DO SMOKING GUNS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, TOO?

By Ann Coulter

As we now know (and by “we” I mean “everyone with access to the Internet”), the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth’s temperature.

Recently leaked e-mails from the “scientists” at CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature since 1960 — as one e-mail says. Still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: “[W]e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

Am I just crazy from the heat or were they trying to deceive us?

Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage” do not mean “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage.” These words actually mean “onion soup,” “sexual submissive” and “Gary, Ind.”

(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)

Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed “in context” — the words’ check was in the mail, and they’d like to spend more time with their families.

I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.

The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted “scientists” engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. Next, the fanatics will be telling us that “among scientists,” this behavior does not indicate knowledge of guilt.

If I recall correctly, their next move should be to fire the special prosecutor late Saturday night.

These e-mails aren’t a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated news coverage of global warming.

CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis” — including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.

Having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth’s temperature for the last half century, the CRU’s summary of that data was used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude.

But then last weekend — in the middle of the “Let’s Cook the Books!” e-mail scandal — the CRU said that all its data on the Earth’s temperature since 1960 had been irretrievably “lost.” (Although I suspect “overcooked” might be a more apt term.)

The way this episode is unfolding, the environmentalists may be forced to drop their phantom threat of global warming and go back to the phantom threat of global cooling.

Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.

This sabotage of global warming dissenters may be more galling than their manipulation of the data. Until now, the global warming cult’s sole argument has been to demand that everyone shut up in response to the “scientific consensus” that human activity was causing global warming.

That’s their idea of a free and open debate.

It’s always the same thing with primitive people — voodoo practitioners, rain dancers and liberals. In lieu of facts, debate and a weighing of the evidence, religious fanatics respond to all counterarguments by invoking a higher authority: the witch doctor, a “scientific consensus,” “the Constitution” or “historians are agreed.”

Liberals won’t tell us why Congress passed a law outlawing incandescent lightbulbs by 2014 — a bill solemnly delivered to the president in a Prius hybrid (making it the slowest-moving bill in U.S. history). Instead, they tell us there’s a “scientific consensus” that we have to use fluorescent lightbulbs or we’ll all die.

They won’t tell us why Ten Commandments monuments must be stripped from every public space in America. Instead, they tell us “the Constitution” says so (according to the high priests who interpret it to mean things the document doesn’t remotely say).

They won’t tell us what Sen. Joe McCarthy lied about. They say: Historians are agreed that McCarthy was a liar. (These are the same historians who also stated as fact that “few American Communists were spies” — until decrypted Soviet cables proved that the Communist Party was awash with Soviet spies.)

This is precisely what liberals accuse Christians of doing, but which Christians never do. We don’t cite the Bible as authority — and then refuse to let anyone read it. We certainly don’t claim to have “lost” it, so you can’t check for yourself. But that’s exactly what the CRU has done with its secret data allegedly showing a warming Earth.

Also, biblical data on the great flood and Noah’s ark have held up remarkably well.

Even if the Earth were warming — which apparently it is not — the idea that humans using energy-efficient lightbulbs would alter the temperature of the globe is approximately as plausible as the Aztecs’ belief that they were required to wrench the beating heart out of living, breathing humans in order to keep the sun on its path.

Sadly, the “human sacrifice deniers” lost the argument to Aztec CRU scientists, who explained that there was a “scientific consensus” on the benefits of ritual murder.

But at least the Aztecs only slaughtered tens of thousands of humans in the name of “climate change.” The global warming cultists want us all dead.

Source

Climategate Round-Up #2

The CRU hack/leak story is moving fast, and it’s tough to keep up, but fear not, for another bonus round-up is here to help.

Did the BBC hide the story for a month? Did Phil Jones know he’d be compared to a famous but unpleasant Presidential emission? You’ll be surprised what you can learn. Oh, and I turned up the snark-o-matic, enjoy.

The Leak/Hack

BBC weatherman Paul Hudson confirms the leaked emails are genuine. He knows this because they were emailed to him in October. The obvious questions are, who emailed it to him, and why did Hudson not think evidence of corruption and collusion worthy of reporting?

Was it a hack, or a leak? Maybe it was neither.

Lord Lawson, Thatcherite ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, demands a public enquiry into the exposed malpractice and deception of the motley CRU.

Sen. Inhofe makes me look like a genius and demands an investigation. Thanks, Jim.

Pile on! The CEI sues NASA/GISS for ignoring FOIA requests. For any lefties reading, this is a face palm moment. Go ahead, we’ll wait.

not the WWF again

not the WWF again

If it was a leak, whodunnit?
Malkin notes that enquiries are being demanded on both sides of the Atlantic. Popcorn, bring me it.

