From the category archives:

UNFCCC Copenhagen Treaty

U.S. “cap and trade” rebranded “pollution reduction”

Reporting by Thomas Ferraro; Writing by Richard Cowan, Editing by Cynthia Osterman

Like a savvy Madison Avenue advertising team, senators pushing climate-control legislation have decided to scrap the name “cap and trade” and rebrand their product as “pollution reduction targets.”

Please Read More Here…

Kerry Blames Talk Radio for Lagging Global Warming Concerns Spurred by ClimateGate

Written By: Jeff Poor

ClimateGate, when a hacker broke into computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and released a myriad of confidential files, continues to cause controversy. The documents showed scientists had attempted to suppress and manipulate data that would hurt the case proving anthropogenic global warming. They also cast doubts about what sort of policy measures should be implemented to attack this alleged global problem.

However, according to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it’s not ClimateGate – but the messenger who is at fault for growing hesitation to enact a cap-and-trade policy that would radically change the U.S. economy. Although traditional media went for weeks without reporting the matter, it was talk radio that busted the story wide open and the target of Kerry’s frustration, which he revealed in an interview with the Boston Globe on March 8. (h/t Matt Dempsey, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee)

“What we have to do is go on the offensive,” Kerry said. The science “has been maligned and misinterpreted, and we need to fight back . . . people [need to] stop being moved by these talk show [hosts] and start looking for the facts” themselves.”

Please Read More Here…

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

In Denial. The meltdown of the climate campaign

Written By: Steven F. Hayward

It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago—changed the narrative decisively. Additional revelations of unethical behavior, errors, and serial exaggeration in climate science are rolling out on an almost daily basis, and there is good reason to expect more.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hitherto the gold standard in climate science, is under fire for shoddy work and facing calls for a serious shakeup. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the self-serving coalition of environmentalists and big business hoping to create a carbon cartel, is falling apart in the wake of the collapse of any prospect of enacting cap and trade in Congress. Meanwhile, the climate campaign’s fallback plan to have the EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the cumbersome Clean Air Act is generating bipartisan opposition. The British media—even the left-leaning, climate alarmists of the Guardian and BBC—are turning on the climate campaign with a vengeance. The somnolent American media, which have done as poor a job reporting about climate change as they did on John Edwards, have largely averted their gaze from the inconvenient meltdown of the climate campaign, but the rock solid edifice in the newsrooms is cracking. Al Gore was conspicuously missing in action before surfacing with a long article in the New York Times on February 28, reiterating his familiar parade of horribles: The sea level will rise! Monster storms! Climate refugees in the hundreds of millions! Political chaos the world over! It was the rhetorical equivalent of stamping his feet and saying “It is too so!” In a sign of how dramatic the reversal of fortune has been for the climate campaign, it is now James Inhofe, the leading climate skeptic in the Senate, who is eager to have Gore testify before Congress.

Please Read More Here…

Gore: Organized Campaign Behind Climate Skeptics

Former Vice President Al Gore says critics of his global warming warnings are part of a “massive, organized campaign.”

Appearing on the Norwegian talk show “Skavlan” to promote his newest book “Our Choice,” Gore said:

“There has been a very large, organized campaign to try to convince people that it [global warming] is not real, to try to convince people that they shouldn’t worry about it.

Please Read More Here…

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

‘Archaic’ Network Provides Data Behind Global Warming Theory, Critics Say

Written By: Joseph Abrams

Critics are questioning the accuracy of a 120-year-old weather station network that measures surface temperature in the U.S. by tallying paper reports from volunteers whose data is rife with human error.

Crucial data on the American climate, part of the basis for proposed trillion-dollar global warming legislation, is churned out by a 120-year-old weather system that has remained mostly unchanged since Benjamin Harrison was in the White House.

The network measures surface temperature by tallying paper reports sent in by snail mail from volunteers whose data, according to critics, often resembles a hodgepodge of guesswork, mathematical interpolation and simple human error.

“It’s rather archaic,” said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who since 2007 has been cataloging problems in the 1,218 weather stations that make up the Historical Climatology Network.

“When the network was put together in 1892, it was mercury thermometers and paper forms. Today it’s still much the same,” he said.

The network relies on volunteers in the 48 contiguous states to take daily readings of high and low temperatures and precipitation measured by sensors they keep by their homes and offices. They deliver that information to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which uses it to track changes in the climate.

Please Read More Here…

Science’s Big Problem

Written By: Christopher Chantrill

Last week, Dr. Judith Curry, climate scientist from Georgia Institute of Technology, admitted on Watt’s Up With That that climate scientists needed to do a better job of communication in order to reestablish trust after the debacle of Climategate. In reply, both sides, warmist and skeptic, ripped her to shreds. That, Dr. Curry wrote, showed that she had probably got it right.

In fact, Dr. Curry doesn’t have a clue. If she is talking about communication and trust, then she is merely talking about public relations — fancy footwork in the dance of politics. Today in America, we have a climate science that plays second fiddle to climate politics. It is just a prop for the Al Gores and the environmentalists and their program of political power.

It is disgraceful but true. Scientists today serve as loyal subalterns in the army of government power. The narrative of the disinterested scientist is a myth. Scientists get their money from government, and in return, they dance to the music of big government. That is science’s Big Problem.

Please Read More Here…

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Head of ‘Climategate’ research unit admits sending ‘pretty awful emails’ to hide data

Written By: David Derbyshire

Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science’s credibility.

The Institute of Physics said ‘worrying implications’ had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming.

The rebuke – the strongest yet from the scientific community – came as Professor Phil Jones, the researcher at the heart of the scandal, told MPs he had written ’some pretty awful emails’ – but denied trying to suppress data.

Giving evidence to a Science and Technology Committee inquiry, the Institute of Physics said: ‘Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.

‘The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.’

Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled the CRU had broken Freedom of Information rules by refusing to hand over raw data.

But yesterday Professor Jones – in his first public appearance since the scandal broke – denied manipulating the figures.

Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: ‘I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.’

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not ’standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

‘I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,’ he said.

Please Read More Here…

A Blizzard Of Lies From Al Gore

Climate Fraud: Al Gore resurfaces in an op-ed to say that nobody’s perfect, everybody makes mistakes and climate change is still real. And he has some oceanfront property in the Himalayas to sell you.

If hyperbole and chutzpah had a child, it would be the opening paragraph of Gore’s op-ed in Sunday’s New York Times. Gore surfaced from the global warming witness-protection program to opine that despite admissions of error and evidence of fraud by various agencies, we still face “an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.”

Perhaps he’s trying to protect his investments as he knows them, for he is heavily involved in enterprises that deal with carbon offsets and green technology. If the case for climate change is shown to be demonstrably false, a lot of his green evaporates like moisture from the ocean.

Interestingly, it’s that moisture from the ocean that he uses to defend his failed hypothesis. The blizzards that have buried the Northeast, he writes, are proof of global warming because record evaporation due to warming is what produces record snows. Except that supporters of his theory not long ago argued exactly the opposite.

He writes that we should “not miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm.” He should explain why last year Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., warned that lack of snow in the mountains was threatening California’s water supply.

Boxer, who along with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, is trying to ram through a Senate version of the House’s Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, said: “Looking at the United States of America, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) clearly warned that unchecked global warming will lead to reduced snowpack in the western mountains, critically reducing access to water, which is our lifeblood.”

So global warming simultaneously causes mountain snow to vanish and Himalayan glaciers to recede while blanketing the northeastern United States with snowfalls measured in feet. Clearly, this is an untenable position. One phenomenon cannot simultaneously produce two different results.

He speaks of “recent attacks on the science of global warming.” These presumably include the unearthing of e-mails between researchers associated with Britain’s Climatic Research Unit that revealed an effort to discredit skeptics and deny them peer-review, the destruction and manipulation of data, and the use of “tricks” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.

Please Read More Here…

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC

Written By: Christopher Booker

The news from sunny Bali that there is to be an international investigation into the conduct of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri would have made front-page headlines a few weeks back. But while Scotland and North America are still swept by blizzards, in their worst winter for decades, there has been something of a lull in the global warming storm – after three months when the IPCC and Dr Pachauri were themselves battered by almost daily blizzards of new scandals and revelations. And one reason for this lull is that the real message of all the scandals has been lost.

The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC’s last 2007 report is that they were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. OK, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035; that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other “extreme weather events” were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The “science is settled”, the “consensus” is intact.

But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent.

All these alarms were given special prominence in the IPCC’s 2007 report and each of them has now been shown to be based, not on hard evidence, but on scare stories, derived not from proper scientists but from environmental activists. Those glaciers are not vanishing; the damage to the rainforest is not from climate change but logging and agriculture; African crop yields are more likely to increase than diminish; the modest rise in sea levels is slowing not accelerating; hurricane activity is lower than it was 60 years ago; droughts were more frequent in the past; there has been no increase in floods or heatwaves.

Furthermore, it has also emerged in almost every case that the decision to include these scare stories rather than hard scientific evidence was deliberate. As several IPCC scientists have pointed out about the scare over Himalayan glaciers, for instance, those responsible for including it were well aware that proper science said something quite different. But it was inserted nevertheless – because that was the story wanted by those in charge.

In addition, we can now read in shocking detail the truth of the outrageous efforts made to ensure that the same 2007 report was able to keep on board IPCC’s most shameless stunt of all – the notorious “hockey stick” graph purporting to show that in the late 20th century, temperatures had been hurtling up to unprecedented levels. This was deemed necessary because, after the graph was made the centrepiece of the IPCC’s 2001 report, it had been exposed as no more than a statistical illusion. (For a full account see Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, and also my own book The Real Global Warming Disaster.)

In other words, in crucial respects the IPCC’s 2007 report was no more than reckless propaganda, designed to panic the world’s politicians into agreeing at Copenhagen in 2009 that we should all pay by far the largest single bill ever presented to the human race, amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. And as we know, faced with the prospect of this financial and economic abyss, December’s Copenhagen conference ended in shambles, with virtually nothing agreed.

Please Read More Here…

WEATHER: HOTTEST JANUARY EVER SAY CLIMATE EXPERTS

Written By: Donna Bowater

Climate scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the ­hottest January the world has ever seen.

The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.

At the height of the big freeze, the entire country was blanketed in snow. But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: “January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen.

“Last November was the hottest November we’ve ever seen. November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen.” Veteran ­climatologist Professor Nicholls was speaking at an online climate change briefing, added: “It’s not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven’t warmed in the past 50 years.”

Please Read More Here…

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 1 comment }

Al Gore Is Lying Low — for Good Reason

Written By: Rex McBride

Maybe Al Gore’s been advised by legal counsel to lie low. He may be the leader of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) movement, but he’s not defending it in public, not even when it’s falling apart and his new fortune is based upon it.

Mr. Gore and his financial backers earned millions of dollars in start-up “green” companies and carbon trading schemes. If the scam worked, he could’ve become the first “carbon billionaire.”

“What goes up can fall down” applies to ill-gotten gains in the stock market or “carbon trading” schemes. In such schemes, it’s foreseeable that trusting investors will (a) not only get hurt when the scam collapses, but they’ll also (b) pursue legal remedies and sue him for fraud.

Mr. Gore’s financial gains were based on the contradictory and error-plagued assertion that man’s release of the trace gas CO2 will fry the planet.

Once it becomes clear to everyone that the AGW theory is based on cleverly manipulated data twisted by rigged computer models controlled by several dozen IPCC politicians/scientists, we can expect that investors who lose millions by investing in these companies will eventually haul Mr. Gore and the insider IPCC scientists into court.

Please Read More Here…

Fifteen Years With No Global Warming Doesn’t Mean There’s No Global Warming, Says EPA Chief

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Here are three great articles from American Thinker on climate change. We encourage you to read the entire original articles at the links listed below.

Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmists

Written By: Selwyn Duke

At one time, some would call them “deniers.” The more generous called them “skeptics.” But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else: sane. Yes, the climate has certainly changed.

Even in the mainstream media, the less liberal organs are waking up. There is now a never-ending barrage of articles on the climate scam, with The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post firing some recent salvos. And these inconvenient truths are just adding to a case against the Climateers that has become dizzying.

Yet amidst this exposition of fact and exposure of fiction, one point never changes: We have been had. And one question remains: Will justice be done?

Let us be clear on the gravity of the Climateers’ crime: They have used billions of our tax money to fund fraudulent science. And why?

For the purposes of promoting policies that would steal billions more.

Please Read More Here…

Climategate: What’s Wrong with this Picture?

Written By: Dexter Wright

Scientific Nobel Prizes are traditionally awarded to scientists whose work has been found to be a foundational discovery in the fields of physics, chemistry, or medicine. However the rules are different for a Nobel Peace Prize. The Peace Prize is more of a popularity contest; otherwise, how could we explain that the PLO thug Yasser Arafat was a recipient? In 2007, the Nobel Committee awarded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a Nobel Peace Prize to be shared with former Vice President Al Gore. It is important to note that the Peace Prize was not awarded for any discipline in science. As time has passed, the work that went into the award-winning report has come under scrutiny as questions of sloppy scientific methods are raised in the wake of Climategate. Looking closely at the report reveals scientific flaws.

Buried deep in the pages of the report are several graphs claiming to show that the average temperature of the Earth has been warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution. One of the more infamous graphs is the Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction Graph (below). This graph leaves off the Antarctic continent, where routinely, temperatures are recorded at well below -40o Celsius. The coldest temperature on Earth ever recorded was -89o C was at Vostok Station on the Antarctic plateau in 1983. This Northern-Hemisphere-only temperature graph was plotted with an accuracy of one-tenth of a degree Celsius and is touted as strong “evidence” for what has been termed anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The devil is in the details, as they say.

Looking closely at the graph reveals a significant problem: None of the proxy data derived temperature traces agree with each other. Specifically, just after A.D. 1600, the temperature trace in lavender shows temperatures cooling, while the blue line shows that temperatures are warming. In each case, the trends are less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius in variance.

If we peel back one layer of the onion, we can look into the accuracy of proxy data. The accuracy issue was the focus of a scientific paper published by NASA’s Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt in May of 1999. In the abstract of the paper, he asserts that “[p]aleoclimatic inferences from these carbonate isotope records are strongly affected by erroneous assumptions concerning the covariations of temperature and salinity and 18O.”

In English, that means that there are significant problems with the proxy data.

Is it possible that all of these well-documented problems with global temperature data were overlooked by the scientists from East Anglia University in Britain? The answer may lie in one of the recently uncovered e-mails. One such e-mail was in response to a discussion about the 2009 temperature data set and was sent on the 27th of October, 2009 from Dr. Michael Mann to the now-discredited Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann states the following: “As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”

And for this the Nobel Prize was awarded!

Please Read More Here…

Climate Change Debate Over? It’s Just Begun!

Written By: Ken Blackwell

The Left is wringing its hands over the “failure” of the World Climate Summit at Copenhagen to approve a binding treaty. But perhaps they should thank God (or Gore) for that fact. That’s because the mere threat of job-killing cap-and-trade legislation has been enough for independent voters in the U.S. to abandon left-leaning politicians in droves.

Along with stiff carbon taxes and straitjacket regulations inevitably comes population control. At Copenhagen, China’s Peggy Liu, chair of the Joint U.S.-China Collaboration on Clean Energy, bragged about Beijing’s brutal one-child policy. That policy, said this winner of Time Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment” award, “reduces energy demand and is arguably the most effective way the country can mitigate climate change.”

Soviet Communist Party boss Joe Stalin would be proud. “You have a problem with a man. If you get rid of the man, you get rid of the problem,” said the top Communist of the Twentieth Century. (Come to think of it, Uncle Joe Stalin even topped Peggy Liu. He was named Time’s Man of the Year not once, but twice — 1939 and 1942.)

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times hails China’s one-child policy as “reasonably enlightened.” He likes the fact that Beijing’s rulers — unburdened by those pesky voters voting out their betters — can “impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.” Friedman’s bestselling book is titled The World is Flat. (And liberals accuse us of being the Flat Earth Society?)

Isn’t it really funny how all the “errors” made by the climate scientists seem to fall on one side of the debate? If the glaciers of the Himalayas are all going to melt by 2035, that’s a real problem. But if they’re not expected to melt until 2350, it’s another matter. Guess which date the IPCC chose to publish? Just a typo?

What if the globe is indeed warming, but the warming is part of a cyclical pattern of warming and cooling? That’s the thesis of Dr. S. Fred Singer. Dr. Singer and co-author Dennis Avery write in Unstoppable Global Warming that “evidence from North Atlantic deep-sea cores reveals that abrupt shifts punctuated what is conventionally thought to have been a relatively stable Holocene [interglacial] climate. During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation above Greenland changed abruptly….Together, they make up a series of climatic shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 years (plus or minus 500 years). The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independently of the glacial-interglacial climate state (emphasis added).”

Dr. Singer has been abused by Left-wing bloggers, called a denier, and denounced as a tool of industry. He earned his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University, worked with NASA for decades, and is thoroughly conversant with satellite measurements of earth’s climate. And he taught environmental sciences at the University of Virginia for twenty-five years. Dr. Singer might be wrong. He might be seriously in error. But so far, no one has demonstrated that his arguments are wrong. Reviling him, calling him names, trying to shut him up and close him down — none of this constitutes a reasoned argument. It is nothing more than (in the words of Al Gore) an assault on reason. Stay tuned, folks. The earth may be warming — but not as fast as the debate over climate is heating up.

Please Read More Here…

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Al Gore on ‘climate crisis’ : ‘Worse than we thought’

Written By: Kerry Picket

In the midst of heavy snow fall all over the United States and a recent admission from global warming advocate Phil Jones that there has been no warming since 1995, former Vice-President Al Gore is sticking to his guns. In a February 12 statement, he writes on his website the following:

More evidence of the climate crisis is unfolding before our eyes. The situation in the Arctic is worse than data from satellite pictures have told us:

“For scientists studying the health of Arctic sea ice, satellite observations are absolutely essential for providing the big picture. It was satellites that revealed in September 2007 a record minimum ice coverage in the region — the result of a massive summer melt. And it was satellites that showed in 2008 and 2009 the modest recovery of late-summer Arctic ice that suggested to some that the specter of a totally ice-free polar ocean might be somewhat less imminent than feared.”

Please Read More Here…

Climategate : Prof Watson on Climate Science

Donald Trump Wants Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize Stripped

Written By: Noel Sheppard

Billionaire real estate tycoon Donald Trump wants Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize stripped from the Global Warmingist-in-Chief.

“With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back, ” Trump recently told members of his Westchester, New York, country club according to the New York Post.

The Post continued:

“Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.”

According to the Post, the crowd of 500 stood and applauded.

Please Read More Here…

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 1 comment }

Climategate: the official cover-up continues

Written By: James Delingpole

If there’s one thing that stinks even more than Climategate, it’s the attempts we’re seeing everywhere from the IPCC and Penn State University to the BBC to pretend that nothing seriously bad has happened, that “the science” is still “settled”, and that it’s perfectly OK for the authorities go on throwing loads more of our money at a problem that doesn’t exist.

The latest example of this noisome phenomenon is Sir Muir Russell’s official whitewash – sorry “independent inquiry” into the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) scandal.

The inquiry has not even begun and already it has told its first blatant lie – seen here on its official website.

Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?

No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.

By what bizarre logic, then, did Sir Muir think it a good idea to appoint to his panel the editor of Nature, Dr Philip Campbell? Dr Campbell is hardly neutral: his magazine has for years been arguing aggressively in favour of the AGW, and which published this
editorial in the wake of Climategate:

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ’smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

Please Read More Here…

Utah delivers vote of no confidence for ‘climate alarmists’

Written By: Suzanne Goldenberg

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

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

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

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

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

Please Read More Here…

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }

Dylan Ratigan: Snowstorms Are Evidence Of Global Warming

Global Warming Skeptic: Cool it

Share This With Friends:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • RSS
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine

{ 0 comments }