Unleash the Lawyers of Climate Change

What always follows junk science and stupid politics? Lawyers and lawsuits, of course. After all, most politicians are blood-sucking lawyers. Need to find something that stinks? Just follow the rats surrounding it.

Thankfully, truth is winning out and this garbage has been exposed for the boondoggle that it is.

PARIS — From being a marginal and even mocked issue, climate-change litigation is fast emerging as a new frontier of law where some believe hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake.

Compensation for losses inflicted by man-made global warming would be jaw-dropping, a payout that would make tobacco and asbestos damages look like pocket money.
Imagine: a country or an individual could get redress for a drought that destroyed farmland, for floods and storms that created an army of refugees, for rising seas that wiped a small island state off the map.

In the past three years, the number of climate-related lawsuits has ballooned, filling the void of political efforts in tackling greenhouse-gas emissions.

[From AFP: Climate change: Dogs of law are off the leash]

Now There's Rainforest-gate

Same crappy U.N. IPCC report...same crappy non-science. Global warming is scientifically-based? I think not. It's just junk science, plain and simple. Scandals keep multiplying for the global warming crowd who had proclaimed their "science" as "unassailable."

A United Nations report on climate change that has been lambasted for its faulty research is under new attack for yet another instance of what its critics say is sloppy science -- adding to a growing scandal that has undermined the credibility of scientists and policymakers who back the U.N.'s findings about global warming.

In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.

But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist.

[From FOXNews.com - U.N.'s Global Warming Report Under Fresh Attack for Rainforest Claims]

Experts: Scandal Makes Progress More Difficult

Actually, the scandal makes JUNK SCIENCE more difficult. Thank goodness for that!!!

The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool is being called into question as the scandal over climate data continues to unfold.

The latest revelation came on Sunday with the publication of a report by The Sunday Times of London that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.

[From Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com]

2009 to be among warmest? What about 2008 prediction?

Wow! Read the article's headline below from Reuters. Now follow this link and read last year's headline that originated from the same British scientists--the headline is nearly identical. The prediction in the January 2008 article was that 2008 was going to be "one of the hottest on record." It wasn't. Another failed climate prediction. Now, "British scientists" say it will be one of the hottest in 2009; if they just keep repeating it every year, they're bound to be right eventually, LOL!

Now let's look at the problems with this, as we've done countless times on this blog. You can read about the statistical problems throughout this blog (search: statistics), but it's quite easy to summarize. Just scrutinize the term "long term average."

They define "long term" as the period of 1961 to 1990. The Earth's age is 4.5 billion years. So a period of thirty years is "long term" compared with the age of the planet? No scientist worth their weight would ever make such a proclamation. This is truly JUNK SCIENCE.

LONDON (Reuters) - Next year is set to be one of the top-five warmest on record, British climate scientists said on Tuesday.

The average global temperature for 2009 is expected to be more than 0.4 degrees celsius above the long-term average, despite the continued cooling of huge areas of the Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Nina.

That would make it the warmest year since 2005, according to researchers at the Met Office, who say there is also a growing probability of record temperatures after next year.

Currently the warmest year on record is 1998, which saw average temperatures of 14.52 degrees celsius - well above the 1961-1990 long-term average of 14 degrees celsius.

[From 2009 to be one of warmest years on record: researchers | Environment | Reuters]

Climate fruitcakes were out in force in 2008

The article below is a nice summation of my entire year on this blog, and FOX only scratches the surface of the work that Dr. Brignell, Steven Milloy, and others have done in fighting this enormously stupid hoax.

Follow the link and read the 10 things FOX says that "experts" claim is or will be caused by global warming, though the true list is, unfortunately, far longer than a mere 10 things. We highlighted many of these they put in their list over the past year, including cannibalism, kidney stones, extinctions, snake attacks, shark attacks, and so on. Hundreds of things have been pinned on global warming. It's really quite silly. See the GASP! posts here and Dr. Brignell's warmlist for a lengthy treatise. Get educated so that you can detach yourself from all the absurd propaganda, in the event you're still a hapless believer.

FOXNews.com - No Matter What Happens, Someone Will Blame Global Warming:

Global warming was blamed for everything from beasts gone wild to anorexic whales to the complete breakdown of human society this year -- showing that no matter what it is and where it happens, scientists, explorers, politicians and those who track the Loch Ness Monster are comfortable scapegoating the weather.

