The Next Climate Scandal

The scandals are now being revealed at an ever-increasing tempo. This one directly relates to our old friend, Dr. James Hansen. If one were a clear-thinking, non-zealot, would one ask the question on whether there could be OTHER CAUSES of supposed observed global mean temperature increase? Or would a zealot simply accept what they’re seeing without asking any probing questions? A real, ethical scientist, untainted by bias, would probe deeper and look at every possible angle. “Could something else be causing this anomaly?”

Surprise! NOAA eliminated climate measuring stations in 1990 in the coldest areas of the world; they reduced the number from 6,000 stations down to less than 1,500 (>75% reduction)! That’s a significant event affecting the accuracy of analysis, as this data was used to look at temperature trends spanning before and after the reduction in stations. What followed eight short years after the drastic 75% station reduction was the so-called “warmest year ever.” Even with these missing stations, we’ve seen a gradual cooling since 1998, which means the ACTUAL global mean temperature average since 1998 might actually be far cooler! We’ll never know, as we’ve lost the continuity in data, just as all the raw data from those stations has now been destroyed by the CRU.

Has this been openly discussed ANYWHERE in the scientific literature? No, it hasn’t. Because alarmist scientists like Dr. Hansen are biased and depend on climate research funding, especially since space exploration is drying up. We’re dealing with scientific zealots, and they’re finally being exposed.

The global warming scandal keeps getting worse. Revelations over the few weeks show that many important assertions in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were based on misquotes and false claims from environmental groups, not on published academic research as it was originally presented. This is on top of the recent mess regarding data, where the three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 assessment report still have not been released. Other data simply never seem to have existed or cannot be provided to other scientists.

But probably the most damaging report has come from Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org.

In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.

[From FOXNews.com - The Next Climate-gate?]

Tri-Staters 'Shocked' By Early Snow

Of course they're shocked, CBS. You morons have been telling them the Earth is heating up for 10 years...AND IT'S NOT!!! Manmade climate change: RIP.

NEW YORK (CBS) ―

A thin blanket of snow covered grass, trees, and cars in Vernon, N.J. on Oct. 15, 2009 as an early nor'easter pushed through the region.

It's Oct. 15. Dig out those hats, scarves, and … snow shovels?

The tri-state was walloped by its first nor'easter of the season, and some parts of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut saw heavy snow showers fall throughout the day.

CBS 2's Megan Glaros was in Vernon, N.J. where the flakes were still falling on Thursday evening.

"I hate it! This shouldn't be happening now," said Vernon resident Angela Warren. "I like it when it comes after Thanksgiving or right around Christmas, but it's too early for this."

[From Mid-October Snow Shocks Tri-Staters - wcbstv.com ]

BBC: What happened to global warming?

What is that you say? The liberal BBC has gone soft and admitted the truth? Not quite. If you read on down through the article, they take the same revisionist tactic that all other media outlets use to explain away the COLD ASSED TEMPERATURES going on in the world. It's La Nina cycles that are cooling the world...remember? It's not the sun, in their opinion (dimwits). When La Nina is finished, the Earth will resume warming (the old La Nina is "masking" warming excuse).

Predictions, like each passing year, were that we'd have "the warmest year" in 2009. Hasn't happened. Each year since Katrina, we're told to expect a worsening hurricane season. Hasn't happened.

But remember...1998 (so-called warmest year in 4.5 billion years) was during an El Nino (warming climate event). We're now in a supposed La Nina (cooling climate event). It's easy to see the conundrum here. Which is it, a-holes? Is El Nino warming the Earth occasionally, or is it CO2 that warms the Earth and is occasionally "masked" by La Nina? Why hasn't the Earth warmed in 11 years with increasing CO2?

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

[From BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?]

3,000 Record LOW U.S. Temps in July

How is ALL of this possible if the Earth is warming? It's simple--the Earth isn't warming. Climate does change: It warms, it cools. It's cyclical. Empirical evidence for the last few years is clear. The Earth hasn't warmed since 1998. So much for that "theory."

