Cold globe trumped by warm Adelaide

Here.

Richard Branson's son demonstrates his lack of belief in global warming catastrophe

From this New York Times article:

SAM BRANSON, the 22-year-old musician, sometime male model, friend of Princes William and Harry and son of the Virgin Group billionaire Richard Branson, was on familiar turf: ordering Kobe beef tartare at Ono, an elegant Japanese restaurant in the meatpacking district.
...
“It’s like the Ice Age,” Mr. Steger said. “Very quiet, very peaceful.” (Except when polar bears are kept at bay with explosive charges.)
...
Mr. Branson’s life couldn’t be more different from that of his dinner companions. Mr. Steger and Ms. Ekran both live in the woods in cabins without electricity — Mr. Steger in northern Minnesota, Ms. Ekran in the Yukon — while Mr. Branson divides his time among London, New York, Los Angeles and Necker Island, his family’s private island in the Caribbean, whose name he has tattooed in Sanskrit on his forearm.

1. If you're serious about lowering your "carbon footprint", is Kobe beef really an appropriate food choice?:

[KOH-bee] An exclusive grade of beef from cattle raised in Kobe, Japan. These pampered cattle are massaged with sake and fed a special diet that includes plentiful amounts of beer. This specialized treatment results in beef that is extraordinarily tender and full-flavored. It also makes the beef extravagantly expensive, which is why it's rarely available in the United States. See also beef.

2. About using explosive charges near polar bears--are we talking about the ones that are allegedly under "unprecedented environmental stress" because of global warming? Are we talking about using explosives to scare mother polar bears, who haven't eaten since last fall, and who are just emerging from dens with their fluffy, innocent, sad-eyed cubs?

3. If you truly cared about carbon dioxide emissions, would you be "dividing your time" between London, New York, Los Angeles, and some private island in the Caribbean?

So where's Gore today?

If it's Saturday, I guess it must be India.

Excerpts from this article:

“Fast-developing countries like India have a right to aspire for higher standards of living and set whatever goals they think are appropriate.” Mr. Gore said this to a question on the differences between the developed and developing countries on greenhouse gas emission cuts.
...
Asked whether economic recession fears and paucity of time before the December 2009 climate meet would push aside climate change issues from the agenda of the new U.S. President, Mr. Gore said they were working on building a “groundswell of public opinion” to ensure that the U.S. took a position of leadership on climate change in the Copenhagen conference.

If there's any related groundswell of public opinion in the U.S., it's going against Gore' alarmism, not for it.

Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation

Here.

Excerpt:

The claimed unanimity of the scientific community about the human culpability for global warming is questioned. Up today there exists no scientific proof of human culpability. It is not the number of authors of a paper, which validates its scientific content. The use of probability to assert the degree of certainty with respect the global warming problem is shown to be misleading. The debate about global warming has taken on emotional tones driven by passion and irrationality while it should be a scientific debate. The degree of hostility used to mull any dissonance voice demonstrates that the current debate has acquired a quasi-religious nature. Scientists are behaving as priests in their will "to save the planet". We are facing a dangerous social phenomenon, which must be addressed from the social point of view. The current unanimity of citizens, scientists, journalists, intellectuals and politicians is intrinsically worrying. The calls to sacrifice our way of life to calm down the upset nature is an emotional ancestral reminiscence of archaic fears, which should be analyzed as such.

Ad Council Uses Children in Horrific Global Warming Commercials

Here.

For your children, you can buy some political propaganda disguised as "science"!

See this article, entitled "Nobel Laureate Al Gore release children books on climate change".

The view from January 2001

From the perspective of 2008, I think it's pretty interesting to read this January 26, 2001 Salon.com article, entitled "Overwhelming evidence of global warming".

Excerpts:

After this week's release of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report on global warming -- the strongest scientific evidence ever linking climate change to man's activities -- environmentalists and scientists say the time has come for President Bush to come up with a policy to address this slow-moving ecological crisis.

The study predicts that the Earth's temperature could increase up to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. In fact, it says we just exited the warmest decade in the last 140 years.
...
The new report states emphatically that "most" of the warming, especially over the last 50 years, is attributable to human activity, and not to natural occurrences such as normal climate variations from one decade to another, changes in sunlight or volcanic activity, which can cool the atmosphere.
...
"Remember Chicago?" [then-IPCC head] Watson asks, referring to the 1995 heatwave that killed over 500 people in that city. "I'm not saying that we expect 500 people to die, but it's that type of phenomenon."
...
Ironically, some environmentalists believe the best hope for an international treaty lies in the new Bush administration. They say a slow changing of the guard gives them hope that this administration will be able to do what the previous one could not.

Sun still blank, no sign of cycle 24

Here.

CONCESSIONS TO GERMANY THREATEN EU CLIMATE PLAN

Here. (Via Benny Peiser)

Excerpt:

Europe's chances of spearheading a global post-Kyoto climate change accord were jeopardised yesterday when Germany secured pledges that several of its heavy industries could be protected from international competition and exempted from the EU's plan to combat global warming.

The concessions, agreed at a summit of European leaders in Brussels, will also complicate the chances of Europe delivering on its commitments to slash greenhouse gas emissions by a fifth by 2020.

Yeah, good luck with that

See "How To Win An Argument With A Climate Change Skeptic" here.

Global warming: The Debate Resumes (eco world)

Here.

K7RA on solar cycle “pessimists” and “optimists”

Here.

Human-caused global warming slips from the realm of "fact"

I'm starting to see phrasing like this much more frequently these days:

Whether or not you believe in Global Warming (since when did science become a matter of faith?), you’ll probably be interested in the upcoming Earth Hour, a 23-city event that aims to make a statement about the need for climate change...

Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl

Here.

Foster at Globe 2008

See the posts here.

From this post:

Was there ever a more transparent ploy than invoking the interests of future generations to justify your own worldview? Could anything be more bizarre than the concept of destroying the jobs of present parents so that those jobs might somehow, magically, be teleported to their great-grandchildren? Is there a more obvious and objectionable strategy for writing off your intellectual opponents than implying that they lack the love for their children that you have for yours?

US told to go green on carbon emissions or lose EU flights

From this article:

US airlines must pay for their carbon dioxide emissions or face a curb on flights to the European Union, the EU transport commissioner warned yesterday.
...
All airlines flying in and out of the EU must subscribe to the scheme but the International Air Transport Association has warned that 170 countries oppose the move.

European carriers want foreign rivals coopted on to the scheme because airlines who refuse to buy carbon credits will offer lower fares...

More alarmism from Joe Romm

From this salon.com article:

The gravest threat to the American way of life is posed by unrestricted greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

I don't think Romm has even a basic understanding of the data that allegedly backs his carbon dioxide hysteria.

For example, see his claim of "incredible warming" in February 2008 (debunked at the bottom of this post).

United Nations' "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" Under Fire for Incompetence

Here.

Schwarzengger: Nukes Are Great

Here.

WARNING: The Alarmists Are Coming

Here.

IREA customers oppose measures

From this article:

A majority of Intermountain Rural Electric Association customers polled have spoken against rebates, subsidies and energy taxes proposed to require power companies to fund portions of alternative energy initiatives and conservation.

Rebates offered to customers who installed solar energy systems were opposed by 65 percent of survey respondents. The taxation of carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels was opposed by 85 percent. An energy conservation bill requiring 2 percent of growth to be invested in energy conservation and a proposal requiring power companies to buy back electricity generated by consumers was opposed by 78 percent.