FOXNews.com takes a look back at 10 things that global warming allegedly caused — or will no doubt soon be responsible for — as reported in the news around the world in 2008.

Skeptical scientist profile: Dr. John Brignell

I've been wanting to do this for sometime, because I've linked to Dr. Brignell's warmlist page a countless number of times.

From his CV:

Professor Emeritus (ESD)

John Brignell was educated at Stationers’ Company’s School and began his career as an apprentice at STC. He studied at Northampton Engineering College (which became The City University, London) and took the degrees of BSc(Eng) and PhD of London University. He joined the staff at Northampton and was successively Research Assistant, Research Fellow and Lecturer. He worked in a number of areas including dielectric liquids and computer aided measurement, co-authoring a book "Laboratory on-line computing" in 1975. He was for ten years Reader in Electronics at The City University and held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton for twenty years from 1980. He has researched and written extensively in the area of sensors and their applications, and in 1994 co-authored a book with Neil White on "Intelligent sensor systems". He had an extensive private consultancy practice for many years and has advised some of the larger international companies, as well as many small ones in the UK, on all aspects of industrial instrumentation. He pioneered the use of a number of technologies in sensing, such as thick film, and latterly turned his attention to the considerable possibilities of micro-engineering. He was elected Fellow of IOP, InstMC, IEE and RSA. In 1994 he was awarded the Callendar Silver Medal by InstMC. He served on the ISAT Committee of IoP from its inception and was the founding chairman of the first joint professional group of the IEE (J1), having served on both its predecessors (E1 and C11).

What Dr. Brignell has done is simple genius--keep a linked list of actual media stories and articles that purport to show the horrors--both past, present, and future--associated with manmade global warming and climate change.

Simply reading the mass of links is mind-boggling; in my opinion, visiting this one page is all that one needs to do to understand how stupid this global warming hoax is.

Dr. Brignell goes further with his entire Number Watch site--he's showing us how the media can misbehave when using numbers and statistics. Thank you, Dr. Brignell, for being brave enough to stick your neck out in this politically correct environment. As he says:

Number Watch - All about the scares, scams, junk, panics, and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats, so-called scientists and others who try to confuse you with wrong numbers.

GASP!: Obama has little time left to save us

I just swallowed my tongue (and threw up in mouth a little). The AP steps in, once again, and shows just how biased and stupid they are. First, they imply that "only Obama" can save us, which is just asinine, even if global warming was real--AND IT IS NOT REAL!!! This Obama-worship is really disgusting to behold, because I realize there will be ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THIS MAN. If he controls the press then he has absolute power to do with us and our country as he pleases.

Second, the AP echos a common alarmist theme to explain the cooling weather--GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSING THE COOLING!!! The ultimate unified dichotomy (yes...I just contradicted myself because they certainly do)!

On the fear front, they throw in "time has run out" and animals are "going extinct"--all common fear themes we've seen time and time again.

This would be funny if it wasn't so audacious. Take antithetical empirical evidence and turn it around! This way, if it's hot out then it's global warming...and if it's cold...you guess it...global warming is causing it. They win no matter which side of the zero line the temperature waveform travels. Read other GASP! posts and check the warmlist to learn how stupid this propaganda has become.

Remember what Cornell University recently said (because the AP won't tell you): GLOBAL WARMING IS OVERESTIMATED!!! The only thing time has run out on is the lie of global warming.

See below where they let slip another juicy tidbit: Some scientists "but not all" believe in global warming. Yeah...how about >31,000 scientists (including me) DON'T BELIEVE.

Besides, we should be safe now, because Bill Clinton and others said that we needed to slow the economy to fight global warming. Well, they got their wish, so we should be all fine now.

My Way News - Obama left with little time to curb global warming:

WASHINGTON (AP) - When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.

***

"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."

***

Now some scientists, but not all, say the safe carbon dioxide level for Earth is about 10 percent below what it is now.

