Live Video streaming by Ustream
CLICK HERE to buy the DVD and support this site!
By K. Daniel Glover
Momentum has been building for months, and now the big Not Evil Just Wrong day is finally here. Come Sunday at 8 p.m. EST, it’s time for a cinematic tea party! All across America and around the world, people will display their movie posters, roll out their pieces of red carpet, and help Ann and Phelim set a world record for a simultaneous movie premiere. The resistance against Al Gore and his cronies of capitalistic destruction begins now! With 6,000 screening in 27 countries, it’s going to be one amazing party. There will be premieres in every state as consumers fight to protect their American Dream from draconian regulations inspired by global warming hysteria. How excited are people about this premiere? The announcement on the Web site of the Heritage Foundation, where Ann will speak along with headliners like Andrew Breitbart of Big Hollywood and Big Government fame, says it all: “The auditorium is at capacity. No more RSVPs will be accepted.” Professors Richard Lindzen and Don Roberts, two of the characters in Not Evil Just Wrong, also will speak at the Heritage screening. And Christopher Lord Monckton, who also appears in the film, will be part of the premiere at Texas A&M University in College Station. Canadians are part of the resistance, too. Every province there will be part of premiere night, and Phelim will host one in Toronto. [Ed’s note: Phelim will actually be at the Vancouver premiere]
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, another expert interviewed in the documentary, also will join the party at Hollywood Theatre in Vancouver, where the movie will play on the big screen. The Fraser Institute is supporting that effort. Here’s a sampling of other public screenings on premiere night:
Get the details about other public premieres of the movie on the Not Evil Just Wrong site and at our Facebook fan page. If you’re not already one of our fans, please join the more than 4,300 people who have joined our online resistance there. And if you really want to be wowed, take a gander at our Google map of premieres around the world. It includes both public premieres and those in people’s homes. It’s the perfect portrait of a cinematic tea party in action, and you can be part of it!Source
By Daniel Libit
One of the highest priorities of the current federal administration is to pass legislation limiting human emitted greenhouse emissions, based on the belief that reducing these emissions will lead to measurable declines in global temperatures. A bill to implement this policy, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, passed the House earlier this year by a narrow margin and, on September 30th, the Senate Committee released its version of the bill named the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.
Unfortunately, most Americans are not aware of what a cap-and-trade program is, other than what they hear from advocates of the program who also speak about creating “green” jobs, providing energy security and reducing “pollution.” The truth is, cap-and-trade is a complex energy tax (essentially an energy-rationing scheme) that affects all levels of production and economic activity.
A national cap-and-trade program will cause significant financial burdens on Oregonians, decrease economic growth, and lead to no measurable change in global temperatures or global emission levels.
Because of both the lack of environmental benefits and the substantial costs associated with climate legislation, Cascade Policy Institute is spearheading a video campaign to educate politicians and the American public about the dangers of implementing a federal cap-and-trade program.
After months of interviews featuring policy analysts, writers, economists, scientists and activists, Cascade Policy Institute has finished Climate Chains, a 22-minute documentary that exposes extreme environmentalism and the misguided pursuit of cap-and-trade legislation. Climate Chains not only explains the dangers of this legislation but offers an alternative to top-down regulation in the form of free market environmentalism.
To watch the full documentary, visit Cascade Policy Institute’s new site at www.climatechains.com.
Via email
By Damian Thompson
I think the BBC wanted to slip this one out quietly, but a Matt Drudge link put paid to that. The climate change correspondent of BBC News has admitted that global warming stopped in 1998 – and he reports that leading scientists believe that the earth’s cooling-off may last for decades.
