Nuclear War to Stop Warming?

So, exactly what are these clowns saying? Are they proposing a small nuclear war as a solution that will 'reverse global warming' (which doesn't even exist, or are they saying (for the first time) that nuclear war is a way for man to actually change the climate? Nuclear war is one of the few ways man could actually alter the climate (for a short time); CO2 IS NOT a way man can significantly alter the climate, even for a short time (or definitely not a LONG time as they're saying).

For the record, I'm thoroughly shocked that the majority of National Geographic Channel is owned by Fox Cable Networks!!

Earth is currently in a long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest.

[From Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years?]

Global Weirding? They Can't Back That Up

At first we were told that anthropogenic global warming was a result of man's CO2 emissions and that we'd see less and less snow and ice. Ice would melt and raise the sea levels, flooding cities. Then, when it was obvious that empirical data showed we were actually cooling more than warming, they said that dynamic weather variability was the result of manmade 'climate change.' Another group said that global warming was merely being 'masked' by the La Nina effect; that was why we were experiencing cooler summers and winters. Dynamic weather referred to anything deemed 'unusual,' such that a blizzard or freezing temperatures would give the same support to the renamed 'climate change' as a would a heat wave or tornado outbreak. I call these sudden grasps at explaining non-correlating empirical data CLIMATE REVISIONISM.

Somewhere in the midst of the mounting empirical evidence to the contrary, climate scandal upon climate scandal erupted. Interested powers tried to put the genie back in the bottle, but it was too late.

As the public continued to reject the idea of manmade global warming or climate change, Thulsa Doom Obama decided to go with the new moniker of 'global climate disruption.' And most recently, the term 'global weirding' came into vogue. No matter what alias they use, it still all comes down to an indictment of capitalism as the driving force behind a climate gone mad. Americans aren't buying it, and neither are Europeans. The rat radar is up and detecting something foul.

Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter's fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December's blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

[From The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder - WSJ.com]

GASP!: We're Done For in Y3K

Even after all the empirical and actual evidence (not to mention scandals), the elitist kooks out there--propagandizing under a veil they call "science"--refuse to acknowledge that their little demonize-CO2 escapade has failed. No one--except for liberal elitists--is falling for the BS any longer.

This blog has covered numerous dire climate predictions in just three short years, ranging from 18 months (Prince Charles) to now 1000 years. Of course, we've seen that the dingbat known as Prince Charles was proven wrong so early that he had to modify his 18-month prediction a few times; I have no idea upon what authority he feels he can make predictions and be taken seriously...but the media sure takes him seriously.

But there have been many predictions from so-called knowledgeable scientists. So, who's right? Which one of these geniuses do we believe? Are Americans really this stupid? Our history is full of idiot religious leaders prophesying the end times, which never came to pass. In my opinion, there's no difference between these religious zealots and the climate zealots. Climate change is the new religion, and it DEMANDS faith from its followers.

More GASP! series here and check out the warmlist.

Even if humans stop producing excess carbon dioxide in 2100, the lingering effects of global warming could span the next millennia. The results? By the year 3000, global warming would be more than a hot topic - the West Antarctic ice sheet could collapse, and global sea levels would rise by about 13 feet (4 meters), according to a new study.

Using a computer model, researchers looked at two scenarios - an end to humans' industrial carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 and by 2100 - stretched out to the year 3000.

Even if humans were to stop emitting excess carbon dioxide - or if they figured out a way to completely capture it - the effects of global warming would continue to accumulate. That's because previously emitted carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere and the oceans, unlike land, warm only gradually, according to one of the study researchers, Shawn Marshall, an associate professor of geography at the University of Calgary.

[From Global Warming: Dire Prediction for the Year 3000 - Yahoo! News]

EPA: CO2 Supplants Saccharin as Environmental Threat

Seems like the politics, fear campaigns, and brouhahas of the present day will always give way to the next generation of scams designed to implant further government regulation, oversight, and control. CO2--that gas that you exhale every moment--has been deemed a 'threat' for climatic warming by our lovely liberal government (though the weather outside is currently frightful). You can see where the scares of old end up...in the scrap heap of history. No more 60 Minutes news stories with the nervous, chain-smoking CEO on saccharin's dangers now.

