Tag: News

OTTAWA–Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s jet-setting fall tour won’t include a stop at a global climate-change summit in Copenhagen next month. Harper is on a trip to Singapore for an APEC meeting, and India, and will visit China and South Korea in December. But he has turned down an invitation from the Danes to attend an environmental meeting and rebuffed UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s call for world leaders to help break the impasse in talks to cut global greenhouse gas emissions. [hahahaha]Read full story here.Finally, some real good news!

Despite huge spending, it has not been proved that the human effect on the climate is significant

By Václav Klaus M any thanks for the invitation and for the courage to organize such an important gathering in the moment when political correctness tells you not to do it.

We are meeting one month before the Climate Change Copenhagen Summit and several weeks before the U.S. Senate hearing regarding the cap-and-trade scheme. For these reasons, today’s meeting can’t be an academic conference, even though the topic still needs academic discussion. There is no consensus — neither in science, nor in economic analysis or politics.

I have already been at a UN Summit in Copenhagen before. It was in 1995 at the so-called Social Summit. At that time, the Summit was attended by then U.S. Vice President Al Gore who — so it seems — will be there again this year. I did also attend, as Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, but I don’t plan to go there now. I don’t see any chance to influence the results or to be listened to.

In 1995, there were huge demonstrations organized by all kinds of anti-establishment groupings – from socialists and greens to anarchists and anti-globalizationists. I have never seen such clashes between demonstrators and police and army forces before. The difference is that I don’t expect any demonstrations in Copenhagen now. The anti-establishment people have in the meantime become insiders and will be sitting in the main hall. This is a shift with far-reaching consequences.

My views on the doctrine of global warming and especially on the role of man in it are relatively known. My book with the title Blue Planet in Green Shackles has been already published in 12 languages and, two and a half years after its original publication, I don’t have any urgent need to rewrite it.

We should not forget how the doctrine of global warming came into being. In a normal case, everything starts with an empirical observation, with the discovery of evident trends or tendencies. Then follow scientific hypotheses and their testing. When they are not refuted, they begin to influence politicians. The whole process finally leads to some policy measures. None of this was the case with the global warming doctrine.

It started differently. The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of the market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been searching for a persuasive argument that would justify these ambitions of theirs. After trying several alternative ideas — population bomb, rapid exhaustion of resources, global cooling, acid rains, ozone holes — that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent, they came up with the idea of global warming. Their doctrine was formulated before reliable data evidence, before the formulation of scientifically proven theories, before their comprehensive testing based on today’s level of statistical methods. Politicians accepted that doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and — without waiting for its confirmation — started to prepare and introduce economically damaging and freedom endangering measures.

Why did they do that? They understood that playing the global warming game is an easy, politically correct and politically profitable card to play (especially when it is obvious that they themselves won’t carry the costs of the measures they implement and will not be responsible for their consequences).

I don’t see any problem with the climate now, or in the foreseeable future, and for that reason I am not sufficiently motivated to discuss the technicalities of the cap-and-trade scheme. I only protest against calling it a “market solution.” It reminds me of the communist planners who similarly talked about “using market instruments” when they finally came to the conclusion that “planning instruments” did not work. Markets can’t be used by anybody.

We should not deceive ourselves. A cap-and-trade scheme is a government intervention par excellence, not a “market solution.” How much “to cap” is the decision of the government (and the European failure several years ago — when too many carbon permits were issued — is I hope well known here). The size of the cap defines the price of carbon and this price is nothing else than a tax imposed upon citizens of the country. I agree with Lord Monckton that the cap-and-trade bill “is the largest tax increase ever to be inflicted on a population in the history of the world.” How is it possible that such arguments are not used? Why does nobody argue that to tax energy means that the costs of anti-global warming policy will disproportionally fall onto the poor people? What bothers me is that to “trade” the artificial “good” — the permits — means that a new group of rent-seekers will arise who will make profits at our expense. Why doesn’t anybody say that the carbon permits have no intrinsic value other than by government decree? I could continue along these lines.

But we should return to the beginning. Despite huge scientific efforts and spending, it has not been proved that the human effect on the climate is statistically significant. Once again Lord Monckton: “the correct policy to address a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

This country, my country, as well as the rest of the world face many real issues. We do not need to solve non-existing problems. I don’t think the real issue is temperature and/or CO2, but a new utopian vision of the world. We have only two ways out: salvation through carbon capping or prosperity through freedom, unhampered human activity, productivity and hard work. I vote for the second option.

Václav Klaus is the President of the Czech Republic. On Nov. 4, the Washington Times hosted a briefing, “Advancing the Global Debate over Climate Change Policy” at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. These remarks were given at the last panel of that event. Photo: Václav Klaus (Reuters) Source

By Al Fin

The following is excerpted from a PDF document titled “The Sun Defines the Climate” by Russian academician Habibullo Abdussamatov. (see here or here for more discussion) The document describes one means by which solar variability drives Earth’s (and Mars’) climate, in conjunction with the ocean cycles and the water cycle. The reason for the far less important influence of CO2 on the climate is explained.

Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop (Fig. 7, 11). Meantime the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over these years has grown by more than 4%, and in 2006 many meteorologists predicted that 2007 would be the hottest of the last decade. This did not occur, although the global temperature of the Earth would have increased at least 0.1 degree if it depended on the concentration of carbon dioxide. It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming.

The earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists; warming passed its peak in 1998-2005, while the value of the TSI by July – September of last year had already declined by 0.47 W/m2 (Fig. 1).
For several years until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise. Changes in climatic conditions will occur unevenly, depending on latitude. A temperature decrease in the smallest degree would affect the equatorial regions and strongly influence the temperate climate zones. The changes will have very serious consequences, and it is necessary to begin preparations even now, since there is practically no time in reserve. The global temperature of the Earth has begun its decrease without limitations on the volume of greenhouse gas emissions by industrially developed countries; therefore the implementation of the Kyoto protocol aimed to rescue the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off at least 150 years.

Consequently, we should fear a deep temperature drop, but not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis. _

When you hear yet another news story describing how modern humans must revert to the stone ages to prevent catastrophic global warming, keep in mind that there is no catastrophic global warming outside of overheated brains of corrupt politicians, UN officials, and grant hungry former scientists.

Source

By Bill Dupray

Not to be the master of the obvious here, but it is going to be hard to convince people that the earth is warming . . . when it is not.

The earth’s temperature peaked in 1998. It’s been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.

But we’ll give ABC credit for reporting the poll numbers. Then they get downright hilarious trying to discredit it eight ways to Sunday. The advocacy is top-notch, it is just too bad that they don’t see it as such.

Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says. And the share of people who believe pollution caused by humans is causing temperatures to rise has also taken a dip, even as the U.S. and world forums gear up for possible action against climate change. . . . Only about a third, or 36 percent of the respondents, feel that human activities — such as pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles — are behind a temperature increase. That’s down from 47 percent from 2006 through last year’s poll.

So only a small (and drastically shrinking) minority thinks that we are causing any global warming. The rest of the normal people presumably think one of two things, either (1) the planet is not warming (so the whole issue is moot), or (2) that bright yellow ball in the sky seems to have something to do with the earth’s temperature. Either way, this hardly seems the time to go taking over all of American industry with a Cap and Trade scheme and taxing the bejesus out of the American people. Let’s just say it ain’t exactly a stimulus package. But ABC dives right in with the standard attacks. First we have the “settled science” of global warming with which we are not allowed to argue.

At the same time, there has been mounting scientific evidence of climate change — from melting ice caps to the world’s oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer.

Hmmm. I heard a little something different in a couple of places about those ‘melting’ ice caps.

First, the 2009 summer minimum Arctic Sea Ice Extent [Area of ocean with at least 15 percent sea ice] that was predicted by alarmists to decline, instead, grew dramatically. According to International Arctic Research Center AMSR-E satellite data, it grew by about 1 million square kilometers of ice (1.4 times the size of Texas), which is a 23 percent growth above 2007 and 11.5 percent growth above 2008 sea-ice levels, respectively. More bad news for alarmists came when results of the Arctic Sea Ice Expedition were released. NASA characterized this expedition as a six-nation, 20-scientist Arctic expedition, equipped with an aircraft that had precision measurement instruments. Alarmists had argued that new Arctic sea-ice growth was thinner and less robust than older ice. The expedition instead found new sea ice was much thicker, up to four meters in places, which was more than twice what was expected.

I guess ABC didn’t find any of that in the “settled” science. But they nevertheless proceed undaunted.

The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. A federal government report Thursday found that global warming is upsetting the Arctic’s thermostat.

Funny, they must have forgotten to mention that 650 of the world’s leading climatologists met in Poland in December and declared that man-made global warming is a media-generated myth, without scientific basis. Then there was the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York earlier this year, in which at least 70 scientists seem to have missed the memo about the “settled science.” Oh yeah, and the They kept talking saying crazy stuff like “we don’t agree” and “the science shows something else.” Surely these people must be silenced. Then ABC goes with the perennial favorite of lefties who are losing an argument: The people are confused by crazy things like weather and, lobbyists, or something.

Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness. [me – now there is some professor-speak for you] “It’s a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public,” he said.

Translation: Dammit! If people weren’t so stupid, we’d have this thing in the bag already. So, to help turn the tide, ABC decides to haul out a little more of that “settled science.”

Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that the primary cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal. Jane Lubchenco, head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a business group meeting at the White House Thursday: “The science is pretty clear that the climate challenge before us is very real. We’re already seeing impacts of climate change in our own backyards.”

In whose backyard? Have you noticed any global warming in your backyard? If not, you must be confused. You’d better read up a little more on the “settled science.” Surprisingly, it seems that the more liberal you are, the more the science is settled.

People living in the Midwest and mountainous areas of the West are far less likely to view global warming as a serious problem and to support limits on greenhouse gases than those in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Both the House and Senate bills have been drafted by Democratic lawmakers from Massachusetts and California.