It’s the fraud, stupid.

The Inconvenient Emails/Data

Revenge of the nerds: a programmer trawls through the leaked CRU code and giggles mightily at what he finds. Settled science, what science? James Taranto on the revelations of corruption.

Revenge of the nerds part deux: a statistician digs into the code, and is unimpressed.

Viscount Monkton reviewed the data and emails and determines that the motley CRU are criminals. Ouch, don’t sugar coat it or anything.

The CRU leak undermines scientist’s credibility and the IPCC’s ability to push junk science at a very bad time for the alarmists as they pack their bags for Hopenchangen in Copenhagen.
hopenchangen
The motley CRU made ASSes of themselves.
Freakonomicist Dubner see the ugly side of science.
Warmist believers cannot believe what they are finding out about the people they trusted were selling them, and boy, are they upset.

Do Jones et al’s repeated statements about denying FOI requests mean that the data set wasn’t lost, but deleted?

The CRU Hack/Leak in the Media

The Australian covers the bunfight between alarmists and skeptics, giving fair weight to the inconvenient truths exposed in the CRU leak.
Planet Gore compares the CRU leak to Clintonesque spooge on a blue dress. Apologies for the imagery, but they said it.

The Washington Post weighs in and picks on Jones and Mann.
The Chicago Observer wants an apology from the warmistas. Perhaps when hell freezes over. And it might, apparently climate models aren’t all that great.

The Daily Telegraph asks readers what they think of the leak, with predictable results.
The fix is in. You don’t say?

The Washington Times: Hiding evidence of global cooling, Junk science exposed among climate-change believers

The WSJ piles on. And then reports on the lawmakers waking up to the scandal.

Hippie Heads Exploding

The New York Times released information that compromised US national security, but won’t publish the CRU documents. Agenda, much?

The Guardian’s George Monbiot apologizes for being a credulon* but then tries to gloss over the seriousness of the CRU leak by writing a (bad) satirical piece. I warned you, remember that.

can you tell he's a leftie?

he’s a leftie, does it show?

The University of East Anglia, site of the CRU, issues a reaction to the hack/leak that will look pretty silly if it turns out not to be a hack. Shamefully, they have no condemnation of the scientific malpractice, bullying and deception committed by their team, just words about how hackers are bad.

It’s a good thing hippies are allergic to soap, because somebody needs to go to jail. And he doesn’t mean the hacker.

Unpredictable Andy Revkin hosts a debate about whether the leak is more serious than what it uncovered. Right now, alarmists cling to the hope that the release of the data was a hack, because if it was a leak, their primary defense will disappear faster than President Obama when a tough decision is needed.

Phil Jones, CRU leader, wonders if his age is a problem understanding the cooling trend. Cluebat for Phil, it’s not your age that’s deficient, it’s your ethics.
Believers explain their point of view about the inconvenient truth: shut up!

*Credulon = A Credulous Moron ( or AGW believer)

Because it’s just not a round-up without a hottie. Continuing the hacker theme from yesterday, Sneakers starred Robert Redford. Redford co-starred in Spy Games with Brad Pitt, whose current Mrs. was yesterday’s hottie. So here’s his ex, Jennifer Aniston. You’re welcome.
jenani3
Thanks for reading.

Source

Stop promoting the global warming myth

Incredibly, there are still pundits like Ann McFeatters promoting the human-caused, carbon dioxide-caused, global warming myth. They demand governmental action to limit human carbon dioxide emissions. Why? Some are just naive. Some are self-anointed environmentalists like Al Gore, taking financial or political positions that will keep them employed or fabulously wealthy if carbon dioxide emissions are politically controlled. Scientific conclusions are not determined by vague, political claims of scientific consensus, but by hard, reproducible facts. Saying most scientists agree that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions affect global temperatures is simply pre-empting honest analyses. Many scientists and hard data suggest the earth may actually be cooling, as was generally accepted just 30 years ago. There is no scientific evidence that human activity produces carbon dioxide emissions sufficient to affect global temperatures. Water vapor is by far the predominant greenhouse gas. Atmospheric water vapor concentration ranges up to 4 percent, lower at the poles. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from all sources is only 0.038 percent. Human contribution to this clearly is insignificant in affecting global temperature. When a political, quasi-scientific organization like the Environmental Protection Agency promotes man-caused global warming, it’s responding to political pressure, not giving scientific analysis. Organizations, including NASA, have been caught replacing October data with September data to create the illusion of warming. Temperature measuring stations have been positioned near air-conditioner units to falsify data. Claims of scientific evidence are bogus unless supported by incontrovertible analysis. The term “global warming” is being replaced by “climate change.” Why? Because even politicians know data from the past decade suggests the earth is cooling. However, dishonest politicians and scientists have political and financial interest in promoting the myth. Let’s stop blindly accepting their propaganda as reality and look at facts. Feel free to think! Marvin P. Mathiak Knoxville

