You wouldn't be here without CO2

‘The whole thing turns on a preposterous theory based on maligning a wholly benign rare gas that is in fact essential to existence of life on earth’

It is all very well for us to talk light-heartedly about the silly season and the preposterous claims of its denizens, but meanwhile the enemy within are pushing the western world steadily towards a lunatic economic suicide, while the enormities they commit are conveniently given cover by the prevailing frivolity. The US Presidency, for example, having largely failed to recruit Congress into its war on industry, resorts to undemocratic methods by permitting the out-of-control EPA to wage it unconstrained. The mostly sympathetic media report it as just another thread in the rich tapestry of modern life.
In the UK , the Telegraph has appointed Louise Gray as Queen of the season and almost daily reports of mostly old scares pour out: so this one did not seem all that different. The Carbon Reduction Commitment is, however, a major frontal attack on the core of British industry, involving not only onerous tax increases and draconian fines, but equally importantly it imposes an enormous administrative burden, just at a time when it can do most damage to business and the national economy. Its history is replete with the nastiest characteristics of the genre. Arising from undemocratically evolved EU diktats, it was formulated by the monumentally failed Labour government and has all the hallmarks of the Brownian love of complexity. Then it has been adopted unchanged by the coalition in a covert way. Rather than give fair warning of the pain to come, the Government has treated the whole ghastly affair as a state secret, so that most of the victim companies have no idea of the nightmare that is about to hit them. It has now been exposed in the middle of the silly season, when the victims are supposed to register for fleecing by the end of next month.
One part of the Government is looking to industry to get it out of the current mess, while another part is shackling that industry so that it is even more immersed in a fight for survival.
The incredible fact is that the whole thing turns on a preposterous theory based on maligning a wholly benign rare gas that is in fact essential to the existence of life on earth.
On the basis of the myth the British have, for example, passively allowed Indians to take over their steel industry, close it down and move it to India . This is just part of a massive migration of industry from the western nations to the Asian ones, no doubt to the satisfaction of the UN administration.

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, April 29th 2010

Al Gore has a modest new home in California, because every eco-cult leader needs a mansion on each coast. Australia’s government dropped emissions trading like a hot rock because the ‘climate crisis’ can wait until after the pesky election, and CNN emulates ancient cultures and is fearful of a vengeful planet. This week’s round-up is a bit of a monster edition, so the hottie is the world’s sexiest woman. It seemed only fair.

Part One: Al Gore & Friends

Al Gore loves the planet so much he has dedicated his earning potential life to the cause. He’s so in love with the Earth that it’s almost as if he wants to visit all of it, in one week:

April 30, 2010–Philippines
April 29, 2010–Johannesburg, South Africa
April 27, 2010–New York (afternoon)
April 27, 2010–Chicago (morning)
April 26, 2010–Denver
April 24, 2010–Italy
April 22, 2010–Montreal

His New York trip was almost a Gore Effect day, it was cold but the snow held off. Al won a big payday in court this week, when a fine of $588 was reversed on appeal. The original fine was for unfair use of a photograph his Current TV used without permission. I was intending to be all snarky and critical of Gore for fighting over a few hundred dollars, but what I didn’t know was he needed the cash for his new California home. Al and Tipper dropped $8,875,000 for an ocean-view villa with a swimming pool, spa and fountains. So, that $588 will come in handy when Tipper starts shopping for new drapes. The Goreacle lashed out at the media, calling articles skeptical of the global warming hoax ‘ridiculous’. Without any sense of irony, Al later blogged and blagged emo-Joe Romm’s ‘important’ new book, which made Romm go ’squeeee’, or something. It wasn’t all easy riding for the global warming profiteer prophet, The Foundry discovered some awkward math when assessing the real costs of Al’s preferred Repowering America plans:

…to meet Al Gore’s plan, with the cheapest renewable energy source, onshore wind, a family of four’s electricity bill would be almost double than if it were supplied by all coal – up from $189 a month to $340 a month. He assured Americans that we can use wind, solar and geothermal to power America. But the price only increases. Offshore wind: $404 a month. Solar thermal: $504 a month and worst of all, solar panels: $718 a month. That’s only $8,600 per family per year to cover our earth with solar panels.

Oddly, when Al wrote about coal’s dirty secrets, the fact that it only costs half of wind power never came up. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Al’s thoughts on the dirty secrets of his favorite renewable, ethanol. An ABC commenter pondered the idea of Al Gore being nominated to the Supreme Court, which is frankly both terrifying and hilarious. But mostly hilarious. The Supremes don’t earn enough to attract an A-lister like Al.

