Global Warming Science That Hides The Truth
Nov 27, 2009 Political
Looks like the Global Warming science that is “settled” became a bit unsettled after a large amount of data from climate scientists was either hacked into or released by an insider. The email messages among climate scientists paints a picture of deception and cover-up.
Scientists lamented about data that showed cooling rather than warming, discussed tricks to manipulate data to get the results they wanted, lamented over data that showed a cooling trend, cheered the death of a scientist critical of global warming, and discussed ways of breaking the law to avoid freedom of information requests as well as ways to keep critics from publishing peer reviewed papers.
Not that any of this has been thoroughly investigated by the main stream media.
Does this mean that man made global warming is a hoax? Not in and of itself though it is highly suggestive that the so called settled science is anything but settled.
The so called reputable scientists that global warming supporters point to as the beacons of truth have taken a serious hit because they demonstrated that they are not so reputable after all. Their leaked emails show a group of people who manipulated science to push an agenda rather than people who used science to prove or disprove global warming.
This shows what I have said all along and that is the science is not settled. It can’t be when the data used to settle it is flawed. It also shows that while we need to continue using good science to investigate the climate, we do not need to commit trillions of dollars to something that is quite unsettled.
The global warming crowd tried to squeeze out scientists who did not toe the line for the cause and this has come back to bite them.
The hockey stick graph has been discredited and now the scientists involved in global warming study have been discredited as well.
Al Gore needs a new line because the science is not settled.
If anything, the dishonesty is quite unsettling.
Sources:
Daily Mail UK
Washington Times
Guardian UK (Lamenting about how this hurts and throwing blame to deniers)
WSJ (very damning article)
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: al gore, fraud, global warming, hoax, settled science
Stupidest Idea- Ever
Oct 20, 2009 Political
Well, the Fifth Circuit Court has opened the door for victims of Hurricane Katrina to sue possible emitters of “greenhouse” gases for their plight- never mind that many of them have moved elsewhere and gotten on with their lives.
Also, do not mind the fact that “Global Warming”, ostensibly the grounds for suit, is still hotly contested as real or not. If you ask Al Gore, who stands to make oodles of money from all his green projects, AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a danger to us all.
If you ask others, not so much- especially when many of the people who previously had touted AGW now have had to reverse themselves and admit that the earth has actually cooled in the last ten years.
That aside, these lawyers (yes- there will be lawyers) are going to go after any and all deep pockets industries they can think of in a bid to get lots of money- not necessarily for their clients, but certainly for themselves. Gotta look out for number one, right? They are doing this even when it is hard to prove, A)- that these specific industries have in fact specifically contributed to AGW, and B)- that this alleged AGW aggravation spawned Hurricane Katrina, or Rita, or any other storm. After this year, with no hurricanes making landfall, and no damage from these storms, have they a case? I don’t think so.
For years, leading plaintiffs’ lawyers have promised a legal assault on industrial America for contributing to global warming.
So far, the trial bar has had limited success. The hurdles to such suits are pretty obvious: How do you apportion fault and link particular plaintiffs’ injuries to the pollution emitted by a particular group of defendants?
Today, though, plaintiffs’ lawyers may be a gloating a bit, after a favorable ruling Friday from the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, which is regarded as one of the more conservative circuit courts in the country. Here’s a link to the ruling.
The suit was brought by landowners in Mississippi, who claim that oil and coal companies emitted greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming that, in turn, caused a rise in sea levels, adding to Hurricane Katrina’s ferocity.
blogs.wsj.com
There was no rise in sea levels- that is plain bull- what happened was simple storm surge. Sure storm surge sucks, but that is life plain and simple.
In the 1880s, there was a town on Matagorda Bay in Texas called Indianola. It was a nice town, poised to become a hub of major commerce, having both a port, and a railroad that ran through the town.
A Hurricane came through, a pretty strong one by all accounts (they had no way to measure the strength of hurricanes back then), and hit Indianola head on, literally wiping it off of the face of the earth, leaving only the railroad tracks. People who survived, did so by climbing trees to escape the storm surge, which went inland as far as twenty miles.
When the survivors climbed down, assessed the situation and began to clean up and bury the dead, they vowed to rebuild. After all, they reasoned, that was a freak storm, and would never happen again.
So they rebuilt, better than before, and in less than a year, had their town up and running again (all without any federal assistance).
That next year, another major Hurricane came and wiped them out again, this time destroying even the railroad tracks. Now, there is no port- there are no railroad tracks. Indianola is just a sleepy little bait camp stopover now, and that will be all it ever is again.
But you see, this is before Global Warming, before even the industrial age had much of any effect- before oil and gas, there was just coal, and that was not even in great use here.
So what is the broader significance of the ruling? We checked in with Jackson for his take.
