REMINDER: Turn ON your lights tonight for Human Achievement Hour 2010

Don’t sit in the dark and celebrate backwardness and poverty. Turn on everything you own and celebrate all that mankind has achieved.

Look forward to our future accomplishments and never forget that “Earth Hour” is just a big worldwide advertisement for the World Wildlife Federation’s global warming propaganda campaigns.

– Justin

8:30 – 9:30 PM

Human Achievement Hour (HAH) 2010


Our glaciers are growing, not melting

By Robert Felix

8 Mar 10 – “Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising,” said Al Gore in an op-ed piece in the New York Times on February 27. Both parts of Gore’s statement are false. Never mind that Mr. Gore makes only passing reference to the IPCC’s fraudulent claims that the Himalayan glaciers will all melt by 2035. (“A flawed overestimate,” he explains.) Never mind that Mr. Gore dismisses the IPCC’s fraudulent claims that the oceans are rising precipitously. (“Partly inaccurate,” he huffs.) Never mind that Mr. Gore completely ignores the admission by the CRU’s disgraced former director Phil Jones that global temperatures have essentially remained unchanged for the past 15 years. I’ll let someone else dissect Gore’s lawyering comments, and concentrate on just the one sentence about melting ice, because neither part of that sentence is true. Contrary to Gore’s assertions, almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are growing, not melting — and the seas are not rising. Let’s look at the facts. If you click on the words “are melting” in Gore’s article, you’re taken to a paper by Michael Zemp at the University of Zurich. Mr. Zemp begins his paper by warning that “glaciers around the globe continue to melt at high rates.” However, if you bother to actually read the paper, you learn that Zemp’s conclusion is based on measurements of “more than 80 glaciers.” Considering that the Himalayas boast more than 15,000 glaciers, a study of “more than 80 glaciers” hardly seems sufficient to warrant such a catastrophic pronouncement. Especially when you learn that of those 80 glaciers, several are growing.

Growing. Not melting.

“In Norway, many maritime glaciers were able to gain mass,” Zemp concedes. (“Able to gain mass” means growing.)

In North America, Zemp also concedes, “some positive values were reported from the North Cascade Mountains and the Juneau Ice Field.” (“Displaying positive values” means growing.) Remember, we’re still coming out of the last ice age. Ice is supposed to melt as we come out of an ice age. The ice has been melting for 11,000 years. Why should today be any different? I’m guessing that most Canadians and Northern Europeans are very happy that the ice has been melting. Unfortunately, that millenniums-long melting trend now appears to be changing. No matter how assiduously Mr. Gore tries to ignore it, almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are now gaining mass. (Or, displaying positive values, if you will.) For starters, let’s look at those Himalayan glaciers. In a great article, entitled “World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown,” Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings show that the IPCC’s fraudulent claims were based on “speculation” and “not supported by any formal research.”

As a matter of fact, many Himalayan glaciers are growing. In a defiant act of political incorrectness, some 230 glaciers in the western Himalayas – including Mount Everest, K2 and Nanga Parbat – are actually growing.