The period of July 17-20 was the worst, with over 1,600 stations breaking records. It's worth noting that these stats include all records across the nation. Of the record lows, through July 20th (thanks to William Schmitz @ SERCC, check out their Twitter Feed), this was the regional breakdown:

Nationwide: 966
Southeast (AL/GA/FL/NC/SC/VA): 248
Northeast (MD/DE/PA/NJ/NY/CT/RI/MA/NH/VT/ME): 193

[From AccuWeather.com News & Blogs: Jesse Ferrell Blog]

Solar Cycle Down--Temps Lower

Is it the sun, stupid? I contend it is. We’ve seen gradual cooling over the past 11 years (given the 1998 baseline called the “highest ever” by warming proponents), and the last few years has witnessed a fairly sharp declination in temperature. Mirroring the falling global mean temperature on Earth is an identical failing temperature on other solar system bodies and a record decrease in sunspots.

And yet, no scientists or media types seem willing to put 2 and 2 together. That’s because 2 and 2 make 5 when you’re a political opportunist.

New Solar Cycle Prediction

May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots.

"If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78," says panel chairman Doug Biesecker of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center.

Global warming taking a 10-year vacation!

On a cool May afternoon in 2008, an alarmed climate alarmist schemes:

"Wait! 100-years of global warming was more or less erased in one year! We need a way out of this debacle; our reputations are in jeopardy! I've got it! We'll just say that global warming is taking a decade hiatus...perfect! Surely the temperatures will begin migrating towards warmth again within a decade; all good sine waves eventually head back towards the positive. Then we'll be back in the climate-consensus-manipulation business."

We've seen this coming folks; I've already written about how they've been claiming that the cooling we've seen is caused by global warming OR that La Nina is driving the cooling trend and "masking" warming (they'll deny until they're blue in the face that solar weather has anything to do with our climate). But few in the media seem willing to entertain the idea that AGW is a bunch of bunk.

Everything possible is being dreamed up or manipulated to prop up the notion of human-emitted CO2 as the "boogeyman" of our climate. Their little theory is blowing away like a fart in the wind (or at least CO2 in the wind), and we've talked here about why they must salvage this baloney at all costs. Now, there is far too much money at stake, and far too many "experts" are on record as espousing this completely baseless drivel (in science and politics, REPUTATIONS ALSO EQUAL MONEY).

IN ONE YEAR (2007-08 winter season), the temperatures moderated in the reverse direction (below the questionable "long-term average" baseline THEY established); the global mean this winter was 0.7°C below the "long term" average (I use their words "long-term" loosely, because there's nothing statistically "LONG-TERM" about how they came up with their baseline).

Need I mention again that the temperature (against their baseline) has ONLY FALLEN since the proclaimed 1998 high (when El Nino was supposed to be warming the Earth), while CO2 keeps going up? This means (again if you believe their baseline-and why should you when they're wrong about everything else?) that our temperatures are now at 1930s levels-with AN EVER INCREASING CO2 SATURATION! So, the very basis of their theory is done--IT'S SHOT! Therefore, enter La Nina to save the day. We must keep the faithful believing in the faith! There MUST be a reason global warming is being "masked"! LOL! So many "consensus experts" can't be wrong.

Just remember, when Galileo published his theories about the Sun being the center of the known universe (opposing the Earth-centric theory espoused by the Roman-Catholic Church), other thinkers of the day produced intricate, complex mathematical models by which we could continue propping up the church-backed myth that the Earth was the center of the solar system, such that it would jibe with the observed movements of the heavens. Galileo's theory was perfect; it easily explained the movements of the heavenly bodies in terms of elliptical or circular orbits, but it also required one to accept the notion (now known fact) that the Sun was the center of the solar system.

This was heresy at the time! Galileo was threatened, branded with "D" for "denier" or "skeptic," if you will; he dared to poke the consensus opinion (the "smart" people) of the day with a stick. Galileo was also eventually silenced and forced to recant his "heretical" counter-theory, eventually vindicated only after his death. Sounds a lot like what's going on right now with the consensus-deemed "unassailable theory" of manmade global warming. It's utter nonsense...it's in danger of being totally exposed. Advocates and alarmists aren't happy with this recent turn of cold and snowy events, so it's time for "shields-up!"

Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say

April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Parts of North America and Europe may cool naturally over the next decade, as shifting ocean currents temporarily blunt the global-warming effect caused by mankind, Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said. Average temperatures in areas such as California and France may drop over the next 10 years, influenced by colder flows in the North Atlantic, said a report today by the institution based in Kiel, Germany. Temperatures worldwide may stabilize in the period.

``Natural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction,'' Wood said. ``If you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win.''

The world will become at least 2.5 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100, compared with the pre-industrial period, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in March.

