Scientists: Some Sea Levels 'Could Fall'

Interesting read from someone who still espouses global warming as reality. Even they admit the doomsday predictions are WRONG.

The incorrect belief that ocean water is evenly distributed lives on in the debate over climate change, says Stammer. The rising sea level is widely viewed as the most threatening consequence of global warming. Images of Bangladeshis wading through floodwaters are a favorite horror scenario used by some environmentalists. "But people act as if the water from melting glaciers were distributed as uniformly in the oceans as the water in our bathtubs at home," says Stammer.

But the reality is counter-intuitive. According to the most recent estimates, the sea level is expected to rise by about 1 meter (3.28 feet) -- on average -- in the next 100 years. This is the number that will be mentioned again and again during negotiations at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico over the next two weeks. "But this average value doesn't really help coastal planners," says Stammer.

[From The Uncertainties of Global Warming: Sea Level Could Rise in South, Fall in North - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International]

Nobel Prize Stealer Gore Limits Media

What a shocker. Thuh duh-bate is over, remember. Al Gore avoiding debate and/or scrutiny; that's as typical as Special Sauce on a Big Mac.

RALEIGH, N.C. — Former Vice President Al Gore may have narrated an Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, but he appears to be a little cool toward the camera for a speech in North Carolina.

A Gore aide said Tuesday that media members will only be allowed to record video and audio of the first five minutes of Gore's talk at Duke University on April 8. Photography will also be limited. Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said the restrictions are standard for his talks but she wouldn't say why they are in place.

[From Gore gets camera-shy for N.C. speech, limits media :: WRAL.com]

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?]

Sagan's "Baloney Kit" Generates Debate

Interesting banter going on between some alarmists and myself on the old "Baloney Detection Kit" post; come on by and read it for yourself. Liberals pay attention when you use the words of someone like Galileo, Carl Sagan or Jon Stewart to insult their orthodoxy. And they don't like it. So there's no end to the contorting required to preserve belief in their little sphere of green harmony.

Finally, some DEBATE! Since Al Gore won't debate, it's nice that his minions will, though most do so anonymously.

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]

Climategate: CRU's Jones Admits Science NOT SETTLED!

This is GROUNDBREAKING! This SHOULD rock the world of green fanatic alarmist believers and skeptics alike, but the question remains: Will the world media--especially the U.S. media--report on this story and its significance, or will they ignore it like they do with so many other stories that don't fit their agenda?

The humiliated Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU), who is at the center of the Climategate scandal that broke just before Copenhagen's climate conference, has since resigned his position and NOW admits information that NO alarmist scientist will want public, lest we skeptics "seize on" it. LOL! "Skeptics seize on" is the new buzz phrase that all lefty news organizations like to use now in an attempt to sideline us skeptics.

Though his admission that there has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING SINCE 1995 is Earth-shattering, the fact that he admits that the Medieval Warm Period was possibly global (and that there were other similar pre-industrial warm periods) is tremendous. It means that one of the alarmist elites has finally said that the SCIENCE MAY NOT BE SETTLED. Did you hear that, Al Gore?!!? One of your own has spoken, after he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

***

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

***

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

***

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’. He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

[From Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online]

Bill Nye: Skeptics Are Unpatriotic

Oh yeah, Bill Nye The Science Guy? Well, alarmists are socialists trying to force radical wealth redistribution in the world to "solve" the problem of global warming. In other words, alarmists believe that capitalism's use of fossil fuels has put us in this mess. Ye shall know them by the company they keep...and since Bill Nye hangs with Heidi Cullen and Rachel Maddow, I guess we know where he stands--he's a leftist.

You know what? At least debate is finally happening now; I guess Al Gore's proclamation of debate being over doesn't hold water.

I dug Bill Nye when I was a kid (when he taught science and not politically-tinged science); I'm not a fan anymore. Bite my ass, Bill.

Bill Nye, the Science Guy, agrees, going so far as to tell MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that scientists who doubt climate change's manmade origins are unpatriotic. "If you want to get serious about it, these guys claiming that the snow in Washington disproves climate change are almost unpatriotic -- it's as if they're denying science," Nye said.