EDITORIAL: EPA's global-warming power grab

Scientific scandals and record snowfalls have begun to melt away the congressional appetite for more global-warming regulations. On Sunday, to take the latest example, a major scientific journal admitted that “oversights” compelled the retraction of its conclusion that sea levels were rising as a result of increased worldwide temperatures. Reports of this sort make it increasingly difficult for members of Congress to enter iced-over districts to ask their constituents to make economic sacrifices in an attempt to appease Mother Earth into favoring us with colder weather. This does not mean, however, that the left has given up on global warming as a means of exerting more government control over the economy. To avoid a potentially messy vote, President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has turned to the administrative rule-making process to impose climate-control regulations. In December, the agency made an “endangerment finding” that declared that six gases – including the carbon dioxide you are exhaling as you read this – are putting the planet’s well-being in peril. The first major rule based on this finding will be finalized next month. President George W. Bush’s EPA administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, warned that such a finding would result in a major government power grab. “[T]he potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land,” he explained. Fortunately, Mr. Obama’s team might not get away with it. So far, 40 senators have signed on to an effort by Sen. Lisa A. Murkowski, Alaska Republican, to nullify the EPA endangerment finding. Three Democrats have been willing to co-sponsor the legislation, but Senate sources suggest a number of others may be willing to vote for the bill when it comes to the floor. Mrs. Murkowski, who takes a moderate stand on the issue, is key to lining up the bipartisan support required for passage. In the past, the Alaska senator has embraced government efforts to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, including a limited form of cap-and-trade. Her resolution is evidence that both sides of the global-warming issue can agree that such a fundamental public-policy question should not be decided by unelected bureaucrats. Both sides also should be troubled by the EPA’s twisting of the Clean Air Act, which originally was designed to cut down on actual pollutants, into regulating so-called greenhouse gases. Instead of preventing smokestacks from belching noxious fumes and toxic chemicals harmful to the health of human beings, the agency has made its new enemy No. 1 a cow chewing grass in a field. Citing U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, the EPA declared “enteric fermentation” – a fancy phrase to refer to a cow’s natural emissions in the field – to be the primary source of methane, which is 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in planetary warming. The EPA placed what it called a “primary reliance” on reports like those of the IPCC instead of conducting independent research to make its finding. Given the retractions and revelations of faulty science surrounding the global-warming religion, especially at the IPCC, it’s time to take the issue out of the EPA’s hands so Congress can address it in the open. The Senate should pass Mrs. Murkowski’s disapproval resolution when it comes for an expected vote next month.

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Feb. 18th 2010

Evan Bayh falls victim to a mutation in the Gore Effect, Dead Kennedy’s view is likely to be spoiled by a zombie wind farm and the IPCC becomes a gated community. Also, there’s a nice bit of Welsh for your global hottie.

Part One: Al Gore & Friends

Al Gore has buried his head in the sand and continues to pretend that his global warming hoax is still credible. When Climategate broke, Al said this:

“A few out-of-context lines from decade-old e-mails aren’t going to change that in the long term, and anyone who thinks we’ll be talking about these e-mails a year from now hasn’t been paying attention to a news cycle that moves at Twitter speed.”

As we know, Climategate was always about more than emails. Even Phil ‘Hide the Decline’ Jones has admitted that there has been no warming since 1995. Al doesn’t want to hear that, he wants you to believe that it’s even worse than we thought:

…as Barber and his colleagues explain in a recent paper in Geophysical Review Letters, the analysis of what the satellites were seeing was wrong. Some of what satellites identified as thick, melt-resistant multiyear ice turned out to be, in Barber’s words, “full of holes, like Swiss cheese.”

Kind of like AGW science, right Al? As Al doubles down on the ‘climate crisis’, a growing chorus of voices are calling for some kind of reckoning for the profiteer prophet of doom. Rush Limbaugh ponders a fraud conviction while the Donald wants Al’s Nobel stripped: .. Even lowly people like you, the evil skeptic Round-Up readers can sign a petition asking the Nobel Committee to take back the Gore award and give to a far more deserving winner. The Gore Effect is a fun method of referring to adverse weather events that disrupt climate protests and so forth. Perhaps there is now a new Political Gore effect emerging. As soon as Gore’s Repower America ran ads targeting Senator Evan Bayh to support the cap and tax bill, Bayh announced he would not seek re-election. No one expects Al Gore to present a balanced view of the global warming debate, but even he must realize that something is seriously wrong when three major US firms quit the Climate Action Partnership. Just last September Al celebrated Alstom’s decision to join the CAP as a sign that “slowly and surely we are winning.” So what does he think losing BP America, ConocoPhilips and Caterpillar means? Al, buy a clue: slowly and surely, you are losing.

Part Two: AGW Scaremongers

Hippies hate science, otherwise how do we explain their serial refusal to respect the scientific method?

More preposterous is the conceit that only the warmists are actually taking account of hard science. In fact, the scandal of the past several months (which liberals have not digested) has been the long-term and systematic abuse of science in the name of politics.