Steven Milloy of junkscience.com had a terrific write-up on this very subject (he beat me to the punch :D):

Junk Science: The Great Global Warming Race

Can global warming's vested interests close the deal on greenhouse gas regulation before the public wises up to their scam? A new study indicates alarmist concern and a need to explain away the lack of actual global warming. Researchers belonging to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported in Nature (May 1) that after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, "global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations ... temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next decade because of Mother Nature. Although the result seems stunning in that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for manmade global warming, it's not really surprising since the notion of manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing.

The bottom line of global warming - and that is why so many are behind it - is that its many vested interests are on the verge of a financial and political bonanza, something that scientific facts and climatic realities are likely only to spoil.

So when global temperature doesn't behave as predicted, excuses and explanations must be found to prevent the almost-mature golden goose from being roasted for dinner. The spin on the Nature study provided by its authors to The New York Times is that, "We're learning that [natural] climate variability is important and can mask the effects of human-induced global change. In the end this gives more confidence in the long-term projections."

EPA scientists pressured to bias their results

Still question whether politics is currently corrupting science? A usual tactic often employed by these political elements is to recognize the truth and then claim the opposite: here, the NYT is telling us that politics is corrupting science, EXCEPT that the boogeyman is portrayed as CONSERVATIVE politics that is choosing to ignore “consensus science.” (Funny, because, right now, conservative elites are jumping on the bandwagon just like liberals.)

As a non-consensus scientist, let me state this fact:

There is NO SUCH THING AS CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE! Science DOES NOT work like an L.A. street gang. (Google “Galileo” or Google “Darwin” to read about mavericks who resisted the consensus—and were RIGHT!)

This article couldn't be more poignant at pointing out how politics is currently attempting to corrupt science for its own ends; right now, the lie of manmade global warming has become the centerpiece of worldwide climate politics and environmental movements (not climate science). It's surprising to see the AP publishing this rather frank admission, when they have been guilty of propagandizing this issue themselves for years.

Basically, these EPA scientists are saying, through a survey instrument (which they were initially told not to answer), that federal politicians have been trying to coax and intimidate certain results or answers out of the scientists, so that the politicians would be free to scream “consensus science” when confronted with debate and argument over proposed U.S. and U.N. environmental policies—policies that will cost you money and will increase the power of the politicians involved. In the process, many scientists have begun to wake up and realize that they're corrupting an institution that they've been charged with protecting—the unbiased, untainted scientific search for truth.

REAL climate science is currently under attack. Radical political and environmental elements have seized an opportunity in the theory of human-induced climate change—a theory that, regardless of the way it's portrayed by Al Gore and the media, is still not proven beyond scientific doubt. On the contrary, there are many problems

GASP!: AGW will cause world wars!

Okay, so I’ve decided to create another special post series in honor of the weekly deluge of climate fear mongering articles that spew forth across the wires. The title of this series will be “GASP!” Meaning, it’s Chicken Little time again!

In our first official installment of GASP! (first unofficial installment is here and the archives will show that we’ve previously done a thorough job of discussing many apocalyptic articles), it looks like nonexistent global warming is going to send us on a path to world war.

Weird how a problem that’s not real can do that, but the media can just about urge anything into being if they bombard your brain enough each week. Problem is...nobody really believes them on this issue, especially since it hasn’t warmed in 10 years and last winter was a record breaker (and by that I mean—RECORD BREAKING COLD AND SNOW).

Steven Milloy of junkscience.com recently had some valuable insights along the GASP! line of thinking. Global warming apparently causes literally THOUSANDS of problems—deaths, extinctions, cannibalism, droughts, floods, hot, cold, bee stings, famines, tornados, hurricanes, melting ice, increased diseases, and so on; the claims are so absurd that I can’t understand why some media members haven’t started attacking this farce (well, some have and are being ignored).

Climate change 'may put world at war' - Telegraph:

Climate change could cause global conflicts as large as the two world wars but lasting for centuries unless the problem is controlled, a leading defence think tank has warned.

The Royal United Services Institute said a tenfold increase in research spending, comparable to the amount spent on the Apollo space programme, will be needed if the world is to avoid the worst effects of changing temperatures.

News Flash: It will be hot this summer!!!

I knew this would happen. It's much easier to convince people there is warming when it's warm outside; get thee behind me awful winter...and hurry! Of course, this flies in the face of other predictions that state we're in for a cooling spell.