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years. So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles. Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”
Hudson’s piece must have been a nightmare to write: talk about an inconvenient truth. All the caveats are in place, distancing him from hardline sceptics and giving plenty of space to the climate change orthodoxy. But, in fact, his scrupulous approach only makes matters worse for BBC executives who have swung the might of the corporation behind that orthodoxy, often producing what amounts to propaganda. The BBC now has serious questions to answer. It has used millions of pounds of licence-payers’ money to advance a simplistic point of view that is beginning to fall apart under scrutiny. Did it not foresee that this might happen? And, now that statistics are beginning to point in the other direction, is it prepared to give equal prominence to a debate about climate change that is both respectable and urgent?Source H/T to David, via email
By Not Evil Just Wrong
The Society of Environmental Journalists spent much of their conference in Madison, Wisconsin questioning why mainstream journalism was dying. Then they answered their own question when they decided it was their role to protect Al Gore from An Inconvenient Question.
Phelim McAleer, the director of Not Evil Just Wrong, asked Al Gore about the British Court Case which found his documentary An Inconvenient Truth had nine significant errors. McAleer said that given his documentary is being shown in schools – does he accept the errors and has he done anything to correct them?
McAleer said that given his documentary is being shown in schools – does he accept the errors and has he done anything to correct them?
However, Mr Gore declined to address the issue and when asked for a straight answer from McAleer – the response of the Society of Enironmental Journalists was not to applaud one of their own for bringing truth to power but instead they cut the mic of a journalist.
It seems it is more important to protect a wealthy politician/businessman than to allow a journalist to ask inconvenient questions.
And they wonder why no one wants to buy their journalism.
By Michael Coren, Winnipeg Sun
It’s truly extraordinary how every left-of-centre journalist in the country has managed to become an instant expert on the arcane subjects of global warming and the science of climate change.
Imagine, for example, if some average Canadian hack who had never studied the Middle East suddenly announced that he was an authority on Israel-Palestine, knew which side was right and knew how to solve all of the associated problems.
This, however, is what we are told every day when it comes to the fashion of sounding green. The more sympathy we can exhibit for Al Gore’s polar bear or David Suzuki’s whining, the more trendy and acceptable we become.
There are, however, an increasing number of peer-reviewed and intensely credible scientific minds who believe conventional thinking on global warming is nonsense.
One such being Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and a world-renowned scholar.
He was in Canada recently and appeared on my television show. A man of compelling wit and eloquence, he has defeated so many environmental activists — he calls them “bedwetters” — that few of them will now debate him.
“Al Gore has refused several times. Here is a man who is paid $300,000 per speech and has his staff control all of the questions that are asked. People ask why he is so committed,” Monckton said. “Simple. He was a failed politician worth $2 million; he’s now a famous activist worth $200 million!”
According to Monckton there are more than 700 major scientists who steadfastly refute the notion that the climate is changing to any worrying degree, that global warming is a reality and that the planet is in danger.
“It’s all about the need of the international left to rally round a new flag.”
Minimal
In a series of articles he appears to show that Earth’s sensitivity to increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide is minimal.
“Take the example of the medieval warm period,” he says. “The bedwetters tell us that this was brief and irrelevant. Yet if we look at history we see it wasn’t brief and is certainly relevant. Climate does change but it’s minor and it has little if anything to do with man’s intervention.” A brief pause. “It’s about money and control. There is a lot of money to be made out of the so-called green economy and it allows people to tell us what to do — which is what some people relish doing.”
He continues: “Remember DDT, the pesticide used to kill mosquitoes that carried malaria. Jackie Kennedy read a book saying it was harmful, got her husband the president to bring pressure to have it banned and in 40 years 40 million people, mainly children, died. Now we’ve come to our senses and re-introduced it but only after the fashionable left did their damage.
“Global warming is similar. It makes no sense, is bad science and policies to deal with it will cause terrible problems. People are being indoctrinated and critics are intimidated into silence.”
Is he annoyed at his opponents’ refusal to take him on?
“Actually I’m rather delighted. It means I’m winning.”