Prompting the survey were three pending bills and one Colorado Constitutional Amendment.

Duke Dozier, Bailey-based board member for District 2, believes the main reason for the opposition is the fear of raising energy costs, something he said he can understand in the context of the current economic outlook.
...
Dozier said the heart of the debate is global warming, something he isn't convinced is caused by burning fossil fuels. He believes the warming has a lot to do with the sun.

More from Newsbusters

"NBC’s Global Warming Magic: Cap-and-Trade to Make Solar Energy Affordable" here

"Media Ignore Weather Channel Founder's Intent to Sue Gore for Fraud on Global Warming" here

Odd stuff from alarmist Joseph Romm

(See the 3/14/08 update at the bottom of this post)

Regarding Joseph Romm's Salon.com piece here:

1. I think it's humorous that he talks about it being "increasingly obvious" that the planet is warming, while carefully avoiding any mention of the recent significant drop in global temperature.

2. He also describes the evidence for "catastrophic" anthropogenic warming as "amazingly strong" without ever articulating just what that evidence might be.

3. He describes positive feedback this way:

Yes, historically, glacial periods appear to end with an initial warming started by changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun. This in turn leads to increases in carbon dioxide (and methane), which then accelerate the warming, which increases the emissions, which increases the warming. That amplifying feedback in the global carbon cycle is what drives the global temperature to change so fast.

But again, Romm never explains how the recent large drop in temperature fits with this bogus theory.

4. I particularly enjoyed this paragraph:

Last April, in an article titled "Conservative Climate," Scientific American noted that objections by Saudi Arabia and China led the IPCC to remove a sentence stating that the impact of human greenhouse gas emissions on the Earth's recent warming is five times greater than that of the sun. In fact, lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England said, "The difference is really a factor of 10."

5. In a related blog post here, Romm provides this paragraph that he says was cut because the Salon piece was too long:

I do believe in science. And I do believe in real-world observations. Perhaps the central question of our time is whether those who don't will stop those who do from saving the planet.

Update: Check out the comment by "Joe Romm" below.

Note that the second post in that comment is entitled "Where is the media on the incredible warming and extreme weather of February?".

I wonder what "incredible" February warming Joe could be talking about?



Source of the above graph

Interesting claim by a WWF official

From this article:

Deforestation may also be behind the severe La Nina effect this year, as deforestation fuels climate change, [Fitrian Ardiansyah, climate and energy program director for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)] said. In Taiwan, La Nina has been blamed for strong cold fronts and dust storms this year and has been pinned for causing unusual weather elsewhere around the globe.

Why don't you just give us 1.4 trillion dollars for no good reason?

From this article:

Japan announced this year a $10 billion package to support developing countries' fight against climate change. President George W. Bush has pledged $2 billion for a clean technology fund, while Britain has pledged 800 million pounds ($1.6 billion) for a separate scheme.
...
"Even if these funds by the Japanese, the U.S. and Britain represented real, new money that totals about $14 billion over the next five years, or about one percent of the need," Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists told the briefing.

(Via Climate Science)

Schools closed for fear of snow-covered roofs in Canada's Montreal

From this article:

OTTAWA, March 14 (Xinhua) -- More than 150 schools are closed Friday in Canada's eastern city of Montreal over fears that snow-covered roofs may collapse, reports reaching here said.

Thousands of students are getting the unexpected break ordered by the city's biggest school board, which said it does not take any chances with the safety of students.

"Building homes from straw bales is becoming increasingly popular"

See the attractive photo here.

Global Warming's "Tell"

From this post:

Global Warming Activists' "tells" are their virtual persecution of any opponent; and their refusal to debate.

Job protection at the EPA and CARB

Here.

Little substance in Baptists' statement on global warming, says Christian author

Here.

Excerpt:

The global-warming skeptic says, "It's always ill-advised for religious leaders to lend the moral authority of their offices to public pronouncements, when they don't have enough personal knowledge themselves to make a judgment, or when they don't have enough information in front of them to weigh all sides of an argument."

Dr. Beisner believes it would be wise for the signers of the global-warming declaration to consult one of the most well-known critics of the alleged man-made global warming catastrophe -- climatologist John Christy. Christy is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama and a Southern Baptist minister who graduated from Southern Baptist affiliate Golden Gate Seminary.

UND assistant prof says officials not jumping into climate change...

Here.

Excerpt:

GRAND FORKS, N.D. (AP) Despite worry about global warming in the scientific community, some decision-makers are reluctant to jump on the climate change bandwagon.

That's one of the findings of a survey by University of North Dakota Assistant Professor Rebecca Romsdahl.

She says a survey of 495 state, regional and local government officials found many of them don't feel the need to take action yet. She says they feel there's not enough urgency among higher levels of government or the public.

An alarmist explains global warming

Excerpt from this page:

Global warming, if explained in laymen's terms, is not all that difficult to understand. Geologists and their kin tell us that climate change in the distant past was brought about by natural events, volcanic eruptions on an unimaginable cataclysmic scale and/or similar explosions in outer space. Then came the Industrial Revolution. Not to be outdone by nature, modern man has been busy inventing a way to produce the same results, with less drama.

He has built billions upon billions of mini volcanoes around the world in the form of smoke stacks, chimneys and various other kinds of exhaust pipes, belching out much of the same pollutants as volcanoes into the earth's atmosphere. He has even gone one step further by adding poisons and toxins previously unknown to nature and our environment. How difficult is that to understand? Some estimates tell us we have already wiped out close to half of all life forms on this planet in the process. That's the legacy we are busy leaving our grandchildren.

Besides making my head hurt, this explanation made me think of that "Series of Tubes" explanation of the Internet.

Interesting breakdown of the likely Lieberman-Warner votes in the Senate

Here.

More ABC warming "experts"

Here.

The Other Side Of Global Warming

Here.

Excerpt:

It is natural that we should be most concerned with the grave challenges that this presents us with, in every field from national defence to drinking water. At the same time, we all often think, in a common-sense way, how incredibly advantageous it would be for Canada to be a little warmer. As a public pronouncement on climate, From Impacts to Adaptation is rare in confronting the challenges without pretending that the advantages don't exist -- and it is, thus, unusually convincing.

A related story is here, entitled "Feds quietly release climate report despite spending $50,000 on PR".

Reality Check On This Year’s Cold and Snowy Weather - Implications For Global Warming

Here.

Does anybody really believe in global warming???

Here.

Serious or spoof?

From this page:

A carbon-light delivery of organic vegetables from a Soil Association certified farm in Berkshire will be bicycled into London in time for a star-studded charity banquet. The Feast of Albion, being held by luxury lifestyle group, Quintessentially in aid of the Soil Association. A convoy of cyclists will pedal over 50 miles from the farm in Pangbourne to London on Monday 10 March carrying over 160kg of organic vegetables with the help of trikes provided by Riverford Organic Vegetables and wearing organic t-shirts produced by T Shirt and Sons Ltd emblazoned with the slogan 'carbon-light food delivery'.

NY Times Reporter Wants Even More Global Warming Coverage

Here.

Excerpt:

A Nexis newspaper database search revealed that in the last month, The New York Times has published 40 stories mentioning “climate change” and 72 stories mentioning “global warming.”
...
Although Revkin did not mention it during speech, on March 5, Revkin took a shot at a conference questioning climate change consensus hosted by the Heartland Institute in one of his recent “Reporter’s Notebook” columns. He concluded that column by noting that “when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so,” implying that only 19 scientists were at the conference. There were about 100 scientists participated in the conference, according to a Heartland Institute spokesman.