***
Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government's machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

Greens prop up scam while snow piles up

Funny. You have two different realities, apparently--all within the same news cycle. On one hand, the Green liberals continue to act as if we're facing immediate doom at the hands of manmade warming, ignoring the cold or explaining it away. On the other hand, cold weather events and records ignore the Greens' doltish obedience and continue making disbelievers out of average people, who don't like being told it's raining as warm urine rolls down their backs.

Then you have us scientifically-educated skeptics who see the folly of the junk science spewed from the mouths of alarmist scientists, who attempt to appear impartial.

Man, what a trip this is...

Washington Times - Al Gore to host 'green' inaugural ball:

Former Vice President Al Gore will host a "green" inaugural ball the night before President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office.

Snow surprises Houston-area residents | Chronicle | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle:

Falling snowflakes glimmered in streetlights, so wide that they billowed to the ground like parachutes, and so tantalizing that even awestruck adults reached out their hands or stuck out their tongues to catch one.

By Wednesday evening, the flakes were big enough to hold their shape for a moment on the street before melting into the pavement, and a dusting had collected on parked cars in some parts of town.

The flurries tied a record for Houston's earliest snowfall ever and warmed the hearts of winter weather lovers who have pined for snow since it last made an appearance on Christmas Eve 2004.

Sleet, snow tail off in New Orleans - Times-Picayune - NOLA.com:

For the first time in nearly four years, snow fell across the New Orleans region this morning, with flurries reported on the north shore and in the city, Metairie, Kenner, LaPlace and other parts of the south shore. By around 10 a.m., the snow had mostly stopped, replaced by freezing rain in many places, making driving treacherous. By noon, the precipitation had mostly ceased altogether.

Obama can sign U.N. climate pact before U.S. law: Kerry | Reuters:

POZNAN, Poland (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate will let President-elect Barack Obama sign up to a U.N. pact to fight global warming in late 2009 even if U.S. climate laws are not yet in place, U.S. Senator John Kerry predicted on Thursday.

Alarmists admit ‘cool year’ but coach you on conclusions to draw

Forget that 2008 will be the ‘coolest’ year of this decade, according to ‘experts.’ 2007 was also quite cold (as you can review by looking over some of our past posts on the empirical evidence of weather phenomenon), and alarmist scientists were coaching us then to disregard the record cold for several reasons.

Remember the prediction about 2008 too! 2008 was going to be among 'the hottest on record' compared against the 'long term average' (a period which laughably amounts to only 30 years out of the Earth's estimated 4.5 billion year age).

They stated, among other things, that the sudden cooling was just a brief anomaly, it was being caused by warming (LOL!), and they have used climate revisionism (La Nina) to explain away the sudden antithetical appearance of cold weather (that is ‘masking’ warming – LOL!). These record cold spells and record winter storms (see China’s misery last winter), in essence, disrupt their entire fearmongering theory (upon which they’ve hung their collective professional reputations).

The question is, why are alarmists ALARMED over these recent cooling trends and our attitudes about it? Because they realize the obvious conundrum that even the stupidest among us can discern—CO2 has continued going up while temperatures have continued to drop (and dropped since 1998, if you believe their baseline). Lately, temperatures have dropped DRAMATICALLY, and CO2 has certainly NOT!

Remember why they NEED this pseudo-religion to be REAL! Scientific reputations are on the line. Federal climate research grants are on the line. Political power is on the line. The ‘Greed Fad’ and associated climate industries are all on the line, and there’s an increasingly skeptical public (at least in the U.S. and U.K.), who are bound and gagged by political correctness from declaring, “I DON’T BELIEVE IN THIS RETARDED STUPIDITY!” The world, however, faces a global economic crisis, and with falling temperatures, the little manmade climate change fart cloud is rapidly dissipating; people don’t want you telling them to buy the expensive ‘green’ light bulbs when they’ve just been laid off. The alarmists' NEED grows daily, or more of their ilk are going to suffer (like the climate team at the Weather Channel).

Forget the junk science in this article. Let’s go over some facts they’ve omitted. Global mean temperatures have only DECLINED since 1998, which Dr. Hansen, alarmo-scientist extraordinaire, declared (and later retracted) as the ‘hottest year ever.’ We’ve also seen his most recent mistake (where he declared October 2008 the hottest ever); he later had to retract this silly assertion when some of my intelligent, skeptical brethren and sistren bloggers pointed out the stupid errors in his skewed data (he used September temperatures instead of October temperatures).