Frankly, he’s probably right.
michael.coren@sunmedia.ca
Source
By C3 Headlines
The global cooling that climate alarmist scientists are finally admitting to is being felt big time in the U.S. over last 10+ years. The graph represents 12-month periods, ending with the September 30, 2009 period. (click to enlarge image)
By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers
A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for Earth and don’t cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.”I’m trying to kill the whole thing,” he says. “We are tilting at windmills.” He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.READ THE REST HERE.
By Lorne Gunter, National Post
In 2001, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued it third assessment of the research into global warming and other impending climate disasters. This is the UN report that first claimed there had been “unusual warming” in the 20th century and that man-made emissions were likely the cause. Featured prominently in that report was a hockey-stick-shaped graph showing flat temperatures for the 900 years from 1000 AD to 1900, followed by skyrocketing rises after that. The implication — that widespread industrialization had caused unprecedented heating — was so clear that the IPCC included the graph in its report in no fewer than five places. Environmentalist and politicians reproduced the graph, which had been created by scientist Michael Mann, everywhere. Then along came Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. After some hen’s-teeth pulling to get Prof. Mann to release his raw data, Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick found that 105 of 112 data sets he had used were incomplete, flawed or incorrect. For instance, while reliable temperature records for Central Europe exist back to the 1660s, Prof. Mann and his colleagues chose to use only data from 1730 onward. In at least three cases, the extra 70 years of data were contained in reports Prof. Mann had used, yet he and his co-authors declined to use them. Why? There could be several reasons, some legitimate. But one of the most likely reasons is that 1660-1730 were the coldest years of the Little Ice Age. If your goal is to produce a chart showing a calm, flat climate for 1,000 years, interrupted only by humankind’s bad influence in the last century, it helps to ignore the sharp upward and downward swings to which climate has been susceptible for thousands of years. Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick eventually determined that Prof. Mann’s formula had been set up so that nearly any set of numbers run through it produced a hockey stick. Still, devotees of the climate-change catastrophe theory told the Canadian duo it didn’t matter: There were two other sets of climate-history data that validated the claim of rapid, dangerous temperature rise in the 20th Century. Both were by British researcher Keith Briffa, one called the Polar Urals and the other Yamal Peninsula. Both were based on tree-ring cores drilled in Russian forests. Both replicated Prof. Mann’s hockey stick. The Polar Urals quickly fell by the way, though. To produce his hockey stick using the Polar Urals, Prof. Briffa used a very small sample of the trees from which he and his colleagues had taken ring samples. When one of those colleagues released a much larger sample via the Internet, the result was a fluctuating graph — warmer than today in the Middle Ages, very cold during the Little Ice Age — with unremarkable temperatures in the 20th-century. Still undeterred, climate alarmists fell back on Prof. Briffa’s Yamal numbers. He and others have produced at least eight additional hockey-stick papers since 2000 based on the Yamal data. Two by Prof. Briffa himself received very prominent circulation in the prestigious journals Nature and Science. But despite repeated requests by Mr. McIntyre for Prof. Briffa’s raw numbers — a standard courtesy most scientific journals adhere to — not one of the peer-reviewed journals would make the British academic give up his base data so others might try to reproduce his results … that is, until he published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society last year. Their editor followed up with Prof. Briffa, who very quietly last month finally released his data nearly a decade late. Mr. McIntyre has now discovered that Prof. Briffa kept reducing the number of trees from which he used results, so that after 1990, his calculations were based on just 10 trees from the whole of his sample of scores of trees. And after 1995, they were based on just five. This Prof. Briffa justifies on the need to standardize findings to make them comparable. He may be right. But when Mr. McIntyre plugged more of Prof. Briffa’s data into the calculations, the hockey stick broke again. The 20th century was not particularly warm. For fuller discussions on the Yamal controversy, visit climateaudit.org, wattsupwiththat.com or bishophill.squarespace.com. For a defence of Prof. Briffa’s numbers, visit realclimate.com.Source