the direction and views of this site. Greenwashed treehuggers look elsewhere, you’ve already got enough sites to push your ideology on people)

In the meantime, you may email your submissions to info[at]ilovecarbondioxide.com
(Replace “[at]” with “@”)

Hope you enjoy the new site. You can now become a follower of us by clicking HERE. You can also become a fan of Carbon Dioxide on Facebook by clicking HERE. Please leave your comments below!

Al Gore rewrites history

By Ann McElhiney & Phelim McAleer
Al Gore, the former vice-president, has misrepresented the criticisms of a British High Court judge who found An Inconvenient Truth to be littered with “errors and exaggerations”.Mr Gore made the claim in Australia where he is training volunteers to campaign about climate change which he calls an imminent threat to humanity.The former vice-president shot to prominence when his documentary An Inconvenient Truth which carried the claims won an Oscar in 2006. Shortly after Mr Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. However after a lengthy hearing the British High Court found that An Inconvenient Truth was inaccurate and contained at least nine significant errors and exaggerations.However, speaking on ABC Australia Mr Gore misrepresented the judges ruling stating: “Well, the ruling was in my favour”.In reality the judge found at least nine significant errors which “were not in line with scientific consensus” or had “no evidence” to back up his alarmism.UPDATE: UK Lawyer slams Gore’s claim!Source

Greening Our Schools and Nation

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs

If those of you who have doubts that the Earth is dramatically warming and that the planet is about to be plunged into the kind of heat that will likely destroy all life, then it must be puzzling that so many people continue to believe that “global warming” is happening when the planet is quite obviously into a decade-old cooling cycle that is likely to last for several more decades.

A large component of this belief is the indoctrination in the nation’s schools in which virtually every subject area has been given a “green” component and textbooks are filled with references to drowning polar bears, disappearing rain forests, rising sea levels, and the usual claptrap about “global warming.” No child could pass through such an avalanche of junk science without becoming convinced of its authenticity.

An example of this occurred when Michael Kundu, “a whale photographer” and school board president in Marysville, Washington, threw a fit after receiving The Skeptic’s Handbook by Australian science communicator, Joanne Nova.

The 16-page booklet is published by The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank headquartered in Chicago. The booklet was sent to all 14,000 public school board presidents, accompanied by a letter from climate scientist, Bob Carter, a professor at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia.

Kunda sent an email to other school board presidents encouraging them “to stuff that junk mail directly into the recycle basket.” I picked up my copy at a three-day climate change conference sponsored by Heartland in March of this year in New York City. The conference featured seminars led by national and internationally leading climate scientists, all of whom demonstrated that the “science” of “global warming” is balderdash.

The vitriol of the school board president reflects the desperation of “global warming” advocates such as Al Gore who keeps revising his End of the World predictions and is now demanding “global governance” to save the Earth. Considering that the hoax was generated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this is global governance we can do without.

The “Cap-and-Trade” bill, a huge tax on energy use that will drive up the rates that utilities charge all Americans, passed the House and is now in the Senate for consideration. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is on record saying that if the Senate doesn’t pass the bill there will be droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening pollution and, one assumes, plagues of frogs and locusts.

Did I mention the desperation surrounding the “global warming” hoax? Yes, I did. The Greens have reason to be desperate because both “global warming” and the economy-killing legislation based on it is in big trouble in the U.S. and increasingly around the world. At the recent G-8 conference, both China and India made it clear they have no intention of destroying their economies in the name of something that is not happening.

You can and should ignore President Obama’s promises of millions of “green jobs” and “energy independence.” The jobs are a myth and, for decades, the U.S. government has made it impossible to access our own vast reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas, negating any hope of greater energy self-sufficiency.

The White House just announced its guidelines that will allow “renewable energy” companies, about 5,000 in all, to apply for some $3 billion in government funds—your money. Three billion dollars on wind and solar power that currently accounts for just over one percent of the electricity we use daily! Without subsidies, few of these companies would even exist. Even billionaire T. Boone Pickens has tossed in the towel over his plan to install hundreds of wind turbines.

Meanwhile, back in Heartland’s Chicago, a July 9 news report noted that “For the 12th time this meteorological summer (since June 1), daytime highs failed to reach 70 degrees Wednesday. Only one other year in the past century has hosted so many sub-70-degree days up to this point in a summer season—1969, when 14 such days occurred.” It’s getting colder in Chicago and I guarantee you that it is going to get colder there and everywhere else in the U.S.

It behooves the school board presidents and members around the nation to take a look at the “environmental” agenda being taught in their schools because it is mostly the same kind of lies being told by Al Gore, Sen. Boxer, along with Reps. Henry Waxman, and Edward Markey, the authors of Cap-and-Trade.

Kudos to The Heartland Institute for leading the effort to educate the public, our nation’s legislators, and those responsible for the education of our children in this national life-and-death struggle to demonstrate that real climate science totally rejects this hoax.