Now the obvious conclusion that no one seems to be making in our "skeptical media." If the EPA thinks saccharin is not 'a threat after all then maybe CO2 isn't either. I guess we'll have to wait a few decades for the newest, lamest scare to come along.

CHICAGO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has dropped the artificial sweetener saccharin from its list of hazardous substances, the agency said on Tuesday.

The white crystalline powder used in diet drinks, chewing gum and juice was dubbed a potential cancer-causing agent in 1980. While a review by the National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer cleared saccharin in the late 1990s, it has remained on the EPA's potential hazard list.

[From EPA Says Saccharin Not a Threat After All - FoxNews.com]

The Obama administration has said it will regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants amid opposition from industry and Republicans in Congress.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it would regulate emissions from fossil fuel power plants by 2011 and petroleum refineries by 2012.

President Barack Obama is pushing the EPA to cut emissions after a climate bill failed in Congress this year.

But Republican lawmakers have said the EPA's new rules will harm the economy.

[From BBC News - Obama to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants]

So Long, Crap-and-Tax

Looks like the proverbial CO2 poot winds have been taken out of these scam sails. Hallelujah!!!

The air has been taken out of the carbon trading market.

The only national carbon trading market in the U.S. will close its doors next month, due to stalled legislation in Congress and Republican gains in the midterm elections -- a major setback in efforts to regulate so-called greenhouse gases, which environmentalists argue contribute to global warming.

Since 2003, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has operated a voluntary network where companies can pledge to meet annual targets for the emissions of carbon from their factories and businesses. Those below the targets can sell surplus allowances or bank them; those above can purchase credits to offset their emissions -- similar to President Obama's stalled "cap and trade" legislation

But according to an advisory posted to the exchange's website, participants simply didn't want to trade in carbon credits without a legal requirement that they do so. Jeff Sprecher, chief executive of the InternationalExchange and CCX's owner, confirmed to the Financial Times that participants in the CCX's cap-and-trade system wanted to pull out.

[From FoxNews.com - Carbon Trading Grinds to a Halt in U.S.]

TX First to Challenge 'Consensus' in Court

Given that the EPA, NOAA, NASA, and other government agencies have continuously cited the now-discredited IPCC's latest climate report (that openly exaggerated and even relied on environmentalist rantings instead of hard science), Texas is the first to tell the EPA to take their regulation of CO2 as 'pollution' and shove it.

Don't mess with TX, you socialists.

The state of Texas today sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a federal appeals court in Washington DC, claiming four new regulations imposed by the EPA are based on the 'thoroughly discredited' findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are 'factually flawed,' 1200 WOAI news reports.  

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says the rules are illegal and if imposed, will cost Texans in higher energy costs and tens of thousands of lost jobs.  

"The state explained that the IPCC, and therefore the EPA, relied on flawed science to conclude that greenhouse emissions endanger public health and welfare," Abbott said. "Because the Administration predicated its Endangerment Finding on the IPCC's questionable facts, the state is seeking to prevent the EPA's new rules, and the economic harm that will result from these regulations, from being imposed on Texas employers, workers, and enforcement agencies."

[From Texas Sues to Block Bizarre "Global Warming" EPA Rules]

Cows Off the Hook, Now

Looks like cows are NOW being given a reprieve as co-culprits of global warming (not really "co-" because humans farm and then eat the cows...so it's still OUR fault), whereas we were once told that Al Gore's cow-chomping tendencies were the ultimate in global warming hypocrisy (so many examples of Gore's hypocrisy from which to choose). LOL! The article implies that CO2 is the most potent greenhouse gas, and that's a lie. Methane is far more potent. Water vapor...yes, water vapor...is the MOST potent greenhouse gas; CO2 is CHUMP-CHANGE compared to H2O.

I'm sure the EPA will declare H2O a public emergency soon.

