Tag: Marc Morano

By Marc Morano
The proposed “solutions” to scientifically fading man-made global warming fears are set to alter American lifestyles and sovereignty in ways never before contemplated. MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has warned: “‘He who controls carbon controls life. It is a bureaucrat’s dream to control carbon dioxide.” Washington, D.C., and the U.N. are in a field of dreams right now as they envision one of the most massive expansions of controls on human individual freedom ever contemplated by governments. Leading the charge is none other than former Vice President Al Gore, who declared in July 2009 that the congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.” U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also trumpeted the concept in an Oct. 25, 2009, New York Times oped. “A [climate] deal must include an equitable global governance structure,” he wrote. Gore and the U.N.’s call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac’s call in 2000. On Nov. 20, 2000, then-President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.” Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, “Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.” Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.” In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent U.N. global warming conferences. In December 2007, the U.N. climate conference in Bali urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.” The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 U.N. climate conference. “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth. The Obama administration revealed even more controls in September 2009 when it was announced that the State Department wanted to form a global “Ecological Board of Directors.” But even more chilling than a global regime set up to “solve” global warming is the personal freedoms that are under assault. In September, a top German climate adviser proposed the “creation of a CO2 budget for every person on planet.” Hans Joachim Schellnhuber told Der Spiegel that this internationally monitored “CO2 budget” would apply to “every person on the planet, regardless whether they live in Berlin or Beijing.” Czech physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, formerly of Harvard University and a global-warming skeptic, reacted to Schellnhuber’s CO2 personal “budget” proposal by citing tyrannical movements of the past. “What Schellnhuber has just said is just breathtaking, and it helps me to understand how crazy political movements such as the Nazis or communists could have so easily taken over a nation that is as sensible as Germany,” Motl wrote on Sept. 6, 2009. The movement to control personal CO2 “budgets” and personal freedoms is growing internationally. In 2008, the U.K. proposed a “personal carbon trading scheme” where “every adult in U.K. should be forced to use ‘carbon ration cards.'” According to the Mail article: “Everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights – anyone who exceeds their entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven’t used up their allowance.” The U.K. government would have the authority to impose fines, “monitor employees’ emissions, home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday flights.” The London Times reported in September 2009: “Rationing being reintroduced via workplace after an absence of half a century. … Employees would be required to submit quarterly reports detailing their consumption.” In January 2008, the California state government stunned the nation when it sought to control home thermostats remotely. Even the New York Times appeared to be shaken by this proposal, comparing it to the 1960s sci-fi show “The Outer Limits.” “California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device,” the New York Times reported. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was dubbed the “eco-nanny” in May 2009 when she told audiences in China that “every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” in order to combat global warming. What is most surprising is that even the granddaddy of global warming treaties, the Kyoto Protocol, would have had barely a measurable impact on global CO2 levels even if fully enacted and assuming the U.N. was correct on the science. The congressional global warming cap-and-trade bill has been declared “scientifically meaningless,” and President Obama’s own EPA is now on record admitting that U.S. cap-and-trade bill “would not impact world CO2 levels.” Even a cursory examination of the global-warming issue reveals that the proposed climate tax and regulatory “solutions” are more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science or concern for human welfare. Former Colorado Sen. Tim Wirth summed up this view succinctly: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” The “right thing” Wirth is referring to is the unprecedented transfer of wealth, power and control to domestic and global governance. Controlling climate change appears not to be about controlling temperatures, but about controlling human freedom. Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who lived through totalitarian regimes, now warns that the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is from “ambitious environmentalism.”
Marc Morano is the executive editor of Climate Depot and former climate researcher and communications director for the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. He is involved in the AllPainNoGain petition effort.

By Marc Morano

More than 60 German Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears ‘Pseudo ‘Religion’; Urge Chancellor to ‘reconsider’ views ‘Growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role’

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.
The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.” This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth’s failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion. The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments. The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.” “More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added. “The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote. “The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,” the scientists wrote. “The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,” they added. “Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.Full Text of Translated Letter By 61 German Scientists: CLICK HERE.