Suzuki circa 1970: ‘In 40 years I’ll be a total failure’

Canada’s perennial hippie and preachy irritant David Suzuki is a scientist, allegedly:

Suzuki believes the broader public still understands the urgent need for action because of the “in your face” impacts of climate change, like extreme weather, wildfires and melting polar ice. “Canada is the most vulnerable to climate change of any of the industrialized countries,” Suzuki said. [he] won’t predict whether the warming problem will be solved in the next 40 years. He and others once believed the 1990s had to be the turnaround decade. “It’s 20 years later and we’re still fighting the battles,” he said. “The direction we’re heading is catastrophic. This is not going to be easy. But the important thing is to get started.”

The daft old hippie has devoted his life to a lost cause and the important thing is to get started? Pardon me, but Epic Fail, no?

Part Two: AGW Scaremongers

A US Democrat finally finds an enemy he can fight, climate change is a national security issue. Remember, as the warmists rush to replace oil, only one place on the planet has enough rare earth metals to make all the shiny new batteries that new green technologies need… and it happens to be a Communist giant that owns a large swathe of US debt. What could possibly go wrong? emo-Joe Romm interviewed Van Jones for Earth Day:

And there’s going to be the opportunity for regular people to get real actual benefits—to get refunds. People are like, “oh, I’m scared of this energy bill because it’s going to make my energy bill go up,” but there’s a way you can actually get a refund on your energy bill and actually wind up with more money in your pocket if you make your home more energy efficient.

Jones, a fired Marxist doesn’t actually say whose pocket the ‘refunds’ will be coming from, but if you have a job in America, it’s probably yours.CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST!

Destroying America with the EPA's Carbon Lies

Lisa Jackson, Obama’s EPA director, has just announced the agency’s new auto regulations of gas mileage based on global warming. In addition, the agency asserts the right to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the Clean Air Act.

There is absolutely no scientific justification for this and, indeed, many observers believe the EPA lacks the legal authority regarding its stance on CO2.

There is NO need to limit greenhouse gas emissions because there is NO “global warming.”

Greenhouse gases are purported to be the primary cause of this fraud. The EPA, like a dozen other U.S. agencies, has been pushing the global warming fraud for decades. One more lie, even a whopper about CO2, is of little concern to the EPA at this point.

Beyond the issue of scientific fraud, there are the scientific facts that demonstrate that CO2 plays a miniscule role, if any, as regards the Earth’s climate. Carbon dioxide is less than one percent of the Earth’s atmosphere (386 parts per million).

There is, in fact, no greenhouse effect. The most active element of the atmosphere is the 95% of water vapor that forms a protective layer around the Earth.

The science involved is fairly simple. Clouds have a warming effect because, in order for water vapor to condense back into water droplets, the water molecules must first re-emit the energy they absorbed to become vapor. That latent heat causes the local environment to feel warmer. It is this constant interchange that determines whether wherever you’re at right now is warmer or cooler.

The public is rarely, if ever, told that meteorologists have NO idea why clouds act as they do. All they can do is track cloud activity via satellite images, but they can only accurately predict the weather at best for three to four days ahead. This is why, when you watch a televised weather forecast, they mostly just point to cloud systems.

The Earth’s oceans contain fifty times the CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. The Earth’s biomass, oceans, near-surface rocks and soils contain 100,000 times the carbon in the atmosphere.

To declare CO2 toxic, the EPA is saying that all that natural CO2, plus the six pounds of carbon dioxide that every human exhale every day is a “pollutant.”

How can carbon dioxide be a pollutant when all life on Earth is dependent upon it?

CO2 is to vegetation what oxygen is to human and other animal life. Without CO2, all vegetation dies and then all animal life dies for lack of the nutrients provided by food crops.

The EPA will blame the generation of CO2 on energy use, but 97% of the Earth’s CO2 is produced by Nature!

Only about 3% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by humans via industrial and transport activity. This estimate, in fact, comes from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change! The IPCC’s other alleged climate data is subject to serious challenge, but this is not. It falls into the category of common knowledge among climate scientists.

Environmentalists are insanely opposed to all energy use with the exception of bicycles, canoes, and walking. They particularly hate automobiles, but these are the same people, along with the EPA, that have insisted on the inclusion of ethanol, otherwise known as moonshine, in every gallon of gasoline. The immediate result is less mileage per gallon and the production of more CO2!

None of these facts is a secret yet, since 1989, the U.S. government has spent $79 billion in taxpayer’s money on “climate change” research. To suggest that the government, using the data generated, has any “control” over the climate is absurd.

The result of all that government funded research has been a public that has been subjected to the massive fraud called global warming. Weather data provided by NASA and NOAA, for example, has had to have been withdrawn due to errors.

Not only has the scientific community learned that the IPCC data was manipulated and that efforts were made to suppress data refuting global warming, but the Earth has irrefutably been in a cooling cycle for over a decade at this point.