Source

Confoundingly, the climate isn't sticking to the script

Vancouver Sun

In describing the book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore, Stephen Hume disseminates the idea that a conspiracy of special interests has waged a PR campaign against scientific claims of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. My first reaction was, “He must be joking.” Never in history has a scientific subject received such favourable acceptance from the media. Indeed, AGW skeptics are regarded as crackpots and “deniers.”The problem with AGW is that the climate isn’t sticking to the script laid out by the models prepared by global-warming enthusiasts. The Earth is getting colder, not warmer.This is not data from some PR arm of the oil industry but from the four agencies that track global temperatures: the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, the Christy Group at the University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems in California. All agree that the Earth’s temperature cooled in 2007 by 0.7 degrees C., the fastest drop on record. There has been no warming for the last nine years.To characterize legitimate scientists who don’t blindly accept global warming as gospel as perpetrators of a PR campaign does a grave disservice to honest debate.For more technical information on solar activity, check out the website http://wattsupwiththat.com. And, for great insight into how global cooling can be significantly more dangerous to humans than global warming, I recommend the book Cool It, by Bjorn Lomborg.Dick DraperWhistler

Source

Global cooling continues, how inconvenient

NOAA Reports 3rd COLDEST October since 1895!

Inconvenient Truths about Continental USA Temperatures:

  • 2009 – 3rd coldest October since 1895!
  • 2009 – October was 4F COLDER than the 1901-2000 average!
  • YTD 2009 – ONLY 0.17F warmer than the 1901-2000 average!
  • YTD 1998 to 2009 – A cooling trend of -1.05F per decade!

Click the graph to enlarge it:

Highlighting and numerical annotation (1,2,3) are mine.

Click the graph to enlarge it:

Click here to reproduce the above graphs.
Click here to further examine the current cooling trend.
Click here for ba
sic climate change science.

Each month, upon the release of Dr. Roy Spencer’s UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperatures of the Lower Atmosphere, the GORE LIED graphics department takes out a purple crayon, and marks up the good doctor’s graph. We do this to illustrate Al Gore’s personal inconvenient truth, that globally averaged temperatures have gone down since Al Gore released his fantasy/sci-fi movie, An Inconvenient Truth at the Sundance Film Festival on January 24, 2006: For the record, through October, 2009, globally averaged temperatures have gone down .151°F (.084°C) since An Inconvenient Truth was released at the Sundance Film Festival on January 24, 2006. This marks the 39th out of the 47 months since An Inconvenient Truth was released that globally averaged temperatures have been less than they were when AIT was released. Truly inconvenient. Source 1 Source 2

Where are the Hurricanes, Mr. Gore?

By Alan Caruba

That god among men and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore, told us in “An Inconvenient Truth”, his Oscar-winning documentary, that we had to brace for increasing numbers of hurricanes as the result of global warming.

So, where are the hurricanes of 2009, Mr. Gore?

The hurricane season that runs from June through October is about to end with nothing more than one weak to borderline moderate tropical storm that hit Florida’s panhandle, but there have been NO hurricanes.

So, where are the hurricanes of 2009, Mr. Gore?

Trying to predict how many hurricanes there will be each year is probably fun, but is a highly risky undertaking. I have a lot of friends among the meteorological and climatological community, men of science, but I always cross my fingers for them when they take a run at it.

This year, Bill Gray of Colorado State, perhaps the best known among the hurricane forecasters, thought there would be at least 7 hurricanes of which 3 would be major. Weather Services Inc. agreed with Dr. Gray and, over at Accuweather, the prediction was for 8 hurricanes of which 2 would be major.

NOAA and the National Weather Service do not predict hurricanes, but as political as well as scientific entities they have a very bad track record of trying to confirm Al Gore’s global warming claims.

In March, William J. Broad, reporting in The New York Times, noted that Gore’s “scientific audience is uneasy” in the wake of his global warming documentary. “These scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.”

In Great Britain, a judge ruled that the documentary could not be shown in the schools unless teachers read a long list of its erroneous claims.

Since an increase in hurricanes was one of his dramatic claims along with rising sea levels and disappearing polar bears, Gore is batting zero these days. The sea levels have been rising a few inches every century for millennia and it is generally conceded that the polar bear population since the 1950s has been thriving.