[From FOXNews.com - Global Warming Debate Heats Up in Wake of Record Snowstorms]

Inconvenient Question to Al Gore

Haven't you heard, man? Gore doesn't DEBATE. Because he'd lose! Because he LIES!

[From YouTube - Inconvenient Question to Al Gore ]

Gore Admits North Pole Faux Pas

First, this is why Al Gore won't debate anyone. He knows he's pulling BS out of his butt and putting it out there as unassailable science. Down with this moron already and his alarmist accomplices. Here, Gore is taking a global warming scientist--one of the people he's counting on to save his ass--and ascribing assertions to the scientist that the scientist claims he never made. Gore is throwing one of his own under the bus just to pump up his already huge ego; this is why he turns off microphones when challenged on his stupid Power Point shows.

Second, the climate alarmists concluded in 2008 that the North Pole would melt completely IN THE SUMMER OF 2008. Guess what? IT NEVER HAPPENED. Another example of our media dropping the ball and avoiding the hard questions and EVEN HARDER follow up, after these stupid predictions don't happen. Even if it did, the Earth's sea levels WOULD NOT RISE. This is based on basic scientific knowledge--the Archimedes Principle.

Oh, and what news organization reported this? The U.K. press! Once again, they're carrying the banner where our liberal media falters.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

[From Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up - Times Online ]

IPCC Scientist Uses U.N. Guards to Silence Reporter: Climategate

Still believe those Climategate revelations are meaningless? If they're so meaningless, why do people like this U.N. dufus and Al Gore continue to avoid debate at all costs by resorting to armed goons and turning off microphones?

In the words of the great Jedi Master Yoda to the evil Emperor Palpatine:

"If so powerful you are... why leave?"

A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.

McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.

[From Big Government » Blog Archive » UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate]

Shock: Many Scientists Disagree on Global Warming

Yes, surprise, surprise indeed. I've been saying this all along, but it's good to see someone else say the same thing. There is no unassailable agreement or consensus. That assertion...along with manmade global warming...is a MYTH! This is only a surprise if you just accept the mainstream media's assertions that debate is over.

As the Climate-gate controversy continues to grow, amid charges of hiding and manipulating data, and suppressing research by academics who challenge global warming, there is one oft-repeated defense: other independent data-sets all reach the same conclusions. "I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science ... I think that this notion that there's some debate . . . on the science is kind of silly," said President Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, when asked about the president's response to the controversy on Monday. Despite the scandal, Britain's Met, the UK’s National Weather Service, claims: "we remain completely confident in the data. The three independent data sets show a strong correlation is highlighting an increase in global temperatures."

But things are not so clear. It is not just the University of East Anglia data that is at question. There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty. Thus, there is hardly the unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind's role in producing it. But even for the sake of argument, assuming that there is significant man-made global warming, many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people's health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.

[From FOXNews.com - Surprise, Surprise, Many Scientists Disagree On Global Warming]

Climate Alarmist Calls Skeptic 'Asshole' on BBC

Not much to say here...speaks for itself. Watch the videos. So-called climate scientists who preach fear DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE. Just like Al Gore doesn't want to debate. If there's debate then they'll be exposed even more. Hey Cooper (CBS blogger)...don't you think it's finally the skeptic's turn to be a NUDNIK? We've been told shut up and swallow this BS since 1998 (and even before that with the 70s cooling frenzy). Finally, someone comes on television to debate, and the skeptic hands the scientist his lunch, IMHO.

And what does the scientist do? Why, he resorts to name-calling, of course. This is what children do when they're cornered in a lie.

One day after reports that Britain's Met office intends to reexamine 160 years' worth of temperature data, emotions over what's now being dubbed "Climategate" are getting more raw by the day.

During a live television faceoff hosted by the BBC, Marc Morano, a former communications director of the U.S. Senate Environment Committee and now an editor with the Web site Climate Depot squared off against Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. It didn't take long before the two got in each other's face and Watson became increasingly annoyed with Morano's loud interruptions. He finally lost it by the end when the anchor thanked the participants.

[From Tempers Flare In Climate Change Flap - Coop's Corner - CBS News]

Gore Turns Off Film Maker's Microphone

The time for debate is over, right Al Gore? LOL! Al Gore refuses to debate...because he can't...he's an idiot.