Read below and see if you can't pick out what's missing. They've let slip a nasty little secret and tried to bury it in a way that you wouldn't notice--the temperatures (again, if you believe their baseline) stopped warming in 1998!!! (That's 10 years ago people.)

Summer forecast hot for Europe | Environment | Reuters:

But, because of global warming, both winter and summer temperatures over the last few years have been above the long-term average of the three decades running up to 2000.

Nobel Dodo bird's prediction

Notice certain words below in the article on Dr. Molina's "prestigious research" and pontification. We see ALARM, WARNING, IRREVERSIBLE CONSEQUENCES, and WORRISOME. The term Nobel no longer has much weight with me, since they gave one to Al Gore--a complete dufus. This article is a stereotypical climate fear piece, designed to influence the sheep among us for political reasons.

Now, let's look at all the B.S. stuffed into the article; I've already debunked many of these subjects in previous posts, but let's take each one-by-one. First, is the Earth warming? No, it isn't and hasn't since 1998; as a matter of fact, the temperature this past winter failed to meet warming predictions and instead plummeted.

Next, the changes in climate we see are a result of human activities--namely, CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. We've seen how the temperature graph of the past 10 years has not mirrored the CO2 graph, which was previously espoused as proof of manmade warming. If CO2 drives warming then we should not have had plateaued and then reduced warming over the past 10 years (especially the precipitous drop this past winter).

Finally, Dr. Molina really shows his true alarmist tendencies by broaching the subject of hurricanes. NOAA has already debunked the connection to stronger hurricanes and "manmade warming," and if the Earth is still warming (which it isn't) then we should have seen stronger storms than 2005's Katrina over the past few years, even with the oft-used La Nina and El Nino excuses to revise failed climate and hurricane predictions. Heck, 1998 should have brought the worst hurricanes with the "spike" in warming, and it failed to do so.

Note that the consequences mentioned below are "ALMOST" irreversible. That means that "really smart" scientists and politicians can still save your dumb butt from your love of capitalism, which is fed by oil.

Nobel scientist warns on climate change | Environment | Reuters:

MIAMI (Reuters) - The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who rang the first alarm bells over the ozone hole issued a warming about climate change on Saturday, saying there could be "almost irreversible consequences" if the Earth warmed 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees F) above what it ought to be.

"Things are changing and there's no doubt that it's as a result of human activities," said Mario Molina, a Mexican who shared a Nobel prize in chemistry in 1995 for groundbreaking work on chlorofluorocarbon gases and their threat to the Earth's ozone layer.

"Long before we run out of oil, we will run out of atmosphere," he said.

Molina told a panel discussion on climate change at an annual Inter-American Development Bank meeting in Miami that the increasing intensity of hurricanes was among the worrisome changes that scientists had linked to a rapid global warming trend over the past 30 years.

Global temps to DECREASE??!!

La Nina is believed by some to have caused this year’s drastic cooling, but this also means one must accept that 1998’s considerable warming (baseline assumed correct) was artificially spiked by El Nino (not AGW). I’m personally not convinced by either “La Nina” or “El Nino.” These unruly siblings of Pacific water temperature antagonism have almost become revisionist excuses to backtrack on failed climate and weather predictions, like the recent “awful hurricane seasons” that failed to materialize (i.e., global warming is being offset by La Nina, and thus, weaker hurricanes). And let’s not forget the failed prediction about the temperature this winter (it was going to be REALLY WARM), remember? And if 1998 has been the warmest, why didn’t we have the “worst” hurricanes that year (instead of the horrible 2005)?

Okay, so they’re reluctantly admitting that global warming ended 10 YEARS AGO! Are you zombie-sheep out there getting that message, which certain groups (media, political elements, scientists with agendas, etc.) are trying desperately to frame in antithetical verbiage (such as espoused throughout most of the article below) that holds on to the global warming farce?

Now, here in this article is another prediction from a so-called “expert.” His prediction is that after La Nina is over, our global temperature will rise back up and surpass 1998’s high; again, that’s if you believe the baseline that marks 1998 as the year containing the highest global mean temperature. So, let’s keep this prediction in mind as we watch time go by. What will you believers do when this prediction fails as so many others have?

Will it be like Al Gore’s prediction that we’re doomed within 10 years due to AGW (prediction issued in January 2006)? Will it be like any of the countless other doomsday predictions, or even the recent one from the British Chicken Little? Will it be like the prediction that (after Katrina) we were going to have stronger and stronger cyclones due to global warming (which didn’t happen and has sense been discounted)?