"It's been generally assumed that if you increase livestock numbers you get a rise in emissions of nitrous oxide. This is not the case," he said.

Estimated nitrous oxide emissions from temperate grasslands in places like Inner Mongolia as well as vast swatches of the United States, Canada, Russia and China account for up a third of the total amount of the greenhouse gas produced every year. Nitrous oxide is the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane.

But Dr Butterbach-Bahl pointed out that the study did not take into account the methane produced by the livestock or the carbon dioxide produced if soil erodes. He also pointed out that much of the red meat eaten in the western world if from intensively farmed animals in southern countries.

He said the study does not overturn the case for cutting down on red meat but shows grazing livestock is not always bad for global warming.

[From Cows absolved of causing global warming with nitrous oxide - Telegraph]

More Professor Lovelock: We Can't Save the Planet

Though this guy obviously believes that man has warmed the climate with CO2 (dumb), he's at least smart enough to say that we're not at fault and there's nothing we can do to change anything (i.e., dumb AGW solutions). This article takes a different tone than the previous one. Amazing how different media outlets can paint such contrasting pictures using the same material.

Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet.

The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.

[From BBC News - Today - Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet']

Poll: American Global Warming Concerns Decline Further

Of course, this poll only addresses the question about global warming overall. In other words, the poll answers the question about whether global warming is believed to be occurring. It’s a good question. Natural climate change seems to be pushing temperatures the other way, unless you believe the alarmists’ silly, revisionist excuses for why we’ve had several years of record-setting cold winters and summers.

I wonder, after proper education on all sides of scientific climate theory—including the skeptical views on CO2 and scientific data backing those views, whether the public would accept the core premise of global warming alarmists, which is really the only central issue in my opinion. That question is, “Do you think manmade CO2 is warming the Earth?”

Because global warming and global cooling, as part of natural climate variability, DO HAPPEN. That’s not at issue. The issue is whether capitalist-driven greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., CO2) are driving temperatures, and whether socialist solutions to offset capitalism and thus “decrease warming” (because oil is the lifeblood of worldwide economies) will really do anything except raise energy prices and harm economies (and we’ve seen multiple instances in the news where liberals have said we need to cool our economy to fight global warming).

In other words, only the leftiest of liberals seem unable to discern (actually they’re just pretending) the political connection to this so-called “science.” It’s clear in the data (and in the recent scandals – i.e., “hide the decline”) that CO2 may rise AFTER warming and that it eventually reaches a saturation point (i.e., the point at which it no longer has any warming properties on the atmosphere). So many aspects of real science are avoided in debate with the words “consensus says.”

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.

[From Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop ]

States Resist Obama's EPA CO2 Regulation

Not to be outdone by the states who plan to resist Thulsa Doom Obama's end-around methods avoiding democracy with regard to government-provided healthcare, several US states are going to attack Obama's use of the EPA to regulate CO2, since scandals have convinced Americans of the hoax.

WASHINGTON, March 19 (Reuters) - At least 15 U.S. states have sued the Environmental Protection Agency seeking to stop it from issuing rules controlling greenhouse gas emissions until it reexamines whether the pollution harms human health.

Florida, Indiana, South Carolina and at least nine other states filed the petitions in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, states said.

They joined petitions filed last month by Virginia, Texas and Alabama.

The Obama administration has long said it would attack greenhouse gas emissions with EPA regulation if Congress failed to pass a climate bill.

[From US states sue EPA to stop greenhouse gas rules | Reuters]

Al Gore Emerges From Hiding (sort of)

Al Gore has been keeping a low-profile ever since the mounting climate scandals that occurred before and after Copenhagen, where he was embarrassed by a typical alarmist exaggeration that was, once again, exposed as a lie by climate skeptics (a.k.a., "deniers"). He's been challenged for years to debate credible authorities and scientists on CO2's role in climate warming, but he usually manages to elude any forum that isn't tightly controlled by his thugs and political operatives.

He was shredded by Apple's stock holders just the other day for his global warming orthodoxy in the face of all these scandals, even though he was reelected to Apple's board (no surprise there...Apple is run by left-leaning folks out on the Left Coast).