In May, hurricane specialist Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center in Miami disputed theories that “global warming” has caused more hurricanes. His study was published in The Journal of Climate.

Landsea, like all meteorologists who haven’t been in a coma since the 1980s, knows that the Earth has been in a cooling cycle since 1998. Thus, the warmth that feeds hurricanes has diminished and is likely to stay that way for decades to come.

Landsea’s research showed that, since the mid-1990s, the average number of hurricanes per year had almost doubled what it was during the few prior decades, about on par with hurricane activity in the early 20th century. “It’s busy, yes, but not anything we haven’t seen before,” said Landsea while attending the Florida Governor’s Hurricane Conference in May.

For the non-scientist, that should confirm that hurricanes are governed by natural cycles, not some non-existent, dramatic increase called “global warming.”

Though what I know about hurricanes would fit comfortably in a bug’s ear, I am nonetheless tempted to suggest that the cooling cycle the Earth entered in 1998 may be a contributing factor to why this year’s hurricane season is, at this writing, minus any hurricanes.

So, where are the hurricanes of 2009, Mr. Gore?

Known as “the Gore factor”, it is the irony of blizzards or severe snow storms that seem to follow him around whenever he delivered one of his “global warming” speeches.

It is my profound prayer that, in December when the United Nations climate conference convenes to issue an international treaty based on the Great Global Warming Lie, that the city of Copenhagen gets hit by a blizzard so great that the delegates cannot leave their plush hotels for days.

Alan Caruba, a science and business writer, blogs at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.

Planet cooling says UN scientist

By Alan Nicholl

Recently some new information has become available which seriously questions the whole UN’s basis on climate change and its computer modelling work of future changes.

The week before the latest UN’s world leaders’ conference there was another UN climate conference in Geneva where one of the UN’s own leading climate scientists and computer modellers, Professor Mojib Latif from Germany’s Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Keil University, stated that from recent research he has conducted he has had to conclude that global warming has ceased.

He added that the planet is currently cooling and will likely continue to do so for another 20 years.

This is a startling statement from a promoter of global warming and needs to be taken seriously.

It reinforces what others have been saying for a while now and questions the need for any action to be taken at all on combating global warming.

There is no need for carbon taxes, no need for an emissions trading scheme, no need to seriously undermine the country’s economy to combat something that is not happening.

The statement also acquits CO2 of the charges laid against it; as it is impossible for it to be forcing warming when actual temperatures are cooling and are predicted to continue, in spite of increasing CO2.

All of this begs the question . . . what actually causes temperature fluctuations on a global scale?

The obvious answer is solar variation, but this probably is only part of the answer. Climate is a far more complex scenario than we have been led to believe and one small contributing factor is outweighed by all of the more substantial contributors.

The concept that the science is settled is also refuted by this statement.

If a promoter of global warming has found evidence contrary to his convictions then it simply cannot be settled and obviously requires more study.

This sort of acknowledgement should make politicians question the path they are taking and maybe just come out and state that the whole business is shelved until clarification is confirmed one way or another, instead of relying on outdated and obviously unreliable information to justify their actions.

I congratulate our councillors who have decided not to sign the local government leaders’ position statement on climate change and especially applaud those who have spoken out against the supposed human causes of climate change; keep up the good work.

Gisborne might just lead the country on this rising tide of sensibility and hopefully our national politicians will soon follow us.

Source

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!