The EPA regulatory control of auto mileage and CO2 emissions is a complete fraud and a contemptible lie. In doing so it has become a gangster agency that has abandoned any credibility.

Finally, the Cap-and-Trade Act awaiting a vote in the Senate is based on the global warming fraud and, if enacted, would impose massive taxation on all energy use. It must be stopped.

The EPA’s latest move must be stopped.

The fate of the nation’s economy literally depends on this.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, April 1st 2010

Esquire featured hippie-kryptonite Marc Morano, Greenpeace upset the iCrowd and we have a genuine nerd fight between weathermen and climatologists. Pocket protectors at noon, gentlemen. All this and a hottie of justice. It’s April 1st, but would I joke about that?

Part One: Al Gore & Friends

Show me the money. Al was excited to learn that the UK has started a green investment bank with a £2 billion injection of cash to be used on eco-friendly initiatives like wind power and eco-friendly waste management. Expect an announcement from Generation Investment Management soon about a new UK office, because that much money is like a flame to a moth. Al declared a win-win for American farmers. If global warming is real, farmers will reap the rewards in increased crop yields, unless they prefer to not farm and make money from carbon offsets. Trouble is, you can’t eat an offset. The inconvenience of being Al, China is moving forward (but with coal). One warmist sees no need to defend the Goreacle when he’s wrong:

It means looking at the science – not scary and unrealistic images of submerged cities. It means accepting the fact that Al Gore is not always right, and he should not be defended when he’s wrong.

Henry Payne compares the media frenzy about a few nuts going overboard after the Obama care vote, but wonders why Al Gore was never asked to publicly atone for the ELF. It’s a good question, unless you’re in the media, of course. Al points to terrified scientists who think that dying coral will doom humanity:

“Coral reefs are part of the foundation of the ocean food chain. Nearly half the fish the world eats make their homes around them. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide — by some estimates, 1 billion across Asia alone — depend on them for their food and their livelihoods.” If the reefs vanished, experts say, hunger, poverty and political instability could ensue. ”Whole nations will be threatened in terms of their existence,” said Carl Gustaf Lundin of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Then it’s time to round up these climate criminals for condemning whole nations’ existence. But wait, can old trains save the planet? Darned ingenuity, saving the planet all the time, it’s like we don’t even need hippies.

take that, coral

Canada’s David Suzuki has designed and launched ‘the David Suzuki Office Essentials: Green Your Workplace toolkit‘. It’s free and visitors to the website are guided through the process by a cartoon version of David Suzuki. Dave, you’ve been a cartoon for some time now, dude. Bubba and the Chump. Bill Clinton took a swipe at his erstwhile Veep:

Clinton noted today is spring — “otherwise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming.”

Har har, see what he did there?

Part Two: AGW Scaremongers

Hippies from activist group Climate Camp showed their commitment to Gaia by sending delegates to Bolivia. Here’s more fun facts about the hapless hypocrites:

  • The 12,000-mile round trip to the Climate Change and Mother Earth’s Rights conference next month involves changing planes at least twice.
  • The flights will generate about eight tons of carbon dioxide greenhouse gases.
  • The money for their tickets — at least £1,200 for an economy fare — is being paid for by donations to Climate Camp from people opposed to flying and airport expansion.

An American academic accuses warmists of hijacking the environmental movement. Um, see the story above to see the kind of fanatics and lunatics that now claim to be the face of green. Count ‘em. Five dumb ways to save the planet. No surprise that number one on the list involves telling Africans not to breed. What is it with warmists and their rabid hatred of Africa anyway? Eco-terrorist group Greenpeace is trying to frame the global warming debate as the tobacco fight. Of course, pitching themselves as David against a big-oil funded Goliath is about as dishonest as you can get.
Click HERE to read the rest!

Climate Wars!

By Alan Caruba

Wars come and go, cities are destroyed and rebuilt, monuments are erected, and life goes on. This is the traditional view of war, but right now the world is engaged in the latest battle of a “climate war” that has been going on since the 1970s when the Club of Rome concluded in a report titled, “The real enemy then, is humanity itself”, that the world’s population had to be reduced.

Whereas wars in the modern era have killed millions and communism as practiced in the former Soviet Union and the early decades of Red China under Chairman Mao killed millions more on a scale with which war could not compete, the advocates of population reduction rival the worst despots to have ever walked among us.

With the revelations from leaked emails between the conspirators who kept the global warming fraud going for many years, the so-called “climate scientists” who, in fact, had created phony computer models and engaged in endless studies to “prove” that global warming posed a threat to mankind, the term “Climategate” was coined to describe their collusion.