So, feeling the need to respond to all the criticism, what does Al Gore do? He writes an OP-ED piece for the liberal New York Times, of course. Since no one can answer him directly in an opinion piece, I will take this opportunity to respond to his bullshit (trite and repetitive) below, point-by-point. And there's no way I could do a better job than some of the great skeptical scientists out there. But here goes...

But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.

[From Op-Ed Contributor - We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change - NYTimes.com]

Just two mistakes? Careful scientific work? Carbon is global warming pollution that's making our atmosphere into a sewer? Sorry, Al, but you're ignoring the mound of scandals recently revealed. There weren't just a few mistakes. There were many, along with multiple instances of unethical scientific practices.

But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.

Hey, thanks for finally admitting that there are mistakes and errors in the evidence that, according to you, proves "thuh duh-bate is over." What's important to examine is the nature of these "mistakes." These aren't just mistakes; they're blatant attempts to politicize a supposedly scientific report by scattering it with "evidence" that amounts to nothing more than propaganda and fear.

There's that word consensus again. That's Al Gore's (and many alarmists') favorite tactic of deflection when attempting to avoid debate. But the 'overwhelming consensus' is a lie. Even if it was true, consensus opinion has nothing to do with real science, as history has shown us again and again. The maverick in science (like Galileo) is usually proved correct when confronting the consensus's foregone conclusion.

And furthermore (if there were a consensus), does anyone out there REALLY believe this group of politically-connected believers remains UNCHANGED? The so-called consensus is running for the hills because of all the scrutiny. On the contrary, the "consensus" is QUITE changed, Al.

[The panel's scientists] probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century...

That's not what this article just said. Scientists have just withdrawn some of the estimates of supposed human-induced sea-rising. More fallout from the scandals, because now people are paying attention and not just accepting what these climate fear mongers say anymore.

For example, January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.

Actually, the idiots said this January was the warmest on-record...not second warmest (get your facts straight, Al). Temperature records of 130 years should be, to any scientist, a problem when discerning longterm climate patterns and using them to make predictions. First, how accurate were the records of 130 years ago? They're not even accurate today (see reasons why here). Second, it's a statistical no-no to look at such a small range of time (130 years) to pronounce climate doom, considering the climate history of Earth spans of 4.5-billion years.

Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.

Really? Did the alarmist scientists confirm this assertion the same way they've unethically confirmed everything else related to global warming? We can see that they're track record of unethical behavior runs deep and goes back at least 10 years.

Since we've already inserted the obligatory, debate-avoiding word consensus, let's make sure we use the Holocaust-doubting, ad hominem rejoinder and call us climate skeptics "deniers." Yes, a certain subset of alarmist scientists did just, laughably, make the claim that 2000 through 2009 was the warmest decade "on-record." However, disgraced IPCC scientist Phil Jones (CRU scandal) recently admitted that there has been no warming in 15 years, and he even--FINALLY--admitted that there was probably a global medieval warm period and even other earlier periods of global warming in Earth's history that preceded the industrial age. Therefore, the Earth has warmed in the distant past for reasons other than those extolled by you, Al, oh great 'creator of Internet.'

...yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States.

This is the warming-causes-cooling-and-warming tactic used in climate revisionism, and not ALL scientists have agreed with this. There are many problems with this assertion, but let's just take one that flies in the face of something Al just said a few paragraphs ago. If increased evaporation due to warming has caused all this darn record snow (and record freezing cold), rain, and tropical cyclones we've seen, wouldn't that increased evaporation also prevent the seas from rising? (Which, itself, has already been debunked.) The problem is that you and your ilk have long used empirical evidence when it suits your propaganda needs (i.e., supposed empirical weather events that you associate with climate warming). When antithetical weather appears, you either claim that La Nina is involved (that's masking warming) or you ridiculously claim that the cold weather is being caused by warming. That's what I call climate revisionism. It's called "global warming"...not "regional warming, when it suits my theory."