Oh yeah, and even if you are a Warmer, turns out that China and India aren’t with you and aren’t coming to Copenhagen. So keep in mind that whatever the Democrats do with Cap and Trade or the “world community” does at Copenhagen, we are unilaterally killing our own economy while two of the world’s biggest “polluters” charge onward. They must marvel that we are hell-bent on chasing a hoax while they continue to go about the business of living in the real world. Though ABC gratuitously includes the liberal talking points and mounts an impressive defense on behalf of the Warmers, they grudgingly concede that the American people are figuring out the truth.Source

GREENWASHING TAKEN TO THE NEXT LEVEL

Ed’s note: It’s bad enough that some people buy into the myth that their own “footprint” is somehow a bad thing, but this article just goes to show how far the absurd eco-alarmists can really go.

By TANYA KATTERNS – Published today in The Dominion Post
The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found. Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living. The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them. “If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said. “A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact … is comparable.” In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido. They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle’s eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog’s. They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV. Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming. “The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone’s pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment.” Professor Vale took her message to Wellington City Council last year, but councillors said banning traditional pets or letting people keep food animals in their homes were not acceptable options. Kelly Jeffery, a Paraparaumu german shepherd breederwho once owned a large SUV, said eliminating traditional pets was “over the top”. “I think we need animals because they are a positive in our society. We can all make little changes to reduce carbon footprints but without pointing the finger at pets, which are part of family networks.” Owning rabbits is legal anywhere. Local bodies allow chickens, with some restrictions. YOUR PET’S MARK The eco-footprints of the family pet each year as calculated by the Vales: German shepherds: 1.1 hectares, compared with 0.41ha for a large SUV. Cats: 0.15ha (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf). Hamsters: 0.014ha (two of them equate to a medium-sized plasma TV). Goldfish: 0.00034ha (an eco-finprint equal to two cellphones).Source

By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun
The prime minister knows cap-and-trade is wrong for Canada and bad for Canadians. He should say it Prime Minister Stephen Harper is too clever by half on global warming. Politically, he’s taken the smart position — Canada will match whatever U.S. President Barack Obama does. That’s not only clever, but true. We have to match what the U.S. does because it’s our major trading partner. The problem is with the centrepiece of Obama’s plan — creating a U.S. cap-and-trade market in carbon dioxide emissions into which Canada will be sucked, along with the rest of the world. This is the wrong policy for a resource-rich, energy-exporting country, like Canada. Cap-and-trade will cost Canadians jobs. It will make Canadians poorer. It will slow our recovery. It will hike not just the cost of electricity far beyond what governments are already doing under the guise of “going green,” but the cost of everything. It will give speculators and giant energy corporations undeserved profits. It will create the potential for destabilizing financial bubbles, because the price of a “carbon credit,” the stock on which cap-and-trade is built, is vulnerable to corruption and fraud. Finally, cap-and-trade will do nothing for the environment. This isn’t speculation. It’s the reality of Europe’s five-year-old cap-and-trade system. Harper knows all this. Back when he was opposition leader, he correctly denounced the Kyoto accord, the political deal that is driving cap-and-trade, as a socialist, money-sucking, wealth-redistribution scheme. He should be warning Canadians about that now and urging Obama, since he won’t abandon cap-and-trade, to at least proceed with extreme caution. LIP SERVICE But Conservatives have convinced themselves if they talk honestly about this folly it will cost them at the polls, leaving them vulnerable to charges from the left they don’t care about the planet. Sadly, many Conservative voters have bought into this logic — arguing Harper has to pay lip service to what he doesn’t believe in to win a majority government — and then try to minimize the economic damage. But while Harper and the Tories refuse to get off a bandwagon they know is a sham, ordinary citizens are increasingly realizing everything they needed to know about global warming they didn’t learn from Al Gore’s doomsday rhetoric in An Inconvenient Truth. The “scientific consensus” Gore and the UN have been peddling — that we know precisely what causes so-called “unnatural” global warming (us), when we must act (now — in a panic) and what we must do (pay ever more punishing prices for energy) is unravelling. People are realizing our understanding of climate — a new science — is limited and that many natural factors, like ocean currents, have a profound influence on climate. Even scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are now theorizing, as more becomes known, that there may be a decades-long pause in global warming, unforeseen by early computer models. Media that led the global hysteria, like the BBC, are beginning to acknowledge there has been no global warming for a decade despite carbon dioxide concentrations continuing to rise and that there are legitimate, competing theories about warming, not a “consensus” with which, unless you agree, you’re a “denier.” Climate-monitoring agencies like the British Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre that fuelled early climate alarmism are now cautioning scientists to stop linking every extreme weather event to global warming. Today marks the release of Not Evil, Just Wrong — the True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria — by filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, which, ironically, uses the “documentary” propaganda techniques perfected by Michael Moore, to attack Gore and An Inconvenient Truth.
READ REST…