Global warming alchemy

Here.

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE

Here.

Grandiose delusions

So who's leading the fight against the (nonexistent) threat of human-caused global warming catastrophe?

1. It's the city of Austin, Texas!

2. No, it's Japan!

3. Or Scotland!

4. Or Obama!

5. Maybe Maryland universities!

6. Or high school students!

7. It might be U.S. mayors!

8. Or California!

9. No, it's governors!

10. How about Seattle and the Sierra Club!

...

Actually, of course, none of the people or organizations above are actually leaders. All of them are mere followers who very mistakenly believe that someone else has proven that carbon dioxide drives the Earth's climate.

VIDEO: Branson Discusses How Gore Convinced Him To Lead on Global Warming

Check this out.

Excerpt:

A video of Gore and Branson talking about global warming today on Good Morning America. Branson admits he was a global warming skeptic before Gore convinced him otherwise.

A test of global warming theory for smart High School kids to do

Here.

Laurie David - a global warming leader (i.e. she contributes more to it than most)

Here.

Excerpt:

It’s apparent that the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior is drawn conveniently where she arbitrarily chooses to live her life.

More about suing Gore for fraud

See the text and video here.

EU signals retreat over green pledges

Here.

Gulf Stream Myths

Here.

Blair: Global Warming to Become Irreversible Within Two Years

Here.

Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat

Here.

Excerpt:

Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds.

How about a universal 30 MPH speed limit?

Here.

Carbon Capture in the U.S. Faces Hard Realities

Here.

The problem with breathing

Here.

IPCC on the hot seat

Here.

Another clueless wonder

Here.

Raining on the bureau’s parade

Here.

Klimamysteriat, The Cloud Mystery

See the information about a 6-part YouTube video series in comment #83 here.

(HT: Global Warming: A Worn-Out Hoax)

Climate Politics: For Once, No Hot Air

See this WSJ post.

See also this post, entitled "John Doerr: From Google to… Hog Poop?".

Gore's effect on Leo

From this article:

So just how did The Departed actor [Leonardo DiCaprio] become so climate conscious?

“About 10 years ago, Al Gore explained to me what climate change and global warming was, the science behind it and the decades of research he'd done on the subject,'' answered Leo.

“It really propelled me to want to be more vocal about the issue, because it seemed to me, that the change of weather that we'd been having, the flooding, the hurricanes, all these things, there wasn't enough of a connection being made in the mainstream media.''

To Tell the Truth: Will the Real Global Average Temperature Trend Please Rise? Part 2

See the Anthony Watts post here.

Global Warming Update: Winter 2008 Coldest in Seven Years

Here.

Ethanol’s fallout — it ain’t just chicken feed

Here.

Danish Government Pays Scientists to Dispute Lomborg

Here.

Excerpt:

He presented himself as an engineering professor from The Technical University in Denmark during the debate and did not disclose his ties to the Energy department.

That's one healthy "canary"

1. Note the gloom from The Save Our Snow Foundation:

For us in the sports industry, the proverbial canary in the coal mine, global warming's impacts are already being felt, and will be economically devastating.

2. For a dose of reality, check out the jubilant ski reports here--more than 16 feet of snow in New Hampshire, ski resorts in the West planning to stay open through late May or even into June, etc etc.

Climate Bill Impact: 1.8 MILLION JOBS MAY BE LOST BY 2020, NEW STUDY SAYS

Here.

Best and Worst Events of 2007/08

Scroll down here to see a description of PowerShift, this blogger's "worst event" of the past year.

Excerpt:

PowerShift was basically a conference to combat global climate change. I’m all for fixing this problem, but the conference itself was despicable in relation to the dozens I’ve been to. I can probably predict why: The attendees were of low caliber...

New Gallup poll: Americans resoundingly reject Gore's alarmism

Here.

Excerpt:

Despite all the hoopla about global warming, it ranks below eight other environmental concerns and is even losing ground on the list of environmental issues, according to a new Gallup poll released today.

Update: A related Phil Stott post is here.

"My Answer to Andrew Revkin"

See the Climate Skeptic post here.

Al Gore and Big Green

Here.

A related post is here.

Who are you and what have you done with Bob Park?

After reading Robert Park's book "Voodoo Science", you might think that Park wouldn't be fooled by the Gore/Mann/Hansen/etc global warming scam.

But evidently, you'd be wrong.

Below, check out some of the amazing stuff that Park has written. I'm quite interested in theories as to how Park could be fooled so badly on this issue--if you have one, please let me know via email or a comment.

1. From Feb. 10, 2006 here:

POLAR BEARS: MAYBE THEY'LL GROW FLIPPERS WHEN THE OCEAN MELTS.
Environmental groups sued the government in December to add polar bears to the endangered species list; their habitat is fast being destroyed by global warming. According to the Wash Post, the Bush administration has agreed to study whether polar bears should be on the list. Coming just as the Evangelical Climate Initiative is announced, the reality of global warming now seems to be accepted by almost everyone except petroleum geologists.

2. From June 23, 2006, here:

HEAT: MAYBE GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS ARE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.
The 1999 Mann Report concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade in a thousand years. It helped solidify public concern over warming. It also infuriated many Republican lawmakers and industry groups. At the request of the House Science Committee, the National Academies reviewed the Report, and agreed with the overall thrust. The same deniers objected to the review.

3. From December 1, 2006, here:

INCONVENIENT REFUSAL: SO MAYBE SCIENCE TEACHERS LIKE IT HOT.
If you haven't seen it, Al Gore made a film about global warming. It received overwhelming endorsement by scientists. On Sunday, the Wash Post ran an opinion piece by Laurie David, a producer of the film. She thought it was educational. Of course, so did the Discovery Institute when it distributed, Unlocking The Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design. When the company that made Inconvenient Truth offered the National Science Teachers Association 50,000 free DVDs for use in classrooms, the NSTA said no. I wouldn't want them pushing Mystery of Life either, but NSTA seemed more worried about its capital campaign contributors, including Exxon, Shell and the coal industry.

4. From September 14, 2007 here:

CLIMATE CRAP: A SEQUEL BY THE "SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST."
Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" is out. Well, yes it is getting warmer he finds, but aside from polar bears, it just means more beach weather. We've got bigger problems, he says. Instead of spending all that money trying to prevent warming, let's focus on making everyone rich so they can all buy air conditioners.

5. From March 7, 2008 here:

WEATHER: THE 2008 ICCC ENDS.
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change held in New York, ended Tuesday. No, no, it wasn't that government thing; this one was sponsored by the Heartland Institute. No, I have no idea what the Heartland Institute is, or where it gets its money, but I can guess. Don't feel bad if you missed the meeting; a lot of people did. One third of all the scientists at the meeting thought the chilly temperatures in New York this week were evidence of climate cooling; one third thought it was just cold weather, and the other one said he had no opinion.

From his website:

...Professor Park now devotes himself to helping the public distinguish genuine scientific advances from foolish and fraudulent claims.

You guys do know that the Hockey Stick has been completely discredited, right?

To me, it's a little surreal to think of all these educated people solemnly discussing the massive "challenges" that they imagine will result from trace changes in a harmless atmospheric gas.

Snowiest winter in Green Bay for at least 117 years

Here.

Over the last 117 years there, three of the top four snowiest winters came after 1994.

Record-setting snowfall in Montreal, and Quebec

See the story here and the photos here.