At a minimum, he says, the ruling will invite more climate-change litigation in the future.
“With this decision,” he says, “you are now pretty well assured of seeing others file these kinds of claims.”
Last month, he notes, the Second Circuit held that states and municipalities had standing to sue to impose on caps on certain companies’ greenhouse gas emissions. Here’s an overview from Skadden of that ruling.
In contrast with the Second Circuit, the Fifth Circuit case may be particularly inviting to tort lawyers, since the New Orleans court opened the door to “a case by private litigants, a class action, seeking an enormous amount of damages,” Jackson says.
Still, Jackson notes, the Katrina case is at an early stage, and the Fifth Circuit’s ruling “does not mean there is enough causation evidence to survive a motion to dismiss.”
blogs.wsj.com
Lawyers sure do stick together, don’t they- and they can smell money, even when they have to make up “facts” to suit their case. The people of New Orleans deserve to be able to look ahead and get on with their lives, not stuck in a rut, waiting to see if some lawyer can get them a payday. Stuck in a courtroom, they will never be able to look ahead. The only people who will get rich off of this ridiculous set of claims will be the lawyers, as the case will be bounced from court to court faster than Serena Williams can volley a tennis ball.
This really is The Stupidest Idea- Ever.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
A Very Bad Idea
Oct 12, 2009 Political
Even as the focus is on healthcare, the climate bill, known as Cap and Tax, is sneaking through Congress, with even some RINOS like Lindsey Graham undergoing a pod- like body snatcher transformation, as he signs on to the flawed and expensive legislation-previously he had been against it. And he was right to have been against it- it is a very bad bill.
It does nothing but allow the government to take over a good portion of everyone’s lives, and will cost jobs- it will cost a lot of jobs, including union jobs.
Nestled in Ohio’s Amish country, Bill Belden’s 124-year-old family owned brick company has thrived on the region’s rich red clay and shale, and cheap energy from abundant coal.
Which he’s convinced that a climate bill being considered in Congress will end.
A cap-and-trade system forcing businesses away from fossil fuels, especially coal, will mean higher electricity and natural gas costs, he says. And layoffs at the Belden Brick Co.
“We’re already under severe economic strain,” said Belden, standing beside towering stacks of fresh bricks outside one of the six plants that ring Sugarcreek.
The town, about 80 miles south of Cleveland, calls itself “the Little Switzerland of Ohio.” Signs dot the highway hailing the annual Swiss Festival, quaint bed and breakfasts, and restaurants that feature traditional Dutch Amish cooking.
It’s brick, however, that’s Sugarcreek’s economic foundation.
A lifelong Republican, Belden said his criticism of the Democratic-run Congress over global warming isn’t about politics, but economics. “We’ve got to compete in the world and to do so we need low cost energy,” he argues.
kansascity.com
Of course it isn’t about politics- until the liberals make it so, by making it much harder to keep costs down- cheap energy is what is needed right now- our economy demands it.
It’s a 30-minute drive up Interstate 77 from Belden’s plants to the United Steelworkers Union office just outside Canton. Former steelworker Joe Holcomb, now a district representative for the union, says that a dozen years ago the union had 65,000 members in the state. It’s now about 50,000.
Like Brown, Holcomb and union members see the climate bill debate in Washington as a path to new manufacturing jobs and way to push those numbers up again – or at least stem the slide. That’s why the national union strongly backs the cap-and-trade legislation.
If energy prices jump, Holcomb says he’ll put up a windmill and generate his own power.
But he’s not exactly a tree-hugging environmentalist. He recalls the push decades ago to clean up Ohio’s rivers and sooty air from factory smokestacks. The water became cleaner, the air healthier, but factories closed, production became more expensive, jobs were lost, he said.
His warning to those in Washington: Don’t make the same mistake.
“If we’re just going to put a bill in and say we’re going to clean the air … but not create jobs, we’ve already seen that happen. We’ve got to do it in a way that’s going to bring jobs into this country and not let them go out of here.”
Many of the union’s members work across town, producing specialty steel at a mill owned by the Timken Co., a $5.6 billion global manufacturer of high-grade precision bearings for everything from cars and locomotives to jetliners and giant wind turbines. Of its 25,000 employees worldwide, about 5,000 are in Ohio.
It’s electricity bill for the steel mill and five other Ohio facilities runs as much as $50 million a year.
Ward “Tim” Timken Jr., company’s chairman, said the United States has no business capping carbon pollution and fossil fuel use unless other countries act as well.
“This whole notion that the U.S. is going to lead and set the example because it’s the moral thing to do is foolish,” he said in an interview at the company’s technology center adjacent to the Akron-Canton airport.
Timken, a member of one of Ohio’s most influential Republican families, said he doesn’t understand why the steelworkers would support the climate bill.
“These guys have to wake up and realize that their jobs are stake,” he said.