Obama-meters on the way…

By Steve Milloy, Green Hell Blog

Baltimore Gas & Electric is leading the way to electricity rationing, courtesy of President Obama. The utility announced to day that it filed with local regulators an application to install 2 million so-called “smart meters” in the homes of its residential customers. Smart meters allow local utilities to control electricity use in your home. Using a $200 million Department of Energy grant — part of the $787 billion Obama Stimulus package enacted earlier in the year — BG&E plans to charge customers for the balance of the costs. BG&E claims that benefits to consumers (about $5 per month) will amount to about three times the cost of the meters. Not only is this benefit trivial, it’s pretty phony. It comes from you using less electricity or using electricity at less convenient times — things you can already do without the meter. What’s the benefit from doing less or being inconvenienced? We don’t know about you, but we’re not interested in selling our freedom to use electricity as we choose — especially for a lousy $5/month. Also, consider that, since smart meters allow two-way communication, each meter represents a node from which a hacker can gain entry to the grid and wreak havoc. The ultimate purpose of the meters is to allow local utilities to ration electricity as demand is rising faster than supply, a phenomenon that can be traced to the greens blocking construction of new power plants and transmission lines. Rolling power outages are already being planned for the Baltimore-Washington area starting as early as 2011-2012. Smart is the new dumb.

Physics and Laws of Nature's Show IPCC Warming theory has No Legs

Letter to The Editor & To all Honourable Members of Parliament

222 words
No. 1 of a Series – IPCC’s Greenhouse theory has No Legs

In theorising global warming is caused by human production of CO2, the IPCC relies on this theory:

– sun radiates light
– that heats the Earth
– which radiates heat to space.
– CO2 traps some of this heat and radiates it back to Earth
– which heats the Earth some more, which radiates even more heat, which CO2 traps… and so on.

In this IPCC “new science”, a cooler body (atmospheric CO2) heats a warmer body (Earth). This contravenes the Laws of Nature.

The atmosphere is certainly cooler. World-wide, temperature decreases with altitude and at just 3,000 metres (10,000 feet) the temperature is already around 20 degrees C cooler than at sea level.

If the IPCC’s theoretical thermal reversal were possible, all of our energy problems would be over. Just heating another object would heat the heat source… and back and forth ad infinitum.

But no known law in the universe permits this to happen. The IPCC contradicts The Second Law of Thermodynamics and laws of physics, of science.

Indeed, geological and historical records have never tied CO2 to global temperature except as an effect of rising temperature – never as a cause.

In the IPCC’s view of global warming, though, CO2 is an all-powerful entity able to overcome Nature’s laws and perform miracles.

The evidence says it isn’t happening. Physics says it cannot happen.

Have you done your due diligence for Australia?

Malcolm Roberts BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago) Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

—
Via email

Global Warming: The Precautionary Principle Backfires

By Ron House, PeaceLegacy.org

I’ll probably be posting quite a bit about global warming, and you might wonder why I think it’s a big issue for a site devoted to peace. Well, peace is easier if we aren’t all scrapping with each other to eke out an existence in a starving world. True peace (which includes peace with all our nonhuman friends) requires we don’t do things that will harm wildlife or damage Earth’s capacity to feed us all. True peace should make everyone happy; and if you’ve seen Gitie’s and my wild bird website (wingedhearts.org, you’ll know I don’t reserve “everyone” just for people.

It was only last August, when I was able to leave my paid job as a computer science lecturer, that I finally got around to asking myself what the truth was about global warming. True, the Kyoto protocol had come and gone (right past me); I had read lots of insults directed at our (Australia’s) ex-prime minister John Howard for saying there was no evidence of global warming, and for which he was supposedly a foolish neanderthal hopelessly out of touch with informed opinion. Well was he? I decided to spend some time finding out. I was glad I did, I nearly overlooked an issue that, handled wrongly, might result in billions of human and wildlife deaths.

It was maybe by the end of September that I was convinced John Howard was right and his critics wrong. Maybe a week later, I was convinced beyond that, that for sure there was no significant human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming (called AGW for short). That means, of course, that there would be no need for emissions trading schemes (cap and trade, ETS) to try to control carbon dioxide emissions. But when I mentioned my discoveries to some of my friends, almost all raised something called the “precautionary principle”, which goes like this: “True, maybe there is no AGW, but if that’s wrong, if the world is heating up due to human actions, a disaster will ensue; surely we should introduce ETS anyway, just to be safe; the animals will thank us.” I wondered about that.