Why Do We Only Look At Skeptic's Money?

Here.

So what do we do with this £3million Climate Change Fund?

How about offering £200 to people who give up their cars?

Check out the reactions here.

Science trumps reason - what a great irony

Here.

Florida-Broward County board fractures over global warming

From this article:

Coral Springs City Commissioner Ted Mena, who was appointed to the charter board by former Broward Mayor Ben Graber, objected to the idea. Mena said he did not believe global warming is proven.

“I have misgivings because scientists have not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is global warming,” Mena said.

Mena’s comments stunned Valkenburgh.
...
Lauderdale Lakes City Commissioner Hayward Benson, who was appointed to the charter board by County Commissioner Ilene Lieberman, said scientific proof should not be the issue.

“I feel the County Commission has the responsibility to maintain a climate for us to the extent we will be sustained,” he said.

1. Bravo to Ted Mena for having the courage to speak the truth.

2. If the County actually does find a way to regulate the Earth's climate, might I suggest some uses for any remaining funds?

a) To enrich local education, schedule more solar eclipses to occur during science classes on weekdays this spring.

b) Develop a user-friendly web application to allow local fisherman to manage high and low tides for greater angling success.

Study: Emissions trade could cost Finnish industry billions

From this article:

PTT says that the additional cost would absorb most or all of the business profit of Finnish industries. In the worst of cases the prerequisites for many sectors would collapse completely.

If the Richard Sandors and the Al Gores are going to continue enriching themselves via CO2 hysteria, other people are going to have to cough up a lot of hard-earned money.

We're from Nickelodeon, and we're here to "help"

See "Nickelodeon Launches The Big Green Help - An Environmental Pro-Social Initiative for Kids This April" here.

Excerpt:

Half (50%) of kids 8-14 are not sure how to directly impact environmental issues, but approximately 80% believe they can stop global warming...

Rolling out new information and activities from April to December and beyond, the campaign's cornerstone will be the November launch of the first global multiplayer online green game for kids. In the game, players can work individually or team up to "virtually" lower the Earth's CO2 levels. During game play, kids will be challenged to pledge volunteer hours and then follow up by taking actionable steps toward creating a healthy environment in their homes, schools, or communities.

It's odd that Nickelodeon desperately wants to get U.S. kids worked up about global warming, when this issue is tied for ninth (and falling) on the list of environmental concerns for American adults.

"the rising tide of scientists proving themselves willing to come out and declare man-made global warming to be a giant fraud"

Here.

An alarmist's perspective on Jeff Immelt at Eco:nomics

Here and here.

Excerpts from that second link:

At one point, Murray asked for a show of hands: who thought nuclear would be a big part of the energy future? Virtually every hand in the room went up. Immelt responded, "well, be depressed. Nothing's happening. That's fine, we'll do gas and wind." Murray: "can gas and wind do it?" Immelt: pause ... "I'm in favor of energy diversity." Hmm.

After Fred Smith from CEI did his rambling rant on how business leaders are "engineering their own demise," Immelt said: "For some weird, crazy, terrible, horrible reason, I'm going to sell $10b in wind turbines in 2008."
...
Immelt casually mentioned that GE made several million dollars by meeting Kyoto emission standards.

Immelt: my researchers tell me global warming is a technical fact, and caused by human beings. Will it be a horrible catastrophe? I don't know. I'm not that smart. But I don't have to be that smart -- I'm making money by preparing.

Economist Strikes Gold In Climate-Change Fight

Here.

Excerpt:

Yesterday, Climate Exchange's stock jumped 16% after the firm reported a tripling in 2007 revenue to £13.6 million, or about $27 million. That gives the company, which handles about 90% of the trading on carbon exchanges, a market capitalization of roughly $1.31 billion. Mr. Sandor's 20% stake is worth more than $260 million on paper.

That's massive money that is completely dependent on the existence of CO2 hysteria.

Update: A related link is here, entitled "Carbon Trade Swindle Behind Gore Hoax".

Gore carefully propagates his climate nonsense

According to this page, a climate change "expert" named Lance Simmens will be enlightening the people at Cal State Fullerton next week.

How does this guy qualify as a climate expert? Well, according to this link, it looks like Simmens is a long-time bureaucrat (in both the Carter and Clinton administrations) with a master's degree in public administration.

He supposedly qualifies as a climate change "expert" because he's been trained by a politician named Al Gore.

Will Kyoto turn Europe into Cuba?

Here.

Damage control by GM CEO Rick Wagoner

After GM's Bob Lutz' memorable and essentially correct "crock" statement, Rick Wagoner has had to do some damage control.

Check out the careful wording here:

"The data is pretty clear that the temperature on the earth is rising. There's all sort of debates as to why but we've clearly come down on the side it makes sense for us to put our business in a position where we can participate proactively in reducing the amount of (carbon dioxide) emissions," Wagoner said.

Those words could be consistent with hypothetical thoughts like this:

Yes, CO2 catastrophe IS indeed a crock, but given the passionate belief of some groups and politicians, it makes business sense for GM to appear to take this seriously.

Climate "champ" to travel abroad

From this article:

The following week, Salazar will attend a climate change conference taking place March 24 to 30 in London, where he will exchange ideas with other representatives from around the world. He will attend a second conference in Kobe, Japan, from May 18 to 25. Both trips are all-expenses-paid.

1. When people get hysterical that burning jet fuel will result in human extinction, why does it seem that they immediately and invariably start jetting around the world?

2. Who ultimately pays for these particular trips? According to this page, the California Climate Champions program is sponsored by the California Air Resources Board (www.arb.ca.gov).

And I suppose Johannes Gutenberg is also a climate criminal now?

Here.

EU MEMBER STATES BEGIN HUGE WEALTH TRANSFER TO BUY OFF CHINA, INDIA

Here. (Via Benny Peiser)

One Cooler Head

See the IBD editorial here.

A RESPONSE TO ANDREW REVKIN

Dear Benny

For once, I shall leave Andrew Glikson's wild world of bizarre linear extrapolation to others and focus on the new challenge from Andrew Revkin: "A question for climate skeptics: I presume you agree there's at least a chance you could be wrong, just as you assert those pointing to a clearcut climate apocalypse have little basis for their claims. On that front, I'd be curious to know what you'd propose as a backup plan if the climate's sensitivity to CO2 turns out to be higher than you think?" This is such an interesting question that I'd like to throw this open to CCNet's entire readership:

Where is the empirical evidence that the earth's climate has any measureable sensitivity to carbon dioxide rise? Theoretically in an equilibrium situation carbon dioxide rises should cause warming. But then we're not in an equilibrium situation.

Personally I am baffled by calculations of "climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide" which ignore the fundamental problem that all reconstructions of carbon dioxide versus temperature from ice cores show that temperatures rise first and then centuries later carbon dioxide (and that other dread GHG methane) begin to rise. Even while carbon dioxide continues to rise , the previous started warming proceeds at the same rate, and then stops abruptly and begins a relatively slow decline. I am baffled because of two things:

1. How can supposed cause or even amplification of temperature rise by carbon dioxide induced warming be deduced from this behaviour which is the reverse of that assumed in greenhouse theory?

2. If the ice core records are correct about the amount of carbon dioxide in ancient atmospheres being lower than today's value (which in itself opens a whole new can of worms about ice core sampling), and given that the theoretical response of temperature rise to carbon dioxide rise is logarithmic, why don't any ice cores show any sensitivity to carbon dioxide at lower levels when the sensitivity should be much higher?