Or could it be that all this global warming nonsense has been taking us all for a giant BS ride? Time and truth will cast their verdict. I believe they have already cast their verdict. The temperature HAS NOT surpassed the so-called “high” of 1998 in 10 years; this past year we had a record-shattering winter season, and global temperatures plummeted well below the mean (again, if you believe their baseline—which they just want us to blindly accept as completely unflawed).

And these two articles below are very strange, because just recently we saw this.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Global temperatures 'to decrease':

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."

FOXNews.com - U.N. Forecasters: Global Temperatures to Decrease - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News:

The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.

If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

"Earth Hour" was actually a little dour

Earth Hour…it was supposed to eliminate tons and tons of carbon in the atmosphere. It was a statement made by the environmentally-minded among us that they were going to make a stand!

In reality, contrary to the press reports otherwise, it was nothing and did nothing; it was a sham just like AGW itself. Symbolic garbage like this make these fruitcakes feel better about themselves, however.

Earth Hour crashes to Earth | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog:

Credit the public with sense. Earth Hour, hysterically promoted by The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, the ABC, SBS, Sky News and the federal and state governments, resulted in no significant fall in power usage.

The organisers will say never mind [about the lack of participation], this was about raising awareness (although not of raising awareness of the facts). But here’s the awareness it should raise: how difficult it is to get even a tiny cut in just electricity use for one lousy hour, in a country responsible for just 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions.

And then think what the Rudd Government is promising: a 60 per cent cut in all emissions, all year. And it’s to be matched by every country around the world.

Meanwhile, the world has not warmed since 1998. Indeed, the oceans and atmosphere have cooled over the past couple.

Chief climate dufus Gore: Deniers are flat earthers

Can't this twerp come up with an original thought? I have already listed examples where other alarmists have called we skeptics "flat earthers." This proves what a dunderhead this guy really is--he can't say anything unless he gets it from someone else. Then he says it like he invented it--just like he claimed to create the internet.

When one can't debate based on science, one must resort to name calling. So, go ahead Al...call me a name. Now, say something about this or this or this. I could easily go on, since that's the entire point of this blog--keep a record of what baloney all this climate nonsense turns out to be. I already know it's baloney, but apparently there are quite a few of you sheep out there who have been programmed already by the media and other elements anxious to make a profit.

Here's a new name to call us, alarmists. Call us REALISTS. Because to believe in global warming after it's already proven an obvious fraud is to be a kool-aid-drinking crack smoker. But I understand the testiness. We just had a record-setting winter the world over; you Chicken Littles are in a panic, because you've been proclaiming our doom for years, and we're now seeing that there has been no warming since 1998, while CO2 continues rising. The myth is falling apart.

And remember...names like this can work both ways. It may be you alarmists who are the "flat earthers" for believing in global warming. I assert that this untenable position is the faulty one and has already been proven so.

Gore's Message To Climate Change Skeptics, Tells 60 Minutes That Doubting Global Warming Is Man-Made Is Akin To Believing Earth Is Flat - CBS News:

(CBS) Self-avowed "P.R. agent for the planet" Al Gore says those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat.

AGW ended 10 years ago!

Read it and weep, alarmists... CO2 is NOT DRIVING THE CLIMATE! Thanks to Newsbusters once more.

Climate facts to warm to | The Australian:

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

What's the point?

First, straight up: I'm a skeptic of manmade "global warming" or "climate change." I'm a denier, if you will. Go ahead and slap a swastika on my forehead and brand me with names, if it makes you feel better, believers and alarmists! We "deniers" have names for you too. Advocate warmaholics are like Jonestown cultist lunatics, from my perspective, except that the Rev. Jim Jones has been replaced by Al Gore. His followers have disavowed debate based on his very command, and they've lost all sense of scientific reasoning; they only see the science and empirical evidence that supports their position, while they ignore any science and empiricism that makes it clear--global warming is global garbage, and the media is complicit in the sham.

I've been collecting an ever-increasing quantity of articles on the subjects of global warming and the now en-vogue "climate change" for well over a year now, and the number of articles and stories has grown exponentially and the tone more and more desperate, as we enter the tenth year since the so-called "warmest year on record." (1998) Originally, I was collecting these tidbits with the idea of writing a book, but that's really already been done by others who are probably better at it than I am. So, I figured I would start a blog to take out my frustrations over this utterly stupid fearmongering.