Here is what scientists have found is happening to our climate: man-made global-warming pollution traps heat from the sun and increases atmospheric temperatures. These pollutants — especially carbon dioxide — have been increasing rapidly with the growth in the burning of coal, oil, natural gas and forests, and temperatures have increased over the same period. Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising. Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease. Droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions, even as the severity of flooding increases. The seasonal predictability of rainfall and temperatures is being disrupted, posing serious threats to agriculture. The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels.

But Al...is there a such thing as a 'saturation point'? Is there a point where increasing CO2 no longer makes a difference (i.e., holds in no more heat)? There are scientists (you haven't talked with) who agree that there is such a physical state in the atmosphere. The fact is that there is no evidence that current CO2 levels (rising though they are) are contributing to warming. Even the IPCC's erroneous, award-winning report only allots that CO2 is "probably" causing observed warming. "Probably" in science DOES NOT cut it. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas STILL, even in its presently increasing concentration. Also, our data show that tropospheric warming (i.e., in the atmosphere) has not occurred (increasing CO2 has not warmed this part of the atmosphere as predicted); all of the "warming" has been attributed to the surface level, and the temperature collection methods at the surface are problematic.

CO2 is a 'pollutant'? You're exhaling it right now with your big, fat head, Al. That means you're contaminating my atmosphere! Never mind that plants MUST HAVE CO2 to provide us with O2; even grade school science students can understand photosynthesis.

Extinctions have NOT accelerated. The last part of this bullshit paragraph falls back onto the same trite fear tactics. See the GASP! series and warmlist if you want to scare yourself to death; you can read about the THOUSANDS of ills attributed to manmade warming. Once you read them all, you'll start giggling to yourself if you have half a brain, because it's obvious how much of an overreach it all is.

The common denominator of Al's proselytizing is FEAR. Everything he writes or states is DRIPPING with fear. If you need to hear more fear on animals, read our Animal Death Watch series too.

So, where has Al Gore been? Well, just read the articles. Welcome back, Al. We DID NOT miss your stupid crap.

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize and an Oscar for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. But in the last three months, as global warming has gone from a scientific near-certitude to the subject of satire, Gore -- the public face of global warming -- has been silent on the topic.

The former vice president apparently finds it inconvenient even to answer calls to testify before the U.S. Senate. You can call him Al . . . but he won't call back.

[From FOXNews.com - You Can Call Him Al ... But Al Won't Call You Back]

Al Gore has been found. The former vice president and green guru has been MIA since the end of December, but he cropped up to be abused at the Apple stockholders meeting in Cupertino, Calif. Gore has been missing conveniently during the same period where climate scientists have come under increased scrutiny for bogus claims, doctored science and use of propaganda. Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize and Oscar winner was last seen on CBS in late December. While the TV outlets have been running archival footage of the climate advocate, he hasn’t been interviewed on air throughout the controversy.

He’s still been on the receiving end of many jokes during that time. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said on Twitter: “It's going to keep snowing in D.C. until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’” GOP Sen. James Inhofe’s grandkids built an igloo on the National Mall, naming it “Al Gore’s New Home.”

Now even Apple shareholders are unhappy with the Goreacle, delivering “harsh comments about former Vice President Al Gore’s record,” according to CNET. One shareholder said Gore shouldn’t be reelected to the Apple board, saying Gore “has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted,” reported CNET. Gore didn’t respond directly, but his spot in the front row indicates his hibernation may be ending.

[From FOXNews.com - Why So Silent, Mr. Gore?]

CO2's Role in Warming Unclear: China

So, China (who has had its share of recent record cold weather) says CO2's role isn't clear but act to cut emissions anyway?

What's really surprising about this story isn't the bit about China, who--having gotten a taste of capitalistic success--isn't about to give up on oil. What's really surprising (or not really surprising) is that Reuters still insists that "most scientists" have the view the CO2 is the culprit in global warming. And that's simply NOT TRUE. That's the BS lie with which our mainstream media continues trying to brainwash us, but where's their evidence that most scientists feel this way? Where's their poll of 100% of the world's scientists to show that >50% believe CO2 is causing warming? There isn't such a poll to demonstrate this claimed consensus. I, however, can point you to an online petition where >31,000 scientists believe CO2 is NOT warming the planet. Where's Reuters' evidence to back up their "most scientists" propaganda claim?