I ask these questions genuinely openly without sarcasm. Which brings me to Andrew Revkin's question: Andrew Revkin assumes that "climate skeptics" are a priori biased for some reason unable to see the marvellous truth of greenhouse gas theory, but why should anyone believe in a theory for which there is no empirical evidence? What if we've all been steamrollered into accepting a hypothesis of "climate sensitivity" to carbon dioxide which is false? If the sensitivity is even higher, as Andrew Revkin asks us to consider, why has this never been seen in the past when amounts of carbon dioxide were much lower?

So first, before too much else happens, before we invent fantastical geo-engineering schemes to manage the Earth's climate, will someone explain what is the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide rise eight hundred years hence upon the temperature rise of today? sincerely

John A

Google "Climate Change Skeptics" page

Here.

Brother Jed and Brother Al

Here.

Does Jeff Immelt realize that CO2 hype is a crock?

Check out the quote here:

“It’s no great thrill for me to do this stuff. I’m not an environmentalist. But if business has no voice, that’s the worst of all worlds,” [GE CEO] Jeff Immelt said tonight keynoting The Wall Street Journal’s “ECO:nomics” conference in California.

New AMS draft policy statement links Hurricane Katrina and climate

Here.

What a waste

Here.

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

Check out the links available at the World Natural Health Organization site here.

Who isn't claiming potential to be "Saudi Arabia of" renewables?

From this post:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has said Minnesota could be “the Saudi Arabia of renewable fuels.” New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson says he wants his state to be “the Saudi Arabia of wind, solar and biomass.” Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle uses the same soundbite. Some variation of the phrase has been used to describe the Dakotas, Oklahoma, California, Nebraska, Arizona, New Jersey, Texas, Martha’s Vineyard, Quebec, Scotland, the UK, Inner Mongolia, Australia, and, well, even Saudi Arabia, which is “the Saudi Arabia of solar power,” according to The Oil Drum blog.

The ABC’s favorite IPCC author

See the post and comments here.

Can Global Warming Alarmists At Least Get Their Propaganda Straight?

Here.

Michael Mann's magical trees

From this Climate Audit post:

What we’re going to see is that in Mann-world, U.S. tree ring series are capable not merely of reconstructing world temperature, but 9 different “climate fields”. In effect, using Mann’s algorithm, one doesn’t need to leave the U.S. to reconstruct world climate in as much detail as one could ever want. It’s funny that actual U.S. temperature readings in the 20th century are held to be unrepresentative of world climate, but U.S. tree rings have such remarkable properties.

Hot topic: Teens to debate global warming

Here.

Note that the "regional public speaking chair" helpfully tells the teens which side he's on, which may be helpful information, since cash prizes will evidently be awarded by his organization:

"It's a very relevant topic," said Kalb, 49, of Brick.

He thinks the U.S. has to ratify the protocol because "the continent is in sad shape environmentally," he said.

"We have to start now" reducing emissions, said Kalb, regional public speaking chair, a deputy grand chancellor and public relations co-chairman for the Domain of New Jersey.

Man the Lifeboats - Global Warming Alarmism Is Swamping Debate

Here.

Climate change project is NOT SBC's

Here.

Over 1600 participants at Carbon Market Insights 2008 in Copenhagen!

Take a look around here, and note that IPCC head Pachauri and UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer are confirmed speakers.

Note that this event has been held for at least five years, and over 1600 attended last year as well. In the last decade or two, I wonder how much money has been spent (and how much carbon dioxide has been emitted) as a result of events like this.

If carbon dioxide hysteria is allowed to fade away, an awful lot of people are going to be disappointed.

Update: Check out the bullish press release here.

Is IPCC head Pachauri paid for this event? If so, isn't that a conflict of interest?

The Washington Post-er Child for Climate Bias

See the Steven Milloy article here.

Boxer Waves White Flag on Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill

Here.

About those Olympic air quality concerns

Regarding stories like this, I think it's worth noting that carbon dioxide is NOT a component of smog.

'Brown' Budget

See the Phil Stott post here.

Excerpt:

Of course, I am delighted. This budget demonstrates once and for all a major political fact: Gordon Brown’s government will do as little as possible to damage the economy through over-zealous ‘Green’ measures. Thank goodness. It also shows, yet again, that governments haven’t ‘a snow flake in Hell’s’ chance of reducing CO2 emissions by any meaningful degree.

Britain's High Commissioner to Canada succumbs to carbon dioxide hysteria

From this article:

If the world cannot deal with climate change, it will be faced with war and bloodshed, Britain's High Commissioner to Canada warned today at the Globe 2008 conference in Vancouver.

"It is the highest priority in the foreign office in Great Britain," High Commissioner Anthony Carey said in explaining why a British diplomat is moderating a panel at the Globe conference on business and the environment.

"An issue that was a few years ago seen as a soft environmental issue is now understood as an international security issue. If we can't deal with this issue it is going to lead to wars, bloodshed and tremendous international tensions in the future."

The Evidence continues to Pile Up like a Giant Snowdrift: Global Warming is the Hoax of the Century

Here.

Note the T-shirt here.

UN Solution to Food Shortages: More of the Bureaucracy That Caused Them

Here.

Rogue Nation

Here.

Dirty Secrets about Clean Fuels

Here.

From the linked New York Times article:

“They’re environmental Jimmy Swaggarts, in my opinion,” said Representative Brian P. Bilbray, Republican of California, who spoke out against the $18 billion energy package recently passed by Congress that provides tax credits for biofuels. “What is being sold as green fuel just doesn’t pencil out.”

The new road to serfdom

Here.

Excerpt:

The environmental movement has also been astonishingly successful in co-opting education systems, and highly skillful at exploiting universal psychological tendencies to social conformity and deference to "authority." The suggestion that climate change is primarily a "moral" problem has been a masterstroke, of which the masterstroker is Al Gore.

Invoking morality is a powerful weapon in shutting off debate. It employs the so-called "psychology of taboo" to place some claims -- for example, that climate change may be natural, beneficial, or practically unstoppable -- beyond the pale. Those who promote such notions must therefore be evil, or psychologically unbalanced, or in the pay of powerful corporations.

Invoking the authority of science and the democratic value of "consensus" are again both designed to cut off rational analysis. This leads to the strange phenomenon of the discussion of policy alternatives becoming delinked from likely results, as with the responses to Mr. Baird's announcement this week. Thus the finer points of carbon taxation and/or cap-and-trade systems are debated with little or no concern about the fact that they will achieve little or nothing in terms of changing the global climate.

Update: From a related Climate Skeptic post here:

...the real reason the US is an outlyer in opinion is that it does not have the culture of blind deference to public authority that Europe has, which has led Europeans into the hands of one authoritarian after another over the last centuries...

Sprawl & Climate Change

Check out the EcoWorld Editor's commentary here.

Excerpt:

It is absolutely unproven that CO2 causes climate change. In fact, if you look at the last 10-15 years of temperature data, the average temperature in the troposphere has been going down, which completely belies conventional wisdom regarding global warming. There are virtually no powerful vested interests challenging global warming alarm - the “alarm industry” is the reality, not the opposite. Doesn’t that make any of you suspicious?

Global warming will allegedly reduce crop yield by 30 percent!

More alarmist idiocy here:

New Delhi, March 12 (IANS) Global warming will lead to 30 percent reduction in crop harvest and increase child mortality due to diarrhoea, parliament was informed Wednesday.