Source

By Marc Morano

Scientists seek to remove climate fear promoting editor and ‘trade him to New York Times or Washington Post’

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the “consensus” view was growing “increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is “startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members.

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”

Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum’s use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum’s editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”

One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: “When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise.”

Baum ‘startled’ by scientists reaction

Baum wrote on July 27, that he was “startled” and “surprised” by the “contempt” and “vehemence” of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming “consensus.”

“Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming,” Baum wrote.

Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists

ACS member Thomas E. D’Ambra wrote:

“I think it’s time to find a new editor.”

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote:

“I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote:

“Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut:

“Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? […] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?”

Edward H. Gleason wrote:

“Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me…his use of ‘climate-change deniers’ to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner:

“I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ‘free-market fanatics,’ and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.”

William Tolley:

“I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.”

William E. Keller wrote:

“However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. […] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”

ACS member Wallace Embry:

“I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board ‘cap’ Baum’s political pen and ‘trade’ him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.”

[To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum’s editorial go here.]

Physicists Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum’s editorial an “alarmist screed.”

“Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views,” Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.

Read rest…

By Marc Morano

The year 2009 is proving to be a yet another very inconvenient year for the promoters of man-made global warming fears. As the “year without a summer” continues, the U.S. in July alone has broken over 3000 cold temperature records, and global temps have fallen .74F since Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released in 2006. In addition, meteorologists are predicting more record cold and snow this winter. (See: Brisk July portends ‘heavy snowfalls and bitter cold this winter along Eastern Seaboard‘)

But man-made climate fear promoters have finally constructed an explanation for the recent record cold temperatures.

The explanation? According to climate activists: “Global warming made it less cool.”

It appears the global warming fear movement has gone from predictions that we face a “climate crisis” and we are all going to die to their new slogan: “Global warming made it less cool.”

The environmental activist group Union of Concerned Scientists declared “Global warming made it less cool.” Brenda Ekwurzel, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, claimed in a July 24, 2009 letter to the editor in the Washington Post that “2008 was a cooler year, but global warming made it less cool.”

Let’s consider the Union of Concerned Scientists’ claim that “global warming made it less cool.”

Gore’s hometown, Nashville, recently broke an 1877 cold temp record set when Rutherford B. Hayes was in the White House.

Are we to believe that instead of breaking the 1877 Nashville cold temperature record set when Rutherford B. Hayes was president, the city would have allegedly broken a hypothetical 1862 cold temp record set when Abraham Lincoln was president? Or a hypothetical 1797 temperature record set when George Washington was president?

Would the absence of man-made “global warming” impacts have brought us to cold temperatures back in the colonial times? (Ok, that is a weak attempt at humor since there are no reliable land based temperature records going back that far. But recent peer-reviewed scientific papers are continuing to further embarrass climate fear promoters: See: Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! ‘Nature not man responsible for recent global warming…little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans’ – July 24, 2009 & Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!? – Global Warming could stop ‘for up to 30 years! Warming ‘On Hold?…’Could go into hiding for decades’ study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 )

It appears the man-made climate fear promoters believe the “global warming made it less cool” claim is their ticket to persuade Americans that record cold and global cooling are meaningless. (This explanation sure beats the “Climate Astrology” movement that blames any odd weather event on man-made global warming.)Yes, pay no attention to that record cold and instead think about how it would have been cooler without man-made global warming. With their new logic, Union of Concerned Scientists may soon be one step away from recommending that Americans idle their SUVs in the driveway to make it even “less cool” in the future. (Note: Union of Concerned Scientists also recommends that people “should take a look at the federal government’s recent report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” to find out “the facts” on global warming. That would be the Obama “science” report that was soundly rejected by scientists from around the world. See Climate Depot Report: Scaremongering’: Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: ‘This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA’…’Misrepresents the science’ – July 8, 2009 )

Read more

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