You warmaholics go ahead and drink the kool-aid; this blog will serve as a testament both now and in the future to define what can happen to people who refuse to waste good glucose to feed their own brains, and therefore, reason. When all the hoopla ends (just as it did with Y2K, SARs, and other media-hyped portents of doom), this blog will be here to remind you that you were sheep and turned your thinking over to someone else.

Why am I hoarding global warming articles from Reuters, AP, and other news outlets as if they were gold rush nuggets? My first idea was to be able to remind the world at a later date what the media and politician's once said, once it was shown that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) IS NOT HAPPENING; for some reason, the public tends to quickly forget what was once proclaimed as gospel, and the media and politicians capitalize on this laziness. Examples include the media articles of the early 70s that proclaimed the coming new ice age; in less than thirty years, the media forgot what they once said and were now expounding the opposite in terms of climate. They certainly were embarrassed to be reminded of their stupidity, so they reacted by either not discussing their past mistake or simply quibbling over the details.

I want people to remember that these "trusted leaders" and "purveyors of truth" once told us we were headed for doomsday. Maybe people will learn that the media really does take up positions--they don't just tell us the facts, as they often claim, and I hope people already know that politicians are out for power, no matter the political affiliation; the more we depend on government to solve our problems, the more powerful it becomes. And remember, we're supposed to be "the government." (Government of the people, by the people, for the people...remember?)

The point is to point out how the media and certain political groups have chosen to hype this issue, even with the oft-ignored, growing evidence to the contrary (from scientists...and scientists who ARE NOT ALL AFFILIATED WITH "BIG OIL," as Al Gore would lead you to believe). All serious scientists in the world collectively groan when they hear the "inventor of the Internet" extoll pseudo-science that is so flawed that it's laughable. His movie is inconveniently wrong; his Nobel Prize win is laughable and proves that the award no longer means what it once did. His Oscar? Who cares? A bunch of liberal elites giving a meaningless award to another liberal elite is meaningless.

Let me just say now that, as a molecular biologist, I don't believe in man-made climate change, as it is currently proselytized in the media. I believe the climate changes naturally--it has and always will. The media has taken a pseudo-scientific, politically-connected "consensus" (science has never been about consensus) and has attempted to turn us all into zombie-sheep who desperately need some entity to step in and save us from ourselves.

Though there are claims to the contrary about political motives (from people like the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen), make no mistake--this is a political issue. The volume of weekly news articles, television programs, and movies, fed to us with an increasingly desperate tone, make it clear: the media has so bought into this that they cannot back out now--if they repeat it enough, it will become mythological truth to the faithful, even if shown to be wrong by an ignored body of climatologists. That's already happening, but most media sources are obviously not convinced by the contrary scientific positions, thus they've so far chosen to ignore the evidence that doesn't fit their agenda. That's real denial!

What's required to "fix the problem" has already been proposed in a few articles, which I will discuss in later posts. Basically, more government revenue is needed from the "big offenders." (Translation: you fat, lazy Americans need to pay up for poisoning the Earth.)

This is about bigger government, except that it has now morphed into a global plan; there appears to be a move afoot to empower the United Nations as the arbiter of accepted, environmentally ideal behavior. The U.N. wants to become a socialist entity that the public feels must be relied on to save us from our "capitalistic transgressions."

This really is just an old political duel--this is capitalism versus socialism all over again; they've merely dressed it up in new clothing to distract everyone. Don't be fooled...oil is the lifeblood of capitalism, and oil is under direct threat now from socialist elements. We should reduce our dependence on foreign oil to enhance our security, but WE CANNOT eliminate our need for oil. If we do it as quickly as demanded by the climate alarmists (remember, we must ACT NOW before it's too late), the world economy will face disaster. Liberal elites need disaster (or heck, even perceived and believed doom) to create and foster governmental dependence. What they really need is another "Great Depression" to fight off the "conservative hoards" via the introduction of a new New Deal.

Pay no attention to that Al Gore behind that curtain!

Technorati Tags: 1998, AGW, Al Gore, alarmist, Americans, Associated Press, capitalism, climate, consensus, Cullen, cynic, denier, disasters, doomsday, fear, global warming, government, hysteria, Incovenient Truth, Jonestown, kool-aid, media, news, Nobel, oil, Oscar, politics, portent, prediction, realist, reason, Reuters, scientist, skeptic, socialism, U.N., weather