Once again: the globe is probably warmer now than it was in 1850 or 1976. Have we observed actual massive reductions in crop harvest?

"the only climate change skeptic and sustainability naysayer at the huge Globe Biennial Trade Fair and Conference"

Here.

"More slurs from realclimate.org"

Here.

The "program director for Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change at Penn State University" speaks

Note the very odd quote here:

“Those people that admit there are greenhouse gases are usually not those affected by climate change,” Brown said.

Again with the conspiracy theory

From this article:

These skeptics are often paid by energy giants such as Exxon Mobil or Peabody coal as part of an deliberate mis-information campaign aimed at undermining the consensus view on climate change and the science that supports it, they said.

Live Tonight from University of Delaware: Boiling Point: International Politics of Climate Change

Here.

Excerpt:

Controversy over global warming extends to a debate over how the media are handling the issue. Do the media “cry wolf” or do they accurately reflect scientific and political discussions about climate change? What role do the media play in making political decisions about climate change, both domestically and internationally.

New York Times environment writer Andrew Revkin addresses these and other questions in a “live” presentation at the University of Delaware...

I'm not sure that a member of the mainstream media will necessarily be completely objective in grading the mainstream media's performance here...

Sez who?

Here.

Global Warming Alarm Shown Unfounded in Georgia Climate Report

Here.

Excerpt:

Even if the entire United States were to close down its economy completely and revert to the Stone Age, without even the ability to light fires, the growth in emissions from China and India would replace our entire emissions in little more than a decade.

Globetrotter Gore visits Poland

From this page:

KPP Chairman Andrzej Malinowski said when handing over the award that Al Gore had presented ‘facts and figures regarding the threats to the global climate, but avoided a moralising tone’.

Sample related pages are this one, entitled "Al Gore: Climate Change is a Moral Issue, Not a Political One", and this week-old post from Gore's blog, entitled "A moral issue".

A global warming nutcase walks into a bar…

Here.

Excerpt:

The bossiest, smuggest, preachiest, most didactic people I know are the ones who are Green, and who want everyone else to go Green, too. They are the new fundamentalists, the new Sermonizing Class...

When Will the Next Ice Age Begin?

See the Andy Revkin article here.

Excerpt:

Just 30 years ago, after a prolonged global cool spell, many climate scientists, including some now focused on global warming, posited that Earth might already be seeing the onset of the next big chill.

Note the insane quote from Jim Hansen:

''We have taken over control of the mechanisms that determine the climate change,'' he said.

Vandals Trash Bucknell's Conservative Newspaper

Excerpt from this article:

A student-run newspaper at Bucknell University was the target of vandals last month as over half of the copies in the paper's first press run were destroyed and/or removed from campus. The attack came as The Counterweight, Bucknell's conservative newspaper, highlighted criticism of the university's sponsorship of "Focus the Nation," a high-tech discussion on climate change.

A related post is here; see the paper itself here (especially pages 6 and 7).

Climate alarmists pose real threat to freedom

See this from Vaclav Klaus.

"doing nothing is the best strategy of all"

See the whole thing here.

Why do the websites of progressive civil society organisations pay virtually no attention to climate change?

Here.

Leadfoot: Sometimes going green hurts more than it helps.

Here.

Fantasy politics

Here.

Excerpt:

What really gives the game away in this context is that, as Reuters reports, the Slovenian statement does not offer detailed plans on how the EU intends to achieve this deeper cut. Bearing in mind that the current crop of "leaders" have no idea of how they are going to achieve the 20 percent cut already agreed, this is wholly predictable. But it does make you wonder about the sanity of those involved in this process, where reality can be suspended, not only once but again and again and again.

More links

1. "Weighting Sample Sites in Mann's Hockey Stick" here.

Excerpt:

In effect, while Mann used 50,60 proxy sets, just four determined about 90% of the answer.

2. "The Chilling Stars (redux)" here.

Excerpt:

The carbon dioxide content of our atmosphere is a result of ocean temperature, much more than a cause.

3. "To Tell the Truth: Will the Real Global Average Temperature Trend Please Rise? Part1" here.

4. "Ethanol Lobby Is Perpetrating A Cruel Hoax"

5. ‘One-child’ policy aids climate change battle: China

6. More PlayStation® Climatology

7. Lying about Sin

8. Bravo to Montana Representative Dan McGee, who minces no words in this article. We really need more politicians with the courage to speak clearly about the global warming fraud.

9. Deutsche Bank makes some highly dubious predictions about climate change and tourism here:

Deutsche Bank economist Philipp Ehmer, who presented the research at ITB in Berlin, said: "Climate change will significantly reduce the tourism potential in many regions. There will be more losers than winners. Many regions will experience a cut in tourism revenue."

I'm doubtful that this economist has any special insight into global temperatures in 2030. The globe is probably warmer now than it was in 1850 or 1976; where has this warming "significantly reduced" actual tourism?

10. If current solar energy technology is so great, why does it need such heavy subsidies? Check this out:

“We have set the tariff at a higher amount of 44 cents – more than triple the market rate - to stimulate the solar energy market and encourage greater uptake by residents and businesses.”

11. A complete list of things caused by global warming is here.

A note from Richard Lindzen on statistically significant warming

Here.

A panoramic view of King Penguin colony

Here.

I wonder if these are the same King Penguins that National Geographic News said "may be on a perilous path to extinction as a result of global warming" last month.

I also wonder if these are the same King Penguins that reportedly have a world population of 2,000,000 breeding pairs.

CEI Launches National Ad Campaign on the Impact of Al Gore’s Global Warming Policies

Here.

John Coleman's briefs on global warming

Here.

Global warming may make fish go deaf

Here.

Thank goodness for this:

According to UN scientist Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, the recent worldwide analysis of ocean surface temperatures shows that sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998.

Update: A related joke from Climate Skeptic is here.

"Britain is stealing the US crown of No 1 climate villain"

Here.

Global warming a New Religion

Here.

"Snow rage" in Canada

Here.

It's not always a great idea to have a former rock star as your Environment Minister

See the post about Peter Garrett here.

Rhode Island considers wind power ban

Here.

Orgy of alarmism

This Toronto article covers a lot of alarmist ground, claiming that trace amounts of CO2 may lead the local population into a hellish world of viruses, rodents, bacteria, mosquitoes, fungus, etc etc.

1. Toronto, like the rest of the world, is presumably warmer now than it was in 1850 or 1976. How much worse are the viruses, rodents, bacteria, mosquitoes, fungus, etc etc now than they were many decades ago in Toronto?

2. If you head south from Toronto, you'll generally find that it gets warmer and warmer. Just how catastrophic are the viruses, rodents, bacteria, mosquitoes, fungus, etc etc right now in places like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, or even Florida?

3. The article quotes Dr. David Fisman, a scientist at the Hospital for Sick Children's research institute in Toronto, this way:

"...we seem to be in a situation where the physical component of the ecosystem - that is weather and climate - is changing at a rate that is faster and faster and faster."

How does Fisman know that the current rate of climate change is any different than it was during the rest of the Earth's 4.5 billion year history? If he's got any data or logic to back this up, I'm willing to listen. However, if he's just asking us to take his word for this, aren't we dealing with a "Stephen Hawking Opposes Designated Hitter Rule"-type of situation?

Virgin on hypocrisy

Here.

"a salutory example of how NGO’s have become embedded into the IPCC process"

Check this out.

Al Gore's fund to close after attracting $5 billion

Here.

More climate idiocy from Reuters

See Deborah Zabarenko's logic-free alarmist masterpiece here, entitled "Climate change could snarl US transport - study".