2008 will be coolest year of the decade:

Global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, but cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists

***

The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing however, say climate scientists at the Met Office. "Absolutely not," said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office's Hadley Centre. "If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends."

Prof Myles Allen at Oxford University who runs the climateprediction.net website, said he feared climate sceptics would overinterpret the figure. "You can bet your life there will be a lot of fuss about what a cold year it is. Actually no, its not been that cold a year, but the human memory is not very long, we are used to warm years," he said, "Even in the 80s [this year] would have felt like a warm year."

***

The Met Office predicted at the beginning of the year that 2008 would be cooler than recent years because of a La Niña event - characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It is the mirror image of the El Niño climate cycle. The Met Office had forecast an annual global average of 14.37C.

***

In March, a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade. They said that global temperatures would remain constant until 2015 but would then begin to accelerate.

Enviro-nut Fruitcakery

The environmental fruitcakes are oozing from the cracks and crevices of society. Don’t forget what they diagnose in Australia, and please review the previous post on eco-therapy. A lot of these episodes are rooted in fear, propagated by media stories that delineate bogus, politically-tinged studies (i.e., junk science), which have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Enjoy your global warming corn flakes, you bunch of dimwits (on second thought--don't--we need the corn for biofuel). Move to the mountains and live in bubbles; make Darwin right.

Pa. woman ordered out of chemical-free 'bubble':

Some doctors question whether environmental illness is a genuine physical disorder and suggest it is psychological. Feudale-Bowles says she was diagnosed by Dr. William Rea of Texas, who has been accused by the Texas Medical Board of promoting "pseudoscience." He vigorously disputes the charge and continues to see patients.

Feudale-Bowes says fabric softener, nail polish, perfume, new sneakers, upholstery and many other items can make her body go haywire. She says she has suffered from a range of chronic ailments, including migraines, joint pain, bladder inflammation, seizures and temporary paralysis. Her insides, she says, have sometimes felt like "fire with ground glass in it."

WWF’s Hypocritical Wildlife Tour

No one can say it quite the way Steven Milloy of junkscience.com does; please follow the link and read the entire article for yourself and glean his wisdom. I’ve covered the hypocrisy of green alarmists and carbon prophets (ahem...profits) many times on this blog. If the climate Kool-aid drinkers out there would critically examine the green hypocrisy out there, look at the over-hyped, over-done fearmongering, and really scrutinize the scientific and empirical evidence, they would conclude (as I and others have) that this is the biggest scam ever to be scammed on anyone.   

Five-Star Green Hypocrisy:

Move over Al Gore. Swankier carbon charlatanism has come to town in the form of the World Wildlife Fund’s luxury getaway called "Around the World: A Private Jet Expedition." "Join us on a remarkable 25-day journey by luxury private jet," invites the WWF in a brochure for its voyage to "some of the most astonishing places on the planet to see top wildlife, including gorillas, orangutans, rhinos, lemurs and toucans." For a price tag that starts at $64,950 per person, travelers will meet at the Ritz-Carlton in Orlando, Fla. on April 6, 2009 and then fly to “remote corners” of the world on a “specially outfitted jet that carries just 88 passengers in business-class comfort.”   

***   

This is the very same WWF that says “the current growth in [carbon dioxide] emissions must be stopped as soon as possible” and that blames Americans for emitting 21 percent of global CO2 emissions even though the U.S. accounts for only 5 percent of the global population. In December 2007, the WWF launched its “Earth Hour” campaign, a global initiative in which cities and communities simultaneously turn out their lights for one hour “to symbolize their leadership and commitment to finding solutions for climate change.”   

***   

According to the WWF’s calculator, it would cost in excess of $44,000 to offset the carbon emissions from the jet travel alone. Then there’s the September 2008 report from the General Accounting Office which concluded that the carbon offset market lacked credibility.

Junk Science: NASA prophet trips over facts, falls on face

Steven Milloy of junkscience.com does his usual good job of poking holes in the hyperbole of AGW believers, but particularly against our old non-friend, Dr. James Hansen—the chief climate soothsayer who prophesied twenty years ago while testifying before the U.S. Senate that our destruction at the hands of CO2 would take twenty years! Here we are twenty years later...still here, with the global mean temperature continuing its downward trend as CO2 continues rising (still in minute proportions compared to water and methane).