Ouch. Adherents to the global warming hoax are reacting badly to the collapse of their neo-religion, casting about at those who show them the mirror and resorting to name calling. Others ignore years of nasty abuse from warmists and decide that now the tables have turned, maybe we can all just get along. Here’s a question for Jerome Ravetz, are we supposed to forget that alarmists wanted skeptics silenced, jailed or worse for asking questions? Hippies sure are sore losers. Some warmers wonder where all their friends went. Rats from a sinking ship, perhaps? Last week we discovered that your choice of phone can reveal if you are a hippie or not, to the chagrin of some readers. Now, to back that up, we learn of an App for alarmists to use when confronted by a skeptic. To keep things balanced, here’s a great summary of the ‘Gates’ of hell for skeptics to fire back with. You’re welcome. Paranoid, or prepared? A skeptical journalist (yes, you read that right) waits for the next great scare the warmists will reveal in the hope that it will distract us from the IPCC’s meltdown.CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST!

Only 35% still believe in man-made global warming

That sound you hear is Al Gore sobbing. A new Rasmussen study that shows only 35% of Americans still believe in man-made global warming. When you subtract out all the people who make money off this colossal scam, we estimate that the resulting figure is about 2%. Here are the details from Rasmussen:

Questions continue to mount over the science behind years of studies that say humans are chiefly to blame for global warming. But reflecting a trend that has been going on for more than a year, just 35% of U.S. voters now believe global warming is caused primarily by human activity. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 47% think long-term planetary trends are mostly to blame, down three points from the previous survey in January. Eight percent say there is some other reason, and 10% aren’t sure. But 56% say President Obama still believes that human activity is the main cause of global warming. That’s the highest finding on that question since last March.The president went to a United Nations summit in Copenhagen in December in hopes of reaching an international agreement that would limit human activities that some scientists say contribute to global warming.

Thirty-five percent? Hell, Al, you could find a higher percentage of people who believe in flying saucers. And with good reason.Source: Rasmussen via IHateTheMedia

The Jig is Up! Climategate U-turn as Phil Jones admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Oops. UK Times: ‘World may not be warming, say scientists’ — UN IPCC ‘faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably’ – –
‘Popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development’ — ‘IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias’

Watch Now! Climate Depot’s Morano in MSNBC TV Debate with Daniel Weiss of Center for Am. Progress: Morano: ‘The whole entire [warming] industry has been exposed as sub-prime science’
Morano: ‘Now [the warmists] are trying to say global warming causes blizzards, that’s the level of climate astrology — it’s like a daily horoscope — nothing that happens falsifies the [warming] theory’ — ‘He (Weiss) need’s Tarot cards, that is what he needs, he is peddling astrology’

Hebrew University Scientists publish study in Nature: ‘AGW is refuted’ — ‘Claims that carbon emissions permanently increase global temperature are false’
‘Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC arenot supported by the data’ More info here.

Reuters on UN IPCC Train wreck: ‘Admitting yet another flaw’: UN climate panel admits sea level flaws

Via email

How to blame humans for anything

By Andrew Bolt

Niche modeller David Stockwell is profoundly unimpressed with what’s billed as the latest “proof” of man-made warming – that winds are now pushing rain away from Western Australia, and dumping snow on Antarctica. And the funny thing is that not even the man spruiking this ”proof”, Professor Tas van Ommen, seems to have much faith in it:

The basic conclusion is that if this is being driven by human impact then you would expect it to continue but as climate change continues to change, the current situation changes too.

So if this keeps going, that’s evidence of man-made warming. And if it doesn’t, that’s evidence of climate change. It’s a win-win. And when you see van Ommen’s reasoning for assuming man is to blame you see exactly the same kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose reasoning:

This pattern has strengthened in the past 30 years and some of the computer models that reproduce this are showing that it looks like it has happened because of greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide – and also ozone (being depleted).