If the bill became law, “there would be some very difficult decisions to be made, quite frankly. I’ve got a global footprint. A quarter of my work force is in Asia. I’ve got manufacturing in Eastern Europe,” he said. “These are very real threats that we’re talking about.”
kansascity.com
The liberals continue to mistakenly believe that the jobs we shed will magically be reinvented, and perhaps that might be true in a long run (if you believe in unicorns), but we would see a depression the likes of which we have never seen, because, unless other countries signed onto the same restrictions we impose on ourselves, this bill will have the only true effect of impoverishing our country unnecessarily. And all in the mistaken myth of “Global Warming”- a myth that has no basis in reality, just in the minds of liberals who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
Quid enim est veritas? What, then, is the truth? The single question whose answer gives us the truth about the climate question is this: By how much will any given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration warm the world? We now know the answer. The oceans, which must store 80-90% of all heat-energy accumulated in the atmosphere as a result of the radiative imbalance caused by greater greenhouse-gas concentration, have shown no net accumulation of heat for almost 70 years, implying a very small influence of CO2 on temperature (Douglass & Knox, 2009). The devastating analysis of cloud-albedo effects shortly to be published by Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville will show that the UN has wrongly decided that cloud changes reinforce greenhouse warming, when in fact they substantially offset it. Repeated studies of the tropical upper troposphere (e.g. Douglass et al., 2008) show that it is failing to warm at thrice the surface rate as required by all of the UN’s models, again implying very low climate sensitivity. The clincher is Professor Richard Lindzen’s meticulous recent paper demonstrating – by direct measurement – that the amount of radiation escaping from the Earth’s atmosphere to space is many times greater than the UN’s models are all told to believe. From this, the world’s most formidable atmospheric physicist has calculated that a doubling of CO2 concentration, expected over the next 150 years, would cause 0.75 C (1.5 F) of warming, at most: not the 3.4 C (6 F) that the UN takes as its central estimate.
Most analysts would stop there. Yet some might ask, “Suppose that the single satellite on which Lindzen’s results depend is defective. What then?” They might consider the economic cost of attempting to mitigate the “global warming” which, as our Monthly Reports demonstrate, is not actually happening. The figures turn out to be startlingly simple. To mitigate just 1 C (2 F) of warming, one must forego the emission of 2 trillion tons of CO2. The world emits just 30 billion tons a year. So the analyst, as a thought-experiment, would shut down the entire world economy, emitting no CO2 at all. Even then, and even on the incorrect assumption that the UN’s exaggerated projections of the effect of CO2 on temperature are correct, it would take 67 years to mitigate 1 C warming. Preventing the 3.4 C (6 F) warming that the UN’s climate panel thinks would occur in 100 years would take 225 years without any transportation, and with practically no electrical energy. The national security advisor would at that point advise his head of government that there has never been any security threat less grave, or more expensive to prevent, than the non-problem that is “global warming”. It is the fearmongers that are the real national security threat.
americanthinker.com
Yes, it is the fearmongers, because these people want your money, and more importantly, they want you to live as they think you should- they do not trust you to be able to live as you yourself wish to. This is contrary to the American Dream, where you as an individual are able to chart your own course. A denial of freedom of choice- but this does not bother these control freaks at all; no, they want the power to dictate what you do and how you do it.
Their whole policy is based on a lie, a very big lie.
And that is always a very bad idea.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: al gore, climate, depression, job loss, liberal lies
The Green, Green Grass of Fraud
May 23, 2009 Political
The Waxman-Markey bill made it out of committee yesterday, but there is still some hope that sensible people can throw themselves on this fiscal grenade of a bill, before it irreparably harms the public with higher taxes and fewer jobs.
The bill itself is physically 900+ pages of misdirection and hype. Contrast that with the Highway bill that basically created the Interstate system that comprised 29 pages- I guess that people back then didn’t need to obscure their intent with legalese.
It was the object of one of the biggest lobbying campaigns of any piece of environmental legislation, with millions of dollars spent on both sides in the months leading up to Thursday’s vote. Lawmakers heard from former Vice President Al Gore, local utility companies, hunters and fishermen, national environmental groups, agricultural interests and the coal, oil and natural gas industries. – N.Y. Times
No kidding. As Bjorn Lomborg, the author of The Climate- Industrial Complex points out, U. S. companies and other interested groups had hired 2,430 lobbyists last year, and that was up 300% from a year ago. So much for no lobbyists in the Barama administration, huh? Heck, the biggest utilities spent over 50 million on lobbying in just six months. Green truly is the color of money-for those in power circles- not so much with us “common” people though.