* Cause of global warming not clear, top negotiator says

* World should act to cut carbon emissions anyway

* U.S. must not shirk its responsibilities

By Emma Graham-Harrison

BEIJING, March 10 (Reuters) - China’s top climate negotiator said on Wednesday that the cause of global warming was still not clear but the problems it was creating were so serious that the world must anyway act to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Xie Zhenhua, vice-chairman of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, also warned the United States it should not use domestic divisions over climate change as an excuse to pass its responsibilities off onto other countries.

“There are still two different viewpoints in the scientific field about the cause of warming,” Xie told a news conference on the sidelines of the annual session of China’s largely rubber-stamp parliament.

[From Reuters AlertNet - China unsure on warming cause, to stick with CO2 cuts]

Methane Released After Warming? CO2 Also?

They're losing the battle. So what do they do? Abandon CO2 as the boogeyman, or at least imply that our increasing CO2 has released long-trapped methane. But wait...if methane can be released from trapped ice during warming periods, this means that CO2 can ALSO be released. And we've seen that atmospheric CO2 increases tend to follow warming...not the other way around.

Don't trust these clowns. They are stained by scandal and they approach climate science with a preordained outcome; they never entertain or propose other theories. There is dissension among scientists (and there a lot of skeptical scientists contrary to what you've been told). Remember Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.

Concerns about global warming have centered on rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but scientists note that methane can be 30 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

[From FOXNews.com - Methane Bubbles in Arctic Raise Warming Fears]

Reuters: Scientists Examine Warming Lull

I can only say WOW. And this is via Reuters; it doesn’t completely let go of the ‘we unquestionably have manmade warming’ line, but it’s the first U.S. media outlet I’ve seen which goes this far. Now if the Ass. Press (abbreviation intentional) would just stop the advocacy journalism and report on all the scandals, facts, and scientific truth regarding manmade climate change, we skeptics might get somewhere. But truthfully, it’s getting to the point where the holdouts like the AP and MSNBC will not be able to stop the avalanche of evidence—empirical and scientific—that demonstrates just how stupid and false this hoax is. Remember when U.S. media outlets ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal (to protect Clinton) while Drudge broke the story? The public is becoming more and more wise to the trickery. The British press has covered the scandals and lies exposed recently, while most of the American media has ignored it all. After all, the U.S. mainstream media can’t be seen to admit that they’ve been feeding the American public a load of bull (which they’ve been doing).

Note what Reuters admits. They make a point about discovering the exact cause of cooling for ten years (which they laughably call ‘lack of warming’) from 1999-2008, while Dr. Hansen’s GISS has recently said—stupidly—that the last decade (through 2009) was the ‘warmest on record.’ Yes, the same alarmist Dr. Hansen who had to retract a similar pronunciation in October 2008, when skeptics scrutinized his data and discovered errors (good thing for skeptics, eh?). So climate scientists don’t even agree on what year or decade was the ‘warmest’ as a baseline. They don’t agree because it’s all based on ‘smoke and mirrors’—computer models fed temperature data from ground stations that—themselves—skew the data. Garbage-in, garbage-out.

I know what’s causing the cooling. It’s called natural climate variability, which will create warming periods (as it has in the past BEFORE manmade emissions) and cooling periods (as it has in the past BEFORE manmade emissions). In other words, this is all bullshit, just as the Global Cooling scare of the 1970s was. And I’m not even a climate scientist...I’m a molecular biologist. The ethics of science are the same for us all.

What’s amazing are the number of people apparently willing to just accept whatever line they’re fed by authority figures and their media lapdogs, without question. We’re just going to allow a group of politicians to regulate and tax CO2 (which we exhale with every breath) because a “consensus” of 60 scientists (versus >31,000 skeptical scientists) say we “must act now!” Aspirant, opportunistic politicians are always looking for openings such as that, for fear manifests a requirement for their intervention and subsequent consolidation of power (and wealth...right, Al Gore?).