1. Has Zabarenko really never noticed that snow can seriously "snarl transport", as shown here?

2. Is she really sure about this claim:

More frequent strong hurricanes also are expected to be a consequence of rising global temperatures...

3. How about this claim:

...the long-sought Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific could become more available. Arctic ice melt opened this passage last year for the first time in memory.

That's only true for very small values of "memory".

Note that the Northwest Passage was successfully navigated in 1906, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1944, 1957, 1969, 1977, 1984, 1988, and 2000 (and probably in other years as well).

Committee puts off global warming presentations

Here.

North Carolina's Henderson County prepares to save the world!

From this page:

The Henderson County Global Warming Task Force asked the School Board to form a climate change task force. It would come up with suggestions for classroom instruction on climate change. It also would explore ways to reduce the school system's carbon emissions.

"It is education that will inform, teach and nurture creative solutions to this critical issue facing our world," said Carole Repici, a member of the Global Warming Task Force. "The next generation must be equipped with all the information and strategies needed to turn this crisis around."

Among the ideas:

• The driver education program could teach students the harm of leaving cars idling and pumping out carbon dioxide,

• Schools could start composting projects,

• Schools may be able to use less electricity at night without compromising security,

• And schools could encourage more use of buses, avoiding the long lines of idling cars waiting for student pick-up and drop-off.

I think I speak for us all when I say "Gee, thanks guys".

Climate conference non-coverage

Here.

Fair questions

Here.

How Sensitive is Climate to Solar Variability?

Here.

Excerpt:

We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used.

NYT elevates the opinion of a seminary student who's read a small alarmist book

1. From this article, entitled "NYT Scoffs at 400+ Scientists, but Elevates 44 Southern Baptists":

Of course, 44 Southern Baptists who buy into the green agenda received a respectful print story in the March 10 Times, widely quoting the church leaders saying things like: "when we destroy God's creation, it's similar to ripping pages from the Bible."

Actually, the man behind that statement, Jonathan Merritt, isn't really a church leader, according to the article - he's a 25-year-old seminary student. But he's "the spokesman for the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative." He used to be "an enemy of the environment," until he had the "epiphany" quoted above.

2. From Jonathan Merritt's blog:

Recently, I began sifting through the garbage to find an apple core of unbiased substance and I am proud to recommend a great book that is written by a Atmospheric Scientist who is employed by MIT. In "What We Know About Climate Change," Kerry Emmanuel outlines the basic foundations you need to begin discussing this issue with confidence--and he does so with brevity (you can finish this book in an afternoon) and simple language.

Want a fair presentation on the controversial subject of global climate change so you can understand and contribute to the conversation? Pick up this book and you will be well on your way.

3. Check out the Amazon page for Merritt's recommended book here. Note that the book is endorsed by James Hansen.

Excerpt from the book's description:

...just as our actions have created the looming crisis, so too might they avert it. Emanuel calls for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gases and criticizes the media for playing down the dangers of global warming (and, in search of "balance," quoting extremists who deny its existence).

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer on climate change

At about the 20-second mark in this video, U.S. Senate candidate Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer from Minnesota says he "cried for an hour" after reading the IPCC report last spring.

Some Inconvenient Omissions from the “Global Warming” camp

Here.

Another professor and member of AGU joins skeptics

Here.

Gore's content-free response to criticisms of "An Inconvenient Truth"

Check out Gore's words and body language in the one-minute video here.

For some details on the "6 or 7" disagreements that Gore mentions, check out the 35 Inconvenient Truths listed here.

"Spitzer scandal seen as setback for climate change reforms"

Here.

Everything I learned about Global Warming, I learned from Al Gore?

Here.

No consensus in Montana

Check out the article here.

Excerpts:

"This is all flawed, and it's based on flawed everything," said Sen. Dan McGee, R-Laurel, of the science explaining global climate change. "This is a lie. Call it what it is."
...
Rep. Sue Dickenson, D-Great Falls, and a member of the council, said the debate over humanity's role in climate change is like a debate over the stork's role in human reproduction.

"Eventually you get to the point where the scientific information is so overwhelming that it's time to discredit the stork as a deliverer of babies," she said. "Even if, in some isolated cases, there were some stork feathers that happened to show up by the bed of a woman who just had a baby."

Tell us what you really think

Here.

CO2 % INCREASES BY 35% SO WHERE'S THE HEAT?

Here.

Worthwhile News Report “Climate Change Dissenters Say They Are Demonized In Debate”

Here.

A linked AP article from Dec '07 contains some precious quotes:

Climate change experts counter that the contrarians are no longer relevant because the evidence now is overwhelming that man-made warming will have dangerous consequences if left unchecked.

"Their claim that debate is being stifled has the same credibility as members of the Flat Earth Society complaining about the round Earth mafia," said NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt.

Lomborg accepts that the Earth is warming because of man, but says a changing climate, including the threat posed by rising sea levels to small island nations, is a less urgent problem than, for example, AIDS or malnutrition.

It's a view that has infuriated advocates of immediate action by the world's governments.

"What is the difference between Lomborg's view of humanity and Hitler's? You cannot treat people like cattle," Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was quoted as saying in an April 20, 2004 interview with Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

Pachauri now disavows the comments, telling the AP last week: "I was misquoted. That was taken out of context." But Jyllands-Posten reporter Lars From, who conducted the interview, insisted Pachauri was correctly quoted.

British voters question 'green tax' motives

From this article:

The majority of voters believe that "green taxes" are designed mainly to fill the Government's coffers, rather than to encourage environmentally-friendly behaviour, according to a new poll.

On the eve of what is widely predicted to be a "green Budget", some 59% of those questioned in a YouGov survey were sceptical about the Government's anti-pollution justification for taxes on motoring and flying.

Arctic sea ice thickness slightly increased from the mid-1990s to at least 2003

Here.

Government rations electricity in freezing Kyrgyzstan

Here.

Observed climate change in Arkansas

Here.

A ten-year-old buys into Gore's fraud

Here.

More evidence that the alarmists are losing

From this article:

ETA's Andrew Davis said: "Increasing public apathy is a real concern. The challenge for Alistair Darling in his budget is to take action that matches his green rhetoric."

Update: A related post from Phil Stott is here.

Global warming hype is hot air, retired prof says

Here.

"Global warming is really someone’s idea of a practical joke, isn’t it?"

Here.

Last summer's British floods NOT the result of global warming

Here.

Some of the related alarmism is recalled here.

The fact is global warming is waning!

See this article from Merinews in India.

Excerpt:

According to UN scientist Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, the recent worldwide analysis of ocean surface temperatures shows that sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998.

Some experts embrace a hotter weather pattern for Alberta

From this article:

...Northern Alberta geologist Bruno Wiskel warns against overreacting to what he argues is nature taking its course, saying temperatures have risen before.

And he feels that until the causes and effects are fully understood, "any climate change initiative where humans think they can stop climate change is not only a waste of time and money but it actually is going to be a negative effect."

Biofuels Tax Break in U.K. May Be Scrapped by Darling

Here.

Global warming debate is not over

Here.

A blast from the past

Amazingly, this Treehugger post actually uses the "hockey stick", which was once the centerpiece of the IPCC's fraudulent global warming argument.

More on polar bears

Here.

Excerpt:

Polar bear populations has increased dramatically from the 1960s to our time from about 5,000 individuals to about 25,000 individuals. It appears to be stable.

It is correct, as they point out, that the [Western Hudson Bay] population is down from 1,200 individuals in 1987 to about 950 individuals in 2004. What they omit is that the same population increased from 500 individuals in 1981. That gives a different picture, which does not indicate a species on the brink of extinction.

Another piece of information that changes the statistic is that 49 polar bears are shot annually in the Western part of Hudson Bay. 833 polar bears have been shot over 17 years from 1987 to 2004. That is far more than the ones assumed to have lost their lives due to global warming.

Maybe she could drive the Flintstones’ car.

Here.

UAH & RSS: 0.07 °C m-o-m warming

Here.

"New Proposals To Fight Global Warming Would End Civilization, Kill Billions"

Here.

Another reaction to today's "monumentally bad" Washington Post story is here.

If the science is supposed to be "settled", how come the recommendations for emissions reduction keep drastically changing?

More from Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection

From this article:

The lack of public engagement on the issue is major concern to the ACP, a broad coalition of groups and businesses chaired by Al Gore, and its CEO Cathy Zoi, former Clinton Administration staffer, former deputy director of the NSW Department of Environment and executive director of the Bayard Group.

Zoi estimates that in the US, about 9 per cent of the population can be considered “activist”, meaning that they understand the issues and were doing something about it. A further 35 per cent are engaged, 38 per cent are in a state of “fear and confusion”, while 18 per cent are ignorant of the issues, or in denial.

Zoi doesn’t hold out much hope for the latter group, but is targeting the 70 odd per cent in the middle in an attempt to achieve a “tipping point” in public opinion that will force US legislators into action.

To do that, ACC plans to spend “tens of millions” this year and up to $300 million over the next three years on media campaigns and advertising blitzes.

It can bet the opposing view will be equally well funded – the fossil fuel lobby is already engaged in campaigns that describe coal mining technologies as “beyond clean”, and asks viewers if they can think of how many jets might be powered by wind or solar energy.

Is the Media’s Environmental Reporting Improving?

Here.

An alarmist's frustration

Here.

They're twins, but which one is evil?

Here.

I particularly enjoyed this inane argument from the comment section:

Besides, if the sceptics are right and the world is warming because of non-anthropogenic factors, that's actually a bigger problem. If human influence is so weak, it means that we're going to have to make _greater_ efforts to stop climate change, not less. That is, if human-caused CO2 levels have a smaller effect than is generally thought then we have to reduce emissions by a lot more than is generally thought if we want to stop a particular amount of warming!

The Forces of Climate Sanity

Here.

Carbon Output Should Be Near Zero, Or We’ll All Die!

Here.

More Environmental Hypocrites

Here.

Climate-Fear Profiteer

Here.

Myths on CO2 food miles

Here.

Stupid Media Tricks (Part 5,674,533,567)

Here.

Polar Bear Politics

Here.

U.S. Congress and global warming

(From JunkScience.com)

"Recycle or go to Hell, warns Vatican"

Here.

"low temperatures for each day occur an hour later today than they did even as recently as last week"

Here.

Squander this

From this Chris Horner post:

To repeat: Bush articulated his Kyoto policy on March 17, 2001 — six months before 9/11 — and very poorly timed to deserve blame for “squandering post-9/11 goodwill.”

And as a substantive matter, Bush’s policy was no different from the Clinton-Gore policy. Bush articulated that he had no interest in seeking Senate ratification of Kyoto (not exactly identical with “refused to sign,” as so many media reports cast it). After Gore originally agreed to the pact for the U.S. on December 11, 1997, Clinton did precisely the same thing. So for over three years, the Clinton-Gore administration’s policy on Kyoto was identical to the Bush administration’s policy. Shame on you, George.

Starting at about the 40 second mark here, watch for about 20 seconds as Gore himself sounds very much like Bush on Kyoto.

"those objections are just silly"

Here.

Update: Junk Science blog reacts here, in a post entitled "Whoa! Slow down there cowboy!":

They want to play the consensus line? Bad idea! Why not teach neo-Paganism in schools? After all, there’s a much larger consensus among neo-Pagans than the IPCC (about 1 million as opposed maybe a dozen chapter reviewers). The populist Al Gore-style climate change simply does not exist in the real world and no, it most definitely should not be taught in schools. Teach the global warming pseudo-religion and you open the door to creationists attempting to depose biology, organic foodies trying to insert themselves into real agriculture, chemical hysterics indoctrinating against vaccines… Climate hysteria is not science and should not be misrepresented as such to impressionable young minds. For all the PlayStation® climatology we still have zero evidence that increases in the essential trace gas CO2 constitutes any form of threat. We are all for teaching science but let’s leave it at actual science, no? Save religions like Climate Catastrophism for the seminary.

Virgin’s green idea loses its pulling power

From this article:

It was sold to airline passengers as a bold, green initiative that would save thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide from their flights.

But Virgin Atlantic has quietly abandoned a plan to tow Boeing 747 jumbo jets to special “starting grids” at the end of runways after the aircraft manufacturer found that pulling the landing gear would seriously weaken it.

What Does And Does Not Drive Climate Change

See the PDF file available here.

Back to black: return to coal power

Here.

Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China

Here.

INSTAPUNDIT IS WRONG ON COAL - AND CO2: COAL DOESN'T SUCK AND CO2 IS HARMLESS

Here.

Snow, snow, snow

Here.

Excerpt:

...it seems somewhat incongruous that Ottawa persists in trying to educate us about the imminent dangers represented by global warming, while the city is about to break its all-time world record for being buried in snow.

Ottawa has had 12 feet of snow this winter. 12 FEET. In the metric system, that’s approximately, uh, a gazillion megalitres.

Is Earth’s Axis Shifting?

Here.

Global Warming computer models are bogus

Here.

Global Warming (man made) Myth Revealed

Here.

Models tweaked alarmingly (yet again); Washington Post asks few questions (yet again)

Here.

2004 TSUNAMI and Marine Archeology proves Al Gore's Man Made Global Warming is a Hoax?

Here.

Record Cold Winter Requires Even Scarier, More Draconian Response

Here.

The media snowjob on global warming

Here.

Excerpt:

I received over 1,800 e-mails, most of them complimentary. A large number, though, were as hysterical and vicious as any I have received on any subject in almost two decades in journalism.

How could I not believe? Was I being dishonest or just stupid? How much had EXXON paid me? Until I could write in favour of the warming theorists, I should "go back into your oil company-funded bubble. You @*!/x-ing hack."

And that was from a climate scientist at a major university.

Australia: Emissions target tightrope

Here.

Excerpt:

The danger, however, is that relatively noisy debate on this issue among activists may be politically counterproductive: ratcheting up long-term targets could scare the horses, as it were, or induce pessimism in the public mind, instead of what has appeared up to now to be fairly firm resolve to address this problem. It will also allow the climate change denialists, and the special interests who sponsor them and hope to profit from their claims, to resurrect their discredited case, and replay the scaremongering about the costs of addressing climate change that characterised the recent public debate and underwrote the Howard government's inaction on this issue.

Model scams

Here.

Excerpt:

Only because not many understand how climate models work, and how poor are the data fed into them, doomsayers and their parasitic allies (under the cloak of scientific respectability) are able to acquire taxpayer dollars. Ask yourself: "If the climate models showed the Earth purring along as usual, how much money would be appropriated for the model builders and agricultural and energy subsidy seekers?"

(Via ForzaMillan)

Air execs gasp on call for more CO2

Here.

The Epicycles of Global Warming

See the whole thing here.