In what organizers said was a rarity, Gore took half a dozen questions from journalists, including one from Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker who asked Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007.

Gore responded that the court ruling supported the showing of his film in British schools. When McAleer tried to debate further, his microphone was cut off by the moderators.

[From Gore upbeat on climate bill]

Warming Debate Fed By Falling Temperatures

You really have to go read this article for yourself and witness all the times throughout where the believers make arguments that can easily be rebutted from the opposite position. For instance, the article at one point states: "Natural variability can account for the slowing of the global mean temperature rise we have seen," said Jeff Knight, a climate expert at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, England. Interesting. This means that natural variability can also ACCOUNT FOR ANY WARMING that has been seen! Why doesn't the author of this article take that obvious step and ask the "climate expert" moron this most obvious question? Well, because the press is, by and large, for all this stupidity. They want to keep the pipe dream alive.

What's really important to note is that THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY REAL DEBATE on global warming. Debate has been shutdown by Al Gore's declaration that debate is over, and that the consensus has spoken. Any scientist worth her weight will tell you that science doesn't operate according to proclamations of a political hack. Consensus in science is irrelevant. Al Gore in science is irrelevant. Global warming as a scientific reality is irrelevant.

WASHINGTON — Has Earth's fever broken?

Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

That's given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change. The skeptics argue that the current stretch of slightly cooler temperatures means that costly measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions are ill-founded and unnecessary.

Proposals to combat global warming are "crazy" and will "destroy more than a million good American jobs and increase the average family's annual energy bill by at least $1,500 a year," the Heartland Institute, a conservative research organization based in Chicago, declared in full-page newspaper ads earlier this summer. "High levels of carbon dioxide actually benefit wildlife and human health," the ads asserted.

Many scientists agree, however, that hotter times are ahead. A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.

[From Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate | McClatchy]

The Cult of Global Warming

Another scientist speaks out, this time from Australia. Will he be heard? Of course global warming is a cult and fad. Or will the psychos stick with 'consensus' as if there are no dissenting smart people out there?

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

BY JONATHAN MANTHORPE, VANCOUVER SUN, JULY 28, 2009

Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

[From Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites ]

Gore Insults Churchill

In essence, Gore is calling himself Churchill (he only wishes he was a fourth of the leader that Churchill was) and seeks to imply that climate skeptics are subject to brainwashing much like the German public was seduced by the Nazis.

This latest exclamation from Gore is so full of monkey-moron-horse-crap that I’m having trouble deciding where to start. First, attempting to call climate skeptics ‘ignorant’ when you’re the biggest ignoramus to ever receive a Nobel Prize is fairly hypocritical. Second, comparing skeptics’ doubt of manmade climate change to the world’s blindness to Hitler in the 1930s and 40s is equally stupid and illogical.

Why? Because Hitler was a REAL THREAT who KILLED MILLIONS. Global warming is NOT REAL and has KILLED NO ONE! Why won’t Al Gore debate a scientific authority on climate? If he’s so brilliant, surely he could hold his own. I’m sure his Power Point slides would do the trick; they were enough to convince some REAL IGNORAMUSES that Gore deserved a Nobel Prize and Oscar.

On the contrary, Gore avoids debate whenever he can and seeks sycophants who will make him feel good about his own stupid scam.

Al Gore invokes spirit of Churchill in battle against climate change

Al Gore invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill yesterday when he urged political leaders to follow the example of Britain’s wartime leader in the battle against climate change.

The former US Vice-President accused governments around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming to avoid taking difficult decisions.

****

Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as that from Hitler.

EPA Silences One of its Own

Of course the EPA is suppressing this report from ‘one of their own.’ They can’t have any of this whistle-blowing stuff going on. It’s just like a similar dissenting report that came out of the Obama Administration: All one sees are attempts to cover up dissent. It’s the same reason Al Gore won’t debate anyone over global warming; he knows he’ll get his head handed to him, because he’s a moron.