Billions are at stake so far as the “climate scientists” are concerned. They have received millions for their research in the United States and in England. Presumably other nations, too, have provided such grants and the result of the research must always be a continuation of the “global warming” fraud. Beyond the scientists are those who profit from the sale of “carbon credits” to permit “greenhouse gas emissions”, and the millions that environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, and others rake in.

It is no surprise, then, that those who have been victimized by the fraud will see a coordinated campaign of opinion editorials in newspapers, advertisements, and other means to keep the “global warming” fraud intact. These efforts have been renamed “climate change”, but therein lies the utter mendacity of the campaign because the Earth has always passed through cycles of climate change and always will.

On February 15th, the Boston Globe published an opinion editorial by Kerry Emanuel, the director of the Program in Atmosphere, Oceans, and Climate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It was filled with the usual “global warming” themes; the repetition of the lie that carbon dioxide and other minor atmospheric gases are causing a huge shift that is warming the Earth. Smoothly, the inaccuracies of climate computer models are dismissed as “uncertainties” resulting in “divergent predictions.”

The finest weather-related computer models available are unable to account for the action of clouds, an essential element in weather everywhere, nor can they include the unknown effects of countless undersea volcanoes in the world’s oceans that are another contributing factor. At best, if your local weatherman can accurately predict what will occur in the next two to four days, he’s doing fine.

Predicting what the climate—not the weather—will be decades and even centuries from now is pure fiction. It is the claim that is central to “global warming” and/or “climate change.”

In a rebuttal to Emanuel’s opinion editorial, Bill Gray, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University, noted that “A high percentage of meteorologists and/or climate scientists do not agree that the climate changes we have seen are mostly man-made. Thousands of us think that the larger part of the climate changes we have observed over the last century are of natural origin.” He added, “Over 31,000 American scientists have recently signed a petition advising the U.S. not to sign any fossil fuel reduction treaty.”

Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has just released a statement based on the release of still more emails between desperate “climate scientists” whose careers depend on the “global warming” fraud.

“According to recently disclosed e-mails from a National Academies of Science listserv, prominent climate scientists affiliated with the U.S. National Academies of Science, have been planning a public campaign to paper over the damaged reputation of global warming alarmism.”

The emails explored the ways the public could be distracted from the revelations of Climategate and enticed back to believing that “global warming” is based in real science and occurring. Among the suggestions were “Op eds in the NY Times and other national newspapers would also be great.”

Referring to this as a climate war is no exaggeration. One email said, “Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.” One of those rules most certainly is to tell the truth!

What the public has never grasped is that this is not a science-based war. It is entirely political in nature and the Green’s enemy has been the resource industries, oil, natural gas, and coal that provide the means by which energy is generated for industrial use and for societies that depend on electricity to function. The subtext of the war is the deliberate destruction of human life on the planet on a mass scale.

That explains why it is especially troubling that President Obama continues to refer to global warming as real and advocates “cap-and-trade” legislation, the largest tax on energy use in the history of mankind. It is the reason he continues to divert millions to “clean energy” and “green jobs”, neither of which have ever proven to equal traditional energy sources or provide sufficient employment to merit support.

So now the climate wars shift into a new phase, one intended to obfuscate and confuse the public again in the quest to foist the greatest fraud and attack on mankind in human history

Editor’s Note: For further insight, read Dr. Tim Ball’s commentary at:
To learn why the world’s glaciers are not melting and the seas are not rising, click here:

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.

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.


“Snowmageddon” Versus “Overwhelming Scientific Evidence”

By Kevin Mooney

Washington D.C. and the Mid-Atlantic States have been hammered by another major snow storm, which exceeds the Dec. 19, 2009 storm that forced President Obama to curtail his time in Copenhagen. This is the first time since record keeping started that two storms of such magnitude have hit the region during one winter. Already some localities are reporting the largest snowfall ever recorded. To be sure, these events do not prove or disprove human caused global warming. But the momentum is now very much on the side of skeptical scientists who question these theories and President Obama should at least pull back from his awkward juxtapositions. Here’s what he said in The State of the Union: “I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.” On Saturday, during a gathering of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in Washington D.C., Obama called this most recent storm “Snowmaggeddon” putting it on a par with what he experienced in Chicago. Looking ahead to the 2010 mid-term elections, Republicans should make more of an issue out of the “climategate” scandal involving leaked emails Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. It’s always possible to persuade the public on the basis of dire emergencies, which is why scientific evidence undermining alarmism deserves greater expression. The science the EPA has used to justify its finding that human emissions of carbon dioxide endanger public health and welfare should be subjected to vigorous criticism in the coming months. In the Federal Register, EPA states: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. … Global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.” Last year The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) exposed how the EPA had suppressed a scientific study that concludes natural forces as opposed to human activity are largely responsible for temperature changes. Now is the time to attack the soft underbelly of unsubstantiated global warming alarmism. More snow is on the way tomorrow.