Before you decide to give Hansen his props as some unassailable, incorruptible climate scientist, you should check out these links at the U.S. Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works (currently the minority page). There is a ton of information here about Hansen, including his financial ties to moveon.org benefactor, George Soros. Isn't that cute? We hear incessantly that climate scientists who debunk global warming are in the pockets of "big oil," and yet here is an example where the "Father of Global Warming" (yes, weird that honor is not reserved for Al Gore) is in the pocket of one of the wealthiest liberal elites to ever walk the ever-cooling Earth.

As an added bonus, John McCain is showing that he’s Obama’s equal on climate stupidity. OR maybe he believes that the American public has been so brainwashed that he has no choice politically but to get on-board with the insanity. It might be a smart political move, but it’s ultimately bad for America.

Look folks, there may be a future in America without oil, but in the near term, oil will be required to continue driving our economy. There’s currently no energy source that is as efficient and as safe as petrol, though some arguments could be made for nuclear energy.

With Y2K, millions were spent to head-off a problem that never occurred. People everywhere panicked and hoarded food, fuel, medicine, and so on, preparing for the coming apocalypse. Proponents would say that spending those millions prevented the disaster, but I’m not certain that’s the case—there was no real way to be completely prepared.

Now, we’re poised to spend trillions in hopes of reducing CO2 emissions, and I contend that it won’t make much of a difference. Wait and see, sheep. The Earth will not succumb to disaster at our hands, and the alarmists will be able to shout that their enacted, expensive solutions made the difference! That’s why they need to sustain the pipe-dream until some sort of large government action is taken; then they can claim their actions led to success. Wait and see, sheep, wait and see. One can almost read this boondoggle like a cheap novel.

Junk Science: Where's McCain’s 'Fuel Cell Express'?

NASA’s James Hansen tried this week to surf the 20th anniversary of his famous congressional testimony that launched global warming hysteria. Apparently not wanting to be left out of the green hoopla, John McCain tried to catch Hansen’s wave.

Both wiped out with embarrassing proposals.

You might have thought that Hansen’s main talking point this week would have been, "See, I was right." But, of course, he wasn’t, so he couldn’t take any credit.

With 20 years of real-life data to compare against Hansen’s 1988 predictions, it’s clear that reality has way underperformed on his fantasy of carbon-dioxide-stoked warming.

No doubt this is in large part due to Hansen’s yet-to-be-validated assumption that manmade CO2 emissions drive global climate in a meaningful way.

Hansen has been so far off the mark in forecasting global warming that he seems to have forsaken it altogether in favor of simply declaring that atmospheric CO2 levels must be reduced from the current level of about 380 parts per million to less than 350 ppm "to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed."

But there is no scientific analysis to support 350 ppm or any other specific target as the preferred level of atmospheric CO2; moreover, 350 ppm also is not something likely to happen in our lifetimes no matter what we do.

***

Bereft of science, Hansen was left to do what he does best — act the drama queen, as he did in 2006 when he likened the Bush administration to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for reviewing his public presentations before he made them.

***

Earlier this week, as part of his proposal that taxpayers award $300 million to the developer of the next generation auto battery that would leapfrog hybrid and electric car technology, McCain also proposed that auto manufacturers be given a $5,000 tax credit for every zero-emissions vehicle they sell.

But when you do the math, McCain’s proposal turns out to be little more than a taxpayer rip-off in favor of ZEV makers

Does Krauthammer read Global Shamming?

Krauthammer must be reading this blog, because I've been saying these same things since my first post of January 5th. As a matter of fact, you can see all my posts on the subject of class systems and AGW by simply searching my blog with the words "capitalism" or "socialism." My post on the U.K. carbon ration cards can be read here, and just like Krauthammer...I draw the same conclusions about the battle of the classes.

I often find myself agreeing with Krauthammer, but I agree with Milloy of junkscience.com here in one sense; the term "denier" shouldn't be used seriously about oneself by someone--even in the negative sense--who questions the motives of climate alarmists. I mockingly call myself a denier all the time, just to stick it in the face of the stupid Kook-Aid drinkers.

FOXNews.com - Junk Science: Time to Retire 'Denier' - Opinion:

In Charles Krauthammer's May 30 must-read column, "Carbon Chastity," he rightly lambastes environmentalists as resurrected communists/socialists who have latched on to the environment and climate change as a means to advance their anti-people social agenda.

The specific occasion for his justifiable outrage is a recent proposal by a British parliamentary committee to institute a personal carbon ration card for every citizen.

Another "flat earth" scientist debunks global warming stupidity

Just so you know, not everyone is marching in step like a zombie. Dr. Douglass at the University of Rochester is pointing out some "inconvenient truths," and Steven Milloy of junkscience.com made some great points about a subject that global warming alarmists hate to discuss--the sun and it's role in heating and cooling the Earth.

FOXNews.com - Study: Part of Global-Warming Model May Be Wrong:

Part of the scientific consensus on global warming may be flawed, a new study asserts.

The researchers compared predictions of 22 widely used climate "models" — elaborate schematics that try to forecast how the global weather system will behave — with actual readings gathered by surface stations, weather balloons and orbiting satellites over the past three decades.

The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

"Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no," said lead study author David H. Douglass, a physicist specializing in climate at the University of Rochester.

FOXNews.com - It's the Sun, Stupid - Opinion:

When the international global warming alarm-ocracy gathers for its annual convention on the balmy island of Bali next week, is there any chance that the delegates will look up at the big yellow ball in the sky and ask, “Could it be the Sun, stupid?”

New research suggests that would be a great question for them to consider.

A recent study from the Journal of Geophysical Research (November 2007) reports that the sun may have contributed 50 percent or more of the global warming thought to have occurred since 1900.

Researchers from Duke University and the U.S. Army Research Office report that climate appears to be insensitive to solar variation if you accept the global temperature trend for the past 1,000 years as represented by the so-called “hockey stick” graph — which claims to show essentially unchanging temperatures between from 1000 to 1900 and then a sharp uptick from 1900 to the present. But the hockey stick-graph has been relegated to the ash heap of global warming history.

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."

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.

Scientist demands that ABC apologize

Steven Milloy from junkscience.com had a great write up on this subject just the other day.

FOXNews.com - Junk Science: Global Smearing - Opinion:

By any standard, atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer is a remarkably accomplished scientist. But his outspoken questioning of global warming alarmism has just earned him one of the most outrageous mainstream media smear pieces I’ve ever seen.

ABC News reporter Dan Harris interviewed Singer for more than an hour at the recent International Climate Conference. From that interview, Harris produced a three-minute TV broadcast and Web site article that was about as fair and objective toward Singer as I might expect Greenpeace to be.

Thanks also to Noel Sheppard at NB! Great read. Don't think the media has chosen a side, eh? Oh, that's right...the consensus can't be questioned. I forgot...sorry Jim Jones Gore.

Scientist Demands Apology From ABC for Global Warming Hit Piece | NewsBusters.org:

LETTER TO ABC NEWS

TO: Felicia Biberica Fiona Conway
Producer Executive director ABC News
ABC News
W. 66th St.
New York City 10023

Dear Ms Biberica and Ms Conway March 25, 2008

I share the anger expressed in nearly 100 postings (so far) at the shoddy handling of my interview aired on March 23: It was an appalling display of bias, unfairness, journalistic misbehavior, and a breakdown of ethical standards. It used prejudicial language, distorted facts, libelous insinuations, and anonymous smears. I urge you to read the postings; only one person offered any support to ABC, as far as I can see.

I put the following account on my website www.sepp.org:

1. Interviewer Dan Harris used a man from Greenpeace who spouted conspiracy theories about me, showing someone's diagram that 'connects' me to groups alleged to be financed by oil companies. The only purpose I can think of is to suggest to viewers that I am in the pay of oil companies and that therefore my science is somehow tainted and not credible. First, the suggestion is completely false. I am not financed or supported by oil companies or by any industry. Then, Harris tried to suggest that I misrepresented by denying oil company support but admitting receiving an unsolicited donation. I draw a distinction --as would any reasonable person -- between being 'supported' and between a single charitable donation (constituting a tiny fraction of 1%) of all donations received. Finally, the word 'connected' is imprecise, and can mean anything from being on a mailing list to holding a position and receiving a salary. In my case it is definitely the former.