If we want to take a precaution, it stands to reason we should first guard against the greatest danger. But what is that? If it isn’t global warming, if, on the other hand, it is global cooling that should worry us, then all the ETSes, “carbon reduction schemes”, “reducing our carbon footprint”, and so on, will actually make the problem far, far worse. When I was a child, they told me in school that ten or so thousand years ago, the world was in an “ice age”, great glaciers covering Europe, Britain, and so on, and now the ice age “is over”. One of my biggest surprises when I started researching global warming was that this is very, very wrong: dangerously so in fact.

The truth is that the planet is in an ice age, and has been for about 2.5 million years. Temperatures now are maybe eight or more degrees Celsius lower than what was normal for most of the time life has existed. Our climate today is far from normal; it is merely a short warm time in between long periods of frigid, deadly cold. The massive herbivore dinosaurs, eating over a tonne of plant matter every day, roamed a clement land surrounded by warm shallow seas. A lot more than just temperatures come into the equation, of course, but it seems clear that life can tolerate climates much warmer than they are today. On the other hand, it’s hard to make a living on a glacier! Ice ages cover huge areas of the planet in ice, and even worse, temperatures are much more variable. According to Ian Plimer in his remarkable book Heaven+Earth, temperatures one year could be up to thirty degrees colder than the year before. I look out the window now at our beautiful Australian magpies, and I don’t have to wonder how they would fare if this winter the temperatures dropped 30C: I would be looking through eyes welling with tears for their dead bodies when the ice melted.

So what should I be doing to take precautions for the safety of our delightful wildlife and our fellow humans? I looked up some temperature records and made a picture of the possibilities. I think it speaks for itself (see above)

This data comes from Antarctic ice cores. “Proxies”—measurements that reveal ancient temperatures—from ice going back 400,000 years, show us the shocking truth: the climate has been going up and down like a saw tooth. What’s more, the clement warm periods are only brief interruptions to the frigid times that ‘knock out’ much of the planet as far as supporting life is concerned. Other measures show us that this has happened ever since the current glacial era started a few million years ago.

So at last we come to the critical point: what would the climate do next if no humans were around to make changes? What do you bet? The climate scientists relied upon by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tell us that the temperature line has been, and without human intervention would continue to be, horizontal. (Even the documented changes shown in the ice core for the past thousand years are denied.) Is that at all credible?

The global warming alarmists tell us that those who don’t agree with their scare scenarios are ‘climate change deniers’—but who are really the deniers here—the IPCC and its alarmist friends who seem to think that without humans the world would placidly continue in the horizontal direction on the diagram—or the climate realists who say the world’s climate has always changed and always will?

Let’s forget the question of whether the IPCC is right or wrong about the world heating up and about whether humans are causing it. Let’s assume they’re right 100%. (They’re not, but this is about an even bigger question.) Let’s say they’re right. Now check the diagram. The reason the ice ages come as regular as clockwork is that they are driven by the changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, its axial inclination, and so on, things that change slowly over many thousands of years. Currently the ice ages are responding to all this on a 100,000-year cycle, and it is crystal clear that the next major movement on this cycle will be down, a sharp plunge into glacial conditions, followed by 100,000 years of a slowly deepening, ever-more deadly freeze.

So now we come to the precautionary principle. What’s the bigger danger? If the planet heats we might unfreeze some polar regions (cold regions heat more than hot regions) and make Siberia, northern Canada, and Greenland into green, verdant places where crops can grow and wild animals can prosper. Yes, we might also have to relocate some people if sea levels rise; we can’t pretend there is no downside at all from a warmer planet.

But if the planet cools, what then? Half the northern hemisphere landmass will be uninhabitable (and much of the southern hemisphere too). Climates will alternate viciously from year to year; no animal that is unable to migrate will be safe. The wealthy populations of Europe and North America, whose countries will be covered in ice, will obviously not simply sit down and die; they’ll migrate south and take the remaining warm places for themselves. Whatever the outcome, there will be wars, starvation, and unthinkable human and wildlife deaths. If we escape without half the world’s population dying, we’ll be very, very lucky indeed.

So here’s my vision of a wise precautionary principle: take advantage of any heating that human activity is making happen. If industrial activity is pumping up the planet’s temperature some degrees, excellent. The IPCC says we are making big changes, but climate realists, more credibly, say we are making only small changes. But big or small, any warming we can organise will forestall the next ice age. By lots (the alarmists) or only a little (climate realists), it all helps.

It would be bad enough if the alarmists misused the precautionary principle merely to impoverish people with mad ‘carbon reduction’ laws. But shockingly, the alarmists are not stopping at wrecking our economies with nutty schemes. Many of them want to put cold-generating sulphur pollution into the atmosphere, or seed the oceans with iron or, even worse, lime, or any number of other hare-brained schemes designed to cool the Earth. Can anything be less like a sensible precaution than that?

Sadly, we are all now in the power of people to whom rational argument means nothing, whose goals are driven by ideological zeal. It is up to us to retake our societies and our governments and start driving public policy from facts, evidence, and concern for all the lives that are threatened by human folly.