Why we can all stop worrying about 'Global Warming' for a bit

By James Delingpole, Telegraph

Three months to go until the UN climate summit in Copenhagen. Three months in which we will be repeatedly assured by climate fear promoters such as Al Gore, George Monbiot, Ed Miliband and the risible Ban Ki-moon that this really is absolutely, definitely, totally and irrevocably the very last chance the world’s leaders will have to save the planet from ManBearPig. (Just like they said at Rio and Poznan and all the other “let’s see who can rack up the biggest carbon footprint” global shindigs that eco-campaigners insist on staging, the better to stoke up their self-flagellatory eco-guilt). But, for the global warming deniers among us at least, the panic’s off. Nothing scary or dangerous is going to happen as a result of the Copenhagen summit. It will be a talking shop, abundant with airy platitudes and earnest pieties, but signifying less than ****er all as far as economy-damaging Kyoto-style legislation goes. There will be a political statement of intent. But no binding “agreement”. Here are few reasons why: 1. A bit like one of those mutant pandas I mentioned yesterday, the science has turned viciously against the warmists. Not that it wasn’t against them before. But they have their work seriously cut out if they’re ever going to recover from the speech given at the UN world climate conference in Geneva last week by Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz institute. National Post columnist Lorne Gunter explains: “Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.” Yet in Geneva, Latif was forced to admit that all those An-Inconvenient-Truth-style fantasy projections showing global temperatures rising inexorably with C02 levels were wrong. The world is getting cooler, not warming. It will continue to cool, Latif reckons, till 2020 or possibly 2030. By how much he doesn’t know: “The jury is still out.” Which begs the rather obvious question: if the IPCC’s doomsday computer models didn’t predict this cooling phase, how can we be sufficiently confident in their other assertions to start basing major economic and social policy decisions on them? 2. The Chinese. Spin it how they will, President Hu Jintao’s two-minute speech to the UN yesterday was a massive blow to the Warmists. In classic “Tell the foolish gwailo what they want to hear, then carry on doing exactly what we want” Chinese diplomatic style, Hu Jintao promised “determined action”, while refusing to commit his country to any binding targets. The Chinese are not stupid. Their priority number one (and two, and three) is economic growth, not assuaging green lobbyists. 3. People just don’t care about “climate change” that much. Environmental purity is a rich person’s luxury and with the recession most people have other priorities. In the latest Bloomberg poll in the US, for example, just 2 per cent of respondents considered “climate change” the most important issue facing the country. 4. Almost everyone knows deep down that the green lobby’s CO2 targets are pie in the sky. Says Stephen Hayward of the American Competitive Institute in WSJ Online “Carbon dioxide is the result of complete fuel combustion. Apart from still-unproven technologies, there’s no way to remove it from the process. The only way to reduce emissions is to burn less fuel, which means less energy output. “So, to meet the target the climate campaigners have set, the U.S., Europe and Japan will have to replace virtually their entire fossil-fuel energy infrastructure. For the U.S., the 80% target means reducing fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas emissions to a level the nation last experienced in 1910. On a per-capita basis, we’d have to go back to the level of about 1875.” 5. If anyone’s going to push these crazy measures through it’s President Obama. But, as Terence Corcoran sensibly points out, after the rough ride he’s had with his healthcare proposals, Obama is unlikely to want to outrage the US taxpayer still further. “Mr. Obama, already fighting charges his medicare reform will boost taxes on the average American family by $3,000, isn’t likely to simultaneously mount an aggressive push for carbon control legislation that will add another $4,000 a year in taxes.” 6. Right, consider this my serious climate change piece for the week. Now, I can go back to trading childish insults. Phew!Source

Global warming propaganda infiltrates schools

By Paul Chesser

Scientists see no temperature increase (on average) in the oceans or on the surface of the Earth over the last decade. That hasn’t stopped an activist group from infiltrating high schools with the panicky message that we are on the verge of a “planetary emergency” due to global warming. These alarmists are the recently formed Alliance for Climate Education, an Oakland, Calif., nonprofit created by wealthy wind energy entrepreneur Michael Haas. The organization has targeted five metropolitan areas and now is opening a Washington office. Haas, who donated $24,600 to President Obama’s campaign and victory funds last year, stands to reap millions of dollars in government subsidies that climate change-driven energy policies would bring. Meanwhile the teenagers targeted by ACE are treated to hip presentations with slick animation to propagate the idea that they and everyone in their spheres of influence must modify their behaviors so as to stop global warming. This is achieved by cutbacks in their energy use, which ACE believes produces too many greenhouse gases (from fossil fuel combustion like coal and oil) that warm the planet. The mostly undiscerning kids love it. ACE, which lobbies school boards and administrators to get invited to give presentations, delivers its propaganda to hundreds of students at a time in assemblies. Getting out of class to watch an amusing talk highlighted by flatulent animated cows (to emphasize their methane emissions, another greenhouse gas) is good for plenty of laughs and scores big with the teens. But ACE’s talks are infected with falsehoods, like telling the students they’ve “lived through the 10 hottest years on record” (1934 was the hottest) and that greenhouse gas emissions are cranking up the global thermostat “way too high”. Talk about one-sided hyperbole to shape impressionable minds. Meanwhile, scientific studies like those that reveal we may be entering a prolonged cooling period, due to an inactive sun, are left out of climate discussion. ACE has also targeted the San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston and Boston areas, and aims to reach 140,000 students by the end of this year. Its goal is simple: Get students active in the name of dubious (at best) global warming alarmism, demonize fossil fuels and push solutions such as alternative energy — like wind. Unfortunately, many teachers and administrators are all too willing to let this biased bunch extract students from classes and force-feed them its pap. Parents should be aware that their kids might be the targets of this political recruitment effort during valuable class time. Paul Chesser is a special correspondent for The Heartland Institute.Source via Washington Examiner