2. Dan Harris also referred to unnamed scientists from NASA, Princeton and Stanford, who pronounced what I do as 'fraudulent nonsense.' [The ABC website changed it to 'fabricated' nonsense - perhaps on advice of ABC's lawyers.] They are easily identified as the well-known Global Warming zealots Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, and Steve Schneider. They should be asked by ABC to put their money where their mouth is and have a scientific debate with me. [I suspect they'll chicken out. They surely know that the facts support my position -- so they resort to anonymous slurs.] Hansen is no longer the careful scientist he was but has turned into an ideologue willing to publish junk 'research'. Oppenheimer, who may still be on the payroll of Environmental Defense, an activist lobbying group, has negligible credentials. Schneider has not published significant research in years. Both Hansen and Oppenheimer could be labeled as ‘Contrarians’ since they disagree with important conclusions of the UN-IPCC.

3. Dan Harris did mention my doubts about the lung-cancer effects of Second-Hand Smoke, about the danger of toxic waste (spent nuclear fuel), and about 'Nuclear Winter.' All true -- Dan did his research but withheld the full story. On SHS, I simply quoted from the experts (see attached review article from a noted medical doctor, specializing in lung disease). Nuclear fuel presents no technical problems, only political ones. France and Britain handle its disposal; why don't we? 'Nuclear Winter' (which burst onto the scene in 1983 -- and disappeared quickly) was basically a fraud, invented to shore up an ideological position. We disposed of it in a debate moderated by Ted Koppel on ABC-Nightline. But Harris left the audience with the impression that I am a ‘career skeptic’, and therefore my skepticism about manmade GW should be ignored.

4. Yours is supposed to be a news program not an opinion journal. Dan Harris completely ignored the new scientific evidence against anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) and the fact that 100 other scientists presented papers that support this view. The Heartland Conference in NY had an attendance of more than 500, practically all of them AGW skeptics. That’s news, but ABC ignored it.

Conclusion: ABC owes it to its audience and to me to make appropriate corrections -- an apology and retraction by Dan Harris on the World News program.

Sincerely,

S. Fred Singer, PhD (Physics, Princeton)
Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
Fellow, American Physical Society

Scrutiny is happening

Meteorologists still can’t even accurately predict the basic weather five days in advance right now, but yet we’re going to listen to politically-connected “scientists” who predict we’ll be swimming with the fishes in 50 to 100 years because of man’s activities and believe them? Give me A FREAKIN’ BREAK! This doesn’t even pass the moron test; never mind all the problems with the faulty science and math behind this farce that has become AGW.

Climate panel on the hot seat - The Washington Times:

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

And more media scrutiny from the great Steven Milloy at junkscience.com.

FOXNews.com - Junk Science: The Washington Post-er Child for Climate Bias - Opinion:

Eilperin’s March 10 article (WaPo) entitled "Carbon Output Must Near Zero to Avert Danger, New Studies Say" has the same sort of journalistic objectivity one might expect from totalitarian state-controlled media.

With nary a critical word about the computer models used to project increases in global temperature, Eilperin touted two new model-dependent studies that "suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide."

So why would any rational person assume that they can be used to predict future climate or serve as a basis for developing national energy policy? As reported in this column last December, global climate models uniformly predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than have actually occurred.

EPA: stop breathing! It's a pollutant?

The government (i.e., we the people...) may soon need more revenue (i.e., our taxes) to clean up our breath, since the very fact that we breath is heating up the Earth to the point of killing us all, LOL.

FOXNews.com - Junk Science: Breath Is Toxic Waste? - Opinion:

The federal government soon may declare your very breath to be toxic regardless of its minty freshness.

Consistent with last spring’s Supreme Court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency may regulate carbon dioxide as a hazardous air pollutant, the agency is evaluating how CO2 could be regulated as a hazardous substance under its notorious Superfund program, according to Carbon Control News from March 4.

So at the risk of exhaling and being held retroactively liable (more on that later), let’s take a deep breath and consider the potential impact of likening CO2 to the substances of concern at Love Canal, Times Beach and the thousands of other former and current Superfund waste sites and dumps across the nation.