The models that reproduced this warming must be believed, but the blame-man ones that didn’t should be ignored. And here’s the seal to the deal: this great change in the Antarctic oscillation just brings us to where we were in 1960. From Jones, J. M. and M. Widmann, 2004. Early peak in Antarctic oscillation index. Nature, 432, 290–291:

Here we reconstruct the austral summer (December–January) Antarctic oscillation index from sea-level pressure measurements over the twentieth century5 and find that large positive values, and positive trends of a similar magnitude to those of past decades, also occurred around 1960, and that strong negative trends occurred afterwards. This positive Antarctic oscillation index and large positive trend during a period before ozone-depleting chemicals were released into the atmosphere and before marked anthropogenic warming, together with the later negative trend, indicate that natural forcing factors or internal mechanisms in the climate system must also strongly influence the state of the Antarctic oscillation.


U.S. to launch new climate agency amid growing doubts about the theory

By Tony Hake
Despite Congress’ inability to agree to climate change legislation, falling public belief in global warming, and new questions about the science behind the theory, the Obama administration announced plans to launch a new climate change agency. Falling under the umbrella of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Climate Service would be the U.S. government’s one-stop-shop for climate change information. U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said, “By providing critical planning information that our businesses and our communities need, NOAA Climate Service will help tackle head-on the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change.” Locke reiterated President Barack Obama’s oft-repeated refrain that ‘green jobs’ and technology will help the nation out of the recession. “In the process, we’ll discover new technologies, build new businesses and create new jobs.” The new service would bring together all of NOAA’s climate-related departments under a single agency called the NOAA Climate Service. NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said it would look much like the National Weather Service but dedicated to climate change instead of weather. Carol Browner, President Obama’s ‘global warming czar’, echoed Lubchenco saying, “Through NOAA’s improved climate services we will be better able to confront climate change, and the many challenges it presents for our environment, security, and economy.” The timing of the announcement has raised eyebrows given the current state of climate science and growing doubt amid the public and policy leaders. One claim in NOAA’s press release has drawn been looked at with bemusement by some. Touting NOAA’s past climate work, the statement discussed, “The climate research, observations, modeling, predictions and assessments generated by NOAA’s top scientists – including Nobel Peace Prize award-winners.” This presumably is alluding to the work of many climate scientists on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its work on climate science and the group’s AR4 report has been viewed as one of the most important pieces of work in the field. That very same report however has recently come under fire for dozens of errors and questionable citations. Claims of disappearing glaciers and rain forests, humanitarian disasters in Africa, increased natural disasters and more have all been disproven in recent weeks. Scientists that participated in the authoring of the report have said the spurious claims were included simply for political reasons. Some of those very same scientists were also at the forefront of the Climategate email scandal that continues to reverberate throughout the discussion on manmade climate change. The source of those emails, the University of East Anglia in Britain, has been found to have broken the law by trying to prevent the release of climate information. The head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the university, Dr. Phil Jones, continues to be investigated for his role. Jones and his fellow scientists at CRU were principal contributing authors to the IPCC’s work. In the United States, Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University similarly finds himself under investigation. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, has similarly come under fire after it was revealed he chose to ignore the errors leading up to the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in Denmark. Investigations by British media have also shown that Pachauri has financially benefitted from his position raising calls that he has a severe conflict of interest. The attempt to create a new government agency is being viewed by some as an ‘end run’ by the Obama administration around Congress and the American people. Climate change legislation incorporating a cap and trade tax scheme was considered a hallmark of the administration but it has since stalled in Congress. While the House of Representatives passed a version of the legislation, a similar measure sits fallow in the Senate and it appears unlikely it will move forward any time soon. Public doubts about global warming are also on the rise as shown by recent polls. According to the Pew Research Center, it ranks last in what the public believes should be a priority for the federal government. The American people, already casting a wary eye on a growing U.S. government and ballooning debt are not likely to view the new agency favorably. The state of climate science has not been at a lower point than it is now. 2009 was dubbed “The year climate change and global warming activists would like to forget” for the many events that dealt significant blow to the theory.Source