The point of this article is to lament the crisis faced by alarmist climate scientists in continuing to convince everyone that “the debate is over” and “the consensus says” and “we must act NOW.” Once you sheep stop believing the lie, their little research grant boondoggle will begin to dry up. Politicians will move on to the next boondoggle, but we MUST make unethical scientists pay the price for betraying their profession in order to endorse radical political stances by warping science. We can all agree to take care of the Earth (because it’s the right thing to do) without violating our integrity, ethics, and lying to ourselves.

* Exact causes unknown for lack of warming from 1999-2008

* The underlying reason for cold winter not known

* Climate science in focus after email scandal, errors

By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle

LONDON/OSLO, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.

At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.

Public conviction of global warming’s risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.

[From Reuters AlertNet - ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming]

Jo Nova Responds to New Scientist's "Denier-gate" Story

Alarmists at the New Scientist, sensing their reputations are in big trouble following all the recent mounting scandals (including Climategate), have decided to respond by creating "Denier-gate" out of thin air (as if they hadn't done that years ago). However, Jo Nova does a phenomenal job of parrying the ad hominem attacks against climate skepticism by turning the tables on the global warming cultists. She keeps bringing them back to the fundamental question: Is CO2 in its current quantity within our atmosphere warming the planet? Let's talk evidence, not "debate's over," not bluster, swearing, name-calling, etc.

The answer from alarmists is: "DENIER!! How can you question the CONSENSUS? The debate's over!" Get the picture? Where is the scientific debate?!? Without the name-calling?

And spot the appearance of the mythical “HUGE body of evidence”. Can anyone at New Scientist find that one mystery paper with empirical evidence showing that carbon causes major warming? Just ONE? That’s major warming, not minor. And that’s empirical, i.e., by observation, not by simulation.

This is the paragraph where New Scientist proves it has become Non Scientist:

“If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behavior of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behavior of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.”

Alarm bells are ringing from Galileo’s grave. We’re trying to figure out if the world is warming due to man-made carbon right? New Scientist’s method is not to look at the evidence, but to look at the behavior of the sceptics. Did you see the black hole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into? Logic and reason were reduced in a flash to a naked singularity. Follow its reasoning through the black hole, and you don’t emerge on the other side.

Did you see the black hole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into?

Who to trust indeed? Let’s trust people who can reason, and scientists who don’t hide their data. It doesn’t matter how “sceptics behave”; it matters whether the data can be independently analyzed and interpreted; whether the conclusions are robust. But, since the data is g-o-n-e , no one can verify anything. So in a way, it does come down to “trust”: In the new quasi-religious form of science, you have to trust those who hold the global data. Isn’t postmodern “science” an awful lot like the old religions?

[From New Scientist becomes Non Scientist « JoNova]

Jo Nova's Skeptics Handbook, Vol. I and II

First, every skeptic should read and practically memorize these volumes, so that you can deftly parry any stupid, leftist global warming attack uttered by global warming cultists (those bits of "science" that they've learned from carefully selected sources like the mainstream media, politicians, and alarmist scientists).

Next, every global warming believer should challenge their own religious orthodoxy and read these volumes. We've heard all of your alarmist arguments before (since the news media trumpets this baloney from sunup until sundown). Now it's time to monitor your own thoughts and feelings as you read these wonderful pamphlets and expose your brains to something other than the "consensus" view; in other words: REAL SCIENCE. That stuff that the U.N., NASA, EPA, NOAA, Al Gore, and the media have neglected to tell you.

Send your friends these links. Save the PDFs for self-study. Spread the word. Our U.S. news media isn't doing the job it once did; it picks advocate positions and attempts to propagandize the public. This is why we need bloggers like Joanne to expose this hokey shit for what it is.

Joanne does a great job of covering all the relevant points (much better than I ever have here in this blog); like me, she's doing all this for NOTHING, because she hates seeing real science hijacked by politics. You'll notice good coverage of ad hominem attacks (i.e., labels like "denier" used to associate climate skepticism with the evils of the Holocaust), which you can also read about in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.