As Mr. Lomborg writes, ” The massive transter of wealth that many businesses seek is not necessarily good for the rest of the economy. Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the progress resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created.” – WSJ.com
And its not only the losses in jobs we as consumers have to worry about- this is truly the new scam of the century, and these “Carbon Barons”, as they would tout themselves, stand to make millions on the backs of consumers like you and me. This weekend, as we speak, (or read), the World Business Summit On Climate Change is meeting in Copenhagen, ready to hammer out the division of the spoils. Interested parties who stand to gain millions will all be there. Duke Energy, a major player in electrical production, has long promoted the cap and trade scheme, and it is quite a scheme. But they were opposed to the Warner- Lieberman bill, because it didn’t favor coal companies enough. That’s bound to tick off some lefties, because the favorable language is back in the Waxman- Markey version.
Still, all the major players will be at this conference, even Al Gore, who stands to increase his net worth from 2 million dollars to over 100 million dollars if this climate change bill is passed- heck we might as well just write our checks directly to the wooden man.
“The opening keynote address is to be delivered by Al Gore, who actually represents all three groups: He is a politician, a campaigner, and the chair of a green private- equity firm invested in products that a climate- scared world would buy.” – WSJ.com
And then there are the other interested parties, like the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, a company called Vestas, who, it’s a safe bet, will be touting wind energy as the cureall to our energy blues. The propaganda flows fast and furious in this (no pun intended) environment, as Vestas also sponsors CNN’s “Climate in Peril” segment, which hopefully will increase support for policies that would increase the earnings of this company.
And then, let us not forget GE- the company that is promoting the smartgrid technology, solar panels, and ion- lithium batteries, all to be used heavily in this new energy world of ours. Is it coincidence that Jeffery Immelt, the CEO of GE, and head of the three TV networks that routinely kiss Barama’s butt (NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC) is also our Energy Czar? I mean really, this doesn’t stink to high heaven of collusion? Transparency my butt- this is just a power grab for money alone, greed pure and simple, and Barama is at the head of the line, due to get paid off big- time by turning his hypocritical back on the poor people he so piously claimed to want to protect. Why, this beats the Catholic Church’s Selling of Blessings as the world’s Biggest Hypocrisy. Congrats.
Barack Hussein Obama is a LIAR, plain and simple. What’s worse, is he is proving himself to be a con man, unconcerned about walking over the people he said he cared for, all in a quest for money and power.
While I might support the research into alternatives to fossil fuels, decisions are being made on a global scale now that will affect us negatively for literally generations to come, and we will be forced to become “carbon slaves” to the new overlords of power generation, made to work in an environment that favors the big businesses that control that power. Sound familiar?
The new Boss, same as the old Boss.
Now, that’s change you can believe in.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: al gore, duke energy, electricity, fraud, GE, green
Al Gore Is Mistaken
May 15, 2009 Political
One would think the guy who claimed to invent the Internet would be able to use it to verify something before making a statement that is completely inaccurate. Politico reports that Gore was interviewed on CNN where he was critical of former VP Dick Cheney’s criticisms of Barack Obama. Gore stated that he waited two years before he was critical of George Bush:
“I waited two years after I left office to make statements that were critical,” Gore said during an interview on CNN, pointing out that his critiques were focused on “policy.”
George Bush took office in January 2001 so Gore would have had to remain silent until January 2003. A quick search of Google using the term “Gore criticizes Bush” yields a ton of results. A few of them are before January 2003 which means that Gore was either mistaken or untruthful. Regardless of which, he was careless because this information can be found very easily.
“But instead of embracing the bipartisan national consensus to improve our environment, the Bush administration has chosen to serve the special interests instead of the public interests and to subsidize the obsolete, failed approaches of the past instead of the exciting new solutions of the future.” The Berkeley Daily Planet 23 April 2002
Ten days after criticizing President Bush’s handling of Iraq, Al Gore offered a scathing assessment today of Mr. Bush’s stewardship of the American economy. Mr. Gore said Mr. Bush’s policies had created a “crisis of confidence in U.S. economic leadership throughout the world.” The New York Times 3 October 2002
Gore called for increasing the international security force in Afghanistan and broadening its mandate beyond Kabul, the capital, to the whole country. He urged Bush to pay greater attention to the views of NATO allies, and criticized him for pursuing a more unilateral foreign policy than President Clinton. CNN 13 February 2002
The second quote indicates that Gore criticized Bush ten days prior to this criticism. To be fair, the third quote is from an article in which Gore almost completely agrees with Bush’s positions on the war on terror and he praises Bush for some of the things he accomplished.
The fact remains, Al Gore was critical of George Bush earlier than the two years he claimed in the CNN interview. In his rush to smear Cheney and defend Obama, Gore made himself look like a fool. Not that the MSM would follow up on that and not that Gore needed this to look like a fool.
Perhaps it is Al Gore who has a fever…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: al gore, cnn, criticsm, dick cheney