Alarmists have been resorting to this sort of climate cover-up business since the very beginning of Hansen’s manufactured CO2 claims. They know the science is shaky to non-existent; they know the empirical evidence doesn’t stack up in their favor—especially now. They don’t care. Too many jobs, reputations, and fortunes hang in the balance now to let truth ruin it all.

But there is a problem. It’s all full of crap and people know it. That’s not stopping Obama or his minions in Congress who need to exact more control. Think it’s all science now and no politics? If so, you’re very gullible.

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report

Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming.

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

Democrats Conspire to Protect Climate Idiot-In-Chief

I think this article from the Climate Depot pretty much speaks for itself. Democrats have decided that they don’t want to chance Gore debating someone of an antithetical, intelligent viewpoint, because they understand he’ll have his lunch handed to him.

Global warming is global garbage; it’s hogwash, plain and simple. An intelligent teenager would kick Gore’s butt in a debate on global warming. It’s no wonder that he’s refused to debate anyone, time and time again.

I think this shows exactly what liberals know about manmade climate change—it’s a scam from which they stand to benefit, and they don’t want some intelligent Englishman coming into Congress and making their climate monkey-boy look like a monkey, boy.

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

'House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated' - Climate Depot Exclusive

Washington DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

Media Scares Kids Then Marvels at Itself

Of course kids are worried. How could they not be? This is incredible. The media hypes and hypes the lie of manmade climate change for years, and schools start teaching it as gospel. Children begin to fear what they’re being told—the stupid misinformation that ‘we’re destroying the planet with capitalism.’ Then the news media polls them and reports their fears as news?!? Another instance of the news media conjuring the news out of thin air.

But we shouldn’t be too surprised. The media has often told us what to think and then polled us later on to ensure their indoctrination campaign was effective. It has worked for years. That’s what’s so interesting about the climate myth—people are rejecting it because they’re beginning to see the stupidity of it all, irrespective of the climate crusade playing out in certain media circles.

If the poll results don't match the agenda, they simply DO NOT report the results.

Remember this post that talked about how teachers must be allowed to teach our kids this climate fear garbage? I, for one, will be properly educating my children on what the media does and how people should think for themselves only after thorough research. This is true for anything—politics, issues, science, etc. Science is about debate AT IT’S CORE; I will teach my kids to never believe anyone who says that debate in science must be shutdown because one side of the debate has deemed itself ‘correct’ and that it is an unassailable ‘consensus.’ Remember that the mavericks in science are those who make history…not the consensuses.

Also notice the name of this web site: “Treehugger.com.” This site is run by Discovery (e.g., Discovery Channel, etc.), which is an open advocate of manmade climate change as unassailable truth. And as has been pointed out here and in several other places that the media refuses to address, manmade climate change is full of holes and quite assailable. It’s not, as the media pretends, a foregone conclusion.

No Kidding, One in Three Children Fear Earth Apocalypse

There's a new bogeyman lurking in the closet, and this one isn't imaginary. Us. One out of three children aged 6 to 11 fears that Ma Earth won't exist when they grow up, while more than half—56 percent—worry that the planet will be a blasted heath (or at least a very unpleasant place to live), according to a new survey.

Commissioned by Habitat Heroes and conducted by Opinion Research, the telephone survey polled a national sample of 500 American preteens—250 males and 250 females.

Gore: "Silly to Debate Science"

Ha ha...what a moron this Al Gore is. He insults science--a discipline that's ALL ABOUT DEBATE--on a daily basis. Only the politically motivated scientists have attempted to shut down debate about global warming theory.

A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critic(s)

The Goreacle has spoken–again.

Former Vice President Al Gore repeated his message that climate change is a planetary emergency at the WSJ’s Eco:nomics conference in California. The Nobel-prize winner declined to take any questions from reporters, but he did receive a couple of challenges from attendees, including Bjorn Lomborg. But don’t expect Mr. Gore to debate the merits of how best to tackle climate change anytime soon.

Mr. Gore stuck to his prepared script about the urgency of taking action to curb global greenhouse-gas emissions, down to well-worn phrases he trots out at conferences across the country: America is at “a political tipping point” on climate change, and even if Washington has failed to address the energy challenge in the last 35 years, “political will is a renewable resource.”

But he was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.