This booklet has captured attention around the world.

Donors have paid for over 160,000 copies so far in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and soon in Germany. Volunteers have translated it into German, French, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, Turkish, Portuguese Danish, Japanese and Balkan. (Versions in Dutch, Spanish, and possibly Italian are on the way). Updates are placed here, along with translations, as well as places to read comments and links to the web-pages where each part of the handbook will be discussed.

[From The Skeptics Handbook « JoNova]

Who is Jo Nova? Here you go:

Joanne has 15 years of experience in explaining science as a professional speaker, TV host, radio presenter and book author.

Making sense of science.

Jo Nova is a science communicator, she’s presented science on TV, radio, on stage, in cartoons, exhibitions, reports and now in her blog which over 200,000 people visited in 2009.
After winning prizes in her science degree in molecular biology, Joanne joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus and spent five years touring Australia first as a performer, then as manager of the half million dollar exhibition with a team of twelve. As an associate lecturer at ANU Joanne helped to develop the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication in its earliest years.

[From About « JoNova]

Yay Utah! A State With Guts

We may be seeing only the very beginning of the end of this manmade global warming lie. Bring it on! It's way past due. Thanks to all the climate scandal idiots who helped us skeptics out.

Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?

Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.

The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, though it was predictably claimed by climate change sceptics as a great victory in the wake of the controversy caused by a mistake over Himalayan glaciers in the UN's landmark report on global warming.

But it does offer a view of state politicians' concerns in Utah which is a major oil and coal producing state.

The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome". It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".

[From Utah delivers vote of no confidence for 'climate alarmists' | Environment | guardian.co.uk ]

Global Warming Car Has Brake Problems

Owners of the Toyota Prius--the goofy, little, egg-shaped "Green Fad" car--now must face the fact that all the carbon emissions they supposedly saved by driving that mercury-poisoned crap will now be lost on the carbon emissions required to repair their brakes.

Anyone want to do the math? How much carbon will be emitted when 300,000 Prius owners must haul their little puke cars in to have the brakes replaced? They'll need loaner cars while theirs is repaired. Will the loaner be another Prius, or, more likely, a run-of-the-mill gas-guzzler? How much carbon to get the new parts designed, manufactured, and then delivered to each dealer? How much carbon required in raw electricity to handle all the various details of a massive vehicle recall?

I don't believe any of that will hurt anything, but I wonder if they've pondered it themselves?

One must admit that it's ironic. It's like rain on your wedding day, or a free ride when you've already paid...

Toyota is to order a humiliating global recall of the Prius — the hybrid electric car which has become the leader of the green motoring revolution.

In a deepening of the crisis at the world’s largest car manufacturer, Toyota will this week warn 300,000 Prius owners — 3,500 of them in the UK — that the brakes on their car may fail in icy conditions or on bumpy surfaces.

[From Toyota set to recall Prius hybrid over brake failure ]

Emissions Deadline Abandoned by U.N.

For us climate deniers, it doesn't get any sweeter. Liberalism is in retreat worldwide. Yay! This comes on the heels of the admission by the U.N.'s climate chief that their recent report contains errors, and all this follows the false science revealed by Climategate.

The timetable to reach a global deal to tackle climate change lay in tatters on Wednesday after the United Nations waived the first deadline of the process laid out at last month’s fractious Copenhagen summit.

Nations agreed then to declare their emissions reduction targets by the end of this month. Developed countries would state their intended cuts by 2020: developing countries would outline how they would curb emissions growth.

But Yvo de Boer, the UN’s senior climate change official, admitted the deadline had in effect been shelved.

[From FT.com / Global Economy - UN abandons climate change deadline]

Atmospheric CO2 Remains at Pre-Civil War Levels

1850. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution and just before the Civil War kicked off. Today's CO2 levels haven't changed since then IN THE ATMOSPHERE! Where does it go? The oceans absorb it, of course.

Alarmist scientists aren't going to like that this little tidbit got out there in a scientific journal.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

[From No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds]