Hahahaha

This is the 'science' behind Climate Porn...

via ClimateChangeFraud

Climate Porn

How can you tell it's the biggest lie in government?

...far below the 25-40 percent cuts by then that the U.N. climate panel and developing countries say rich nations should support to avoid dangerous climate change.[emp added LN]

Simply read that sentence and remember that China (the #1 'bad' producer would be exempt.

If any of these people were serious about climate change (heh) then they would be attacking all countries, regardless of wealth in an effort to stymie the flow of 'global warming emissions'.

Climate Porn

Good news on the Climate Porn front:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's top energy adviser said Friday there is no way Congress will be able to pass a bill on climate change this year.

"That's not going to happen," said the adviser, Carol Browner.

Browner made the statement at a conference organized by The Atlantic magazine, just days after Senate Democrats introduced a major bill on climate change. In a video posted on the magazine's Web site, Browner was asked about the prospects of enacting climate legislation by the time negotiations on a global climate treaty begin in December in Copenhagen.(link)

Using the Don Surber time+no=no method this is a treat for the economy and sane people everywhere.

Tags: climate porn

Climate Porn

Are there still people that believe the 'man-made' climate change horseshit?

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

Standard fare up to that point. Read the rest and be shocked by the facts and assertions.

Climate Porn

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years,

World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.

with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

DailyTech

It will be interesting to see the spin that the climate porn people put on stories like this as they become more common with the reduced solar activity. Of course they knew that man-made global warming couldn't pan out for long, hence the name change to 'climate-change' and the attempt to connect all weather to the movement.

The next big 'scare' will be the attempt to stop the global cooling by this same crowd (as it was in the 1970's); the only similarities will be the cost to the taxpayers. No matter what 'they' think needs to be done, it will come as a heavy burden to the working people of industrialized countries (and the upcoming ones).

tag: Climate Porn, global cooling, global warming, weather, Verlin Martin, Lord Nazh

Climate Porn

It's amazing that a story like this doesn't seem to be getting much press. Of course it's on drudge so the MSM may catch up later.

If your heart is set in stone about a warm New Year, you may be disappointed to find that more and more scientists think that climate change is simply that and not a man-made phenomenon to redistribute the wealth of the world into Al Gore's basement.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bites the dust.” (LINK)

US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
All the doomsday wishers in the world won't change what is actually happening and finally the public will get to see that the 'consensus' was nothing more than an attempt by certain people to capitalize on the fears of the common man, much like the Ice Age fears of the 70's.
tag: environment, global warming scare, junk science, skeptics, climate change, Verlin Martin, Lord Nazh

Climate Porn

This link is for James; I don't have time to really comment as my daughter is here and we're playing :)

Y2K Bug Drastically Changes US Climate Data

Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:38:56 am PST

According to the DailyTech blog, the NASA temperature data used to estimate the advance of global warming has been shown to be way off the mark, due to a Y2K bug in the graphing software—and the corrected charts tell a very different story: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Sorry to LGF for quoting the whole piece, but you guys can click-thru to read all of the quoted and the links.

For James

15-Year-Old Outsmarts U.N. Climate Panel, Predicts End of Australian Drought

Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 24, 2007 - 09:56.

Last week, NewsBusters readers were introduced to Portland, Maine’s fabulous fifteen-year-old, Kristen Byrnes, whose website “Ponder the Maunder” marvelously takes on anthropogenic global warming myths including those being advanced by soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore.

As will be revealed post haste, this newest – and likely youngest – member of the growing list of folks skeptical about man’s role in climate change actually walks the walk better than she talks the talk.

Yet, despite her youth and precocious scientific acumen, it seems quite unlikely that she’ll be sitting down with Matt Lauer or Diane Sawyer any time soon to discuss her research concerning one of the most popular subjects on the media’s front-burner. Why?

Because a prediction that she made last month concerning Australia's drought has marvelously borne fruit making the scientists employed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change look a bit foolish.

To set this up, here’s what the IPCC Summary for Policymakers report released on April 7 predicted regarding Australia (emphasis added): [link]

Links

We only date ugly men

May 22, 2007

COMMENT ON THIS STORY

MEET the women who find rippling muscles and chiselled good looks a complete turn-off.

Slicking on another layer of lipgloss, Selena Maria slings her bag over her shoulder and struts into the bar.

A sea of dark, handsome heads turn to ogle her. Jaws drop and good-looking men raise their eyebrows or move in to offer her a drink.

But Selena walks on by. She only has eyes for one man. He’s waiting for her in a dark corner. He’s not one of the handsome guys in sharp suits. He’s not even ‘average’.

He’s bald and podgy, with a pock-marked face, and is easily the ugliest man in the room. She sidles into the chair next to him.

‘Hi, gorgeous,’ she purrs. The man’s gargoyle face breaks into a toothless smile.

The good-looking men know they don’t stand a chance. (link)

---

Columbia High teacher accused of sex act with student Rumor concerning relationship led to investigation, charges

By BOB GARDINIER, Staff writer Click byline for more stories by writer. First published: Tuesday, May 22, 2007

EAST GREENBUSH -- A social studies teacher at Columbia High School was charged Monday with repeatedly having oral sex in his classroom with a 16-year-old male student during the school day. Late last week a rumor circulated at Columbia High School that social studies teacher Kirk James Hellwig, 37, of Patricia Lane, Saratoga Springs, was allegedly carrying on a sexual relationship during school time with one of his students. (link)

---

Fred Thompson predicts immigration reform bill will fail

By BILL THEOBALD
The Jackson Sun

CHICAGO - The immigration reform bill worked out late last week by Senate Republicans and Democrats likely will fail, former senator and possible presidential candidate Fred Thompson said here Sunday.

Thompson, speaking at the National Restaurant Association annual show, said the bill will not win the support of the American people because they don't trust senators' promises to block illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexican border into the U.S.(link)

---

France says no to mass legalisation of undocumented immigrants

Last updated at 16:53pm on 21st May 2007

Comments (13)

France's minister of immigration and national identity, a new ministry created by President Nicolas Sarkozy, has ruled out legalizing undocumented immigrants en masse.

The new ministry said today that government policy would be dictated by firmness and pragmatism.

"We have to put aside massive legalization. It doesn't work and it penalizes, even immigrants," Brice Hortefeux said on Europe 1 radio (link)

---

Iran expells 70 000 Afghans

21/05/2007 19:32 - (SA)

Kabul - More than 70 000 Afghans who were in Iran illegally have been returned in the past month, the United Nations said on Monday, as talks were under way between the neighbours over the controversial deportations.

The number of unregistered Afghans being expelled had eased off over the past week, the UN said.

The talks in Iran were to focus on how the deportations were carried out and also the treatment of deportees, it said. (link)

---

May 21, 2007

Global warming tour: Pelosi does Greenland

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a group of House members are planning to go to Greenland and Europe next week as part of what her critics have dubbed the “Global Warming Tour.”

Pelosi will be joined by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), John Larsen (D-Conn.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), and David Hobson (R-Ohio) on the trip, according to a draft itinerary of the trip circulating among House insiders and obtained by my Crypt-mate, Patrick O'Connor.

Markey is the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, a post he was appointed to by Pelosi earlier this year, and the other Democrats on the trip also serve on the panel.(link)

---

Religious leaders urge action on warming

Mon May 21, 5:02 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders are urging

President George W. Bush

" type="hidden"> SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web

" type="hidden">

President George W. Bush and Congress to take action against global warming, declaring that the changing climate is a "moral and spiritual issue."

In an open letter to be published on Tuesday, more than 20 religious groups urged U.S. leaders to limit greenhouse gas emissions and invest in renewable energy sources.

"Global warming is real, it is human-induced and we have the responsibility to act," says the letter, which will run in Roll Call and the Politico, two Capitol Hill newspapers (link)

---

Filed: ugly men, sex, illegal immigration, Climate Porn, BlogPower, LordNazh

The Great Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming SCAM !!!

Ok - since I promised long ago to post the stuff I had on CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) CAGW is just another way of saying that Man will cause catastrophic changes to the Earth by releasing CO2).

Let me give you a nice image ok??? This;

comes courtesy of Pete Du Pont, former governor of Delaware and Chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis

I'll give you a nice quote from it;

When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

That Little Ice Age (which is a matter of GEOLOGIC RECORD), was conveniently ignored when some "scientists" produced the "Hockey Stick" a few years ago which purported to show an alarming spike in global temperatures. Well the Hockey stick was a result of a flawed study that was done. Go here and read al lthe articles on the site which will show how flawed the "Hockey Stick" is here;

Interestingly enough, the Climate Porn people pounced on it to prove their own statements that the debate was settled.

So, the Climate Porn people state that the science is "settled". They states that Man is warming the Earth through his release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now, these people obviously ignore(d) that the Earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for millenia now but why bother to actually pay attention to the geologic record when you have a fantastic story to sell...hmmm? I mean after all, no news story leads with "A Plane Landed Safely today at Heathrow airport". Since it isn't sensational, it is therefore not newsworthy.

Same with climate science. I'll explain below...

The Science is "settled" they say... Really ?????!!!!!!!

Thats news to ...

--The IPCC Report - the first chapter of IPCC AR4 deals with the historical overview of climate change science. In that overview, cloud modeling is discussed. On page 114 we are treated to the following statement;

The strong effect of cloud processes on model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9°C to 5.4°C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parameterization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall inter-model range of sensitivities.

On Page 116 it reveals the next surprise;

The scientific community realized long ago that using adequate data to constrain models was the only way to solve this problem. However, existing data have not yet brought about any reduction in the existing range of simulated cloud feedbacks

Seems like the only thing that is settled here is how little we know about clouds.

--Saying the science is settled and or that Al Gore's movie is fact is also news to;

Marlo Lewis, Jr. (Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute) who states the following about Al Gore's fictional movie:

In Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, the only facts and studies considered are those convenient to Gore's scare-them-green agenda. And in many instances, he distorts the evidence he cites. In fact, nearly every significant statement Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or wrong.

Al Gore poo-pooed him on Oprah's show so Marlo responded here (YouTube link);

The CEI has put together a series of response videos on Gore's movie here;

Go here to read CEI's the Skeptics Guide to An Inconvenient Truth here;

--Going on...

Here's another voice who doubts that the science is "settled";

In it, you will see this money quote;

To be sure, the IPCC does an impressive job of mobilizing experts to
produce a report it hopes will be of service to the world. No one should
trivialize this achievement. But let's not make the error of allowing a
glossy summary to trivialize the complexities and uncertainties in
climate change. After all, if the issues were so simple, you wouldn't
need 3,700 experts to write the report. It is a paradox that some of the
strongest claims of unanimity in science are made on a subject involving some of the deepest intellectual disagreements and uncertainties.

--Its not settled for...

Fred Singer (Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia) and Dennis Avery, who write about it in their book titled Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years which can be obtained here;

--Nor is is settled for

David Bromwich, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, who reported the following;

A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models

...in this press release;

--Nor is it settled science for Doug Hoyt who put together a climate model scorecard to show how accurate those models, that the Climate Porn researches use, really are...

The scorecard can be found here;

Go see it for yourself as it will lead you to more in-depth debunking of some of the models predictions. But for the lazy here is the final tally;

The final score is 1-27-4. One confirmed prediction, 27 disconfirmed, and 4 undetermined.

Hoyt has also published a book titled "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change" :

--Nor is it settled for Roy Spencer who asks questions based upon Richard Lindzen's work at MIT;

Here's a nice quote from this page;

The fact is, science doesn't understand why these natural climate variations occur, and can not reliably distinguish between natural and possible human influences on global temperatures. So, if scientists have no other natural explanation for a warming trend, they tend to assume that it is manmade

Here's his bio (lest you disbelieve based upon credentials)

Roy W. Spencer received his PhD in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. He has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville since 2001, before which we was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. Dr. Spencer is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite. His research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE

Going on...

--Lawrence Solomon has been publishing a series called "The Deniers" in the Canada's National Post. This series can be found here;

So thats more scientists who think that this debate is "settled"?? Clearly, some people have a peculiar definitions of the word "settled".

Here's the last one that Solomon did. It concerns French scientist Claude Allegre's recantation of his Climate Porn past. Like many of the deniers he is a prominent scientist. Unlike many of the deniers Monsieur Allegre he was on the Climate Porn side of this issue for many years. Here's someone with relevant expertise who changed his mind just when the evidence for human induced global warming became sacrosanct? What gives??? Well read about it here and find out why he's changed his tune;

--Climate Scientist Roger Pielke Sr who discovered a HUGE mistake in the IPCC summary;

Pielke also has this to say;

Recently the SPM of IPCC’s AR4 stated that it’s now very likely that most of the warming of the last 50 years is the result of anthropogenic CO2. Are Global Circulation Models crucial to ‘prove’ that AGW is already taking place the last 50 years? My answer is ‘no’. The primary aspect that GCM’s have claimed to be able to show skillfully is a globally averaged surface temperature trend (link). But the models do this without including all the forcings. The models are incomplete. What they have shown is that CO2 is just one important climate forcing, but the 2005 National Research Council report Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties shows there are other first order climate forcings. Another problem is that our research suggests that the actual warming, particularly the minimum near surface-air temperatures on land, have been overstated. There is a warm bias in these data. So if the models agree with the temperature trends, they do this, at least in part, for the wrong reasons.

His comments can be found here;

-- Richard Lindzen (from some backwater university called MIT) wrote an article for Newsweek;

In it he concludes;

The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

You'll note that his bio states this;

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies

Now about that CONCENSUS of scientists that supposedly underpins the CAGW theory... here's what Lindzen has to say

It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit

The link is here;

In other words - this supposed consensus only includes scientists having agreed on the one page to page-and-a-half that they were tasked with drafting (usually with one or two other scientists). No one is asked if they agree with the report as a whole, let alone the Summary drafted by bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists.

--The Great Global Warming Swindle (which blows gore and CAGW theorists out of the water) is on Youtube and is in 9 different parts (had to be broken up into 9 parts due to Youtube restrictions)

Part 1:(youtube links 1-9) Part 2: Part 3: Part 4: Part 5: Part 6: Part 7: Part 8: Part 9:

This documentary exposes the lie behind the Climate Porn side of the debate. among that the lie that the CO2 emissions preceeded the rise in temperature. If that were thew case, then why did the Earth warm and cool before Man ever arrived?? Think also back to your physics class in school. A cold liquid retains more gas than a hotter liquid. Water contains not only H2O but also traps CO2 and O2 and other gases. When water is heated it releases these gases. The Earth's surface is mostly water. When the temperature rises, the CO2 then gets released into ther atmosphere. It is simple physics my friends. The Climate Porn people have the relationship exactly BACKWARDS and there are Artic Ice core studies that have shown this to be the case.

--- Winding this down (because this post is WAY too long) I'll leave you with the ramblings of a radio host that thinks the way I do...

His blog can be found here;

Look for his post on Global Warming which contains this really good synopsis of where we are;

First, let's identify the "Global Warming" fanatics for what they really are: radical Socialists hell bent on controlling everything people do in life, and delivering a mortal blow to capitalist economies worldwide. (Or, if nothing else, America's economy itself, will do.) It's true, the Earth has been on a warming TREND lately. And increased CO2 emissions surely account for SOME of it. Everything else is nothing but an educated guess. Following the U.N. report, "Global Warming" fanatics declared that "the debate is over." Oh, really? Over? Since when does science EVER put away its labcoats and clipboards and say: "Okay. That's that. Stop your experiments. We don't need to know anything else."
In other words, they want us to believe that...

a. They have "figured everything out" regarding Global Warming. All of it. Every piece of data, every method of analysis, every alternate theory. "They" now know exactly how this all works. All the incredibly complex global interactions of sun, earth, clouds, wind, oceans, land, gases, volcanoes, factories, jungles, cow farts, jet streams, snowstorms, hurricanes, landslides, ice caps, currents, landfills, wildfires, lakes, streams, bogs, bays, puddles, snowbanks….. all of it! They've got a huge chalkboard like the one you saw in "Good Will Hunting" that explains it all.

b. It is OUR fault.

c. We MUST act NOW, or else CATASTROPHE is imminent.

d. In addition to having "solved" what the "problem" is, the same geniuses have simultaneously and conveniently ALSO "solved" the problem of what is the "solution." Thank you. That was handy.

e. We can "afford it." Trust them.

Its surprising that a sports radio host can cut through all the B.S. and remind us all that science never puts away the labcoats.

--Finally I'll leave you with the comedic stylings of Lewis Black who has a few things to say about the subject here on Hotair;

Conclusion ??? --> Global Warming --> A Market correction for the Global Cooling of the 1970's

(I warned you guys I didn't want to have to wade back into this debate b/c I was afraid of posting too much and alas although I posted alot, I have only posted about 1/2 of what I have on this subject on just this one harddrive - I have tons of other stuff as well)

{edited some links and formatted for style ~ LN}

Light Reading

Two things I want you to read:

Do not surrender to hopelessness.

Do not succumb to defeat.

Do not give in to fear.

Rise above the political pressures of the moment to do what is right for America. (link)

You'll never guess who is doing the speaking if you didn't read the first part. Great thanks go out to Senator Lieberman for his speech. This speech is something that should have been said long ago by ANYONE in Washington, luckily it looks like someone at least is still paying attention to the world and our part in it.

Number 2 comes from the (anti) Climate Porn sector:

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.(link)

Read the whole thing. They don't give a location to the data they use, so I can't claim it is 'proven', but the article is just as much proven as Al Gore's movie and book.
__________
Reason(s) to think
Filed: Joe Lieberman, reason, war on terror, Climate Porn, Augie Auer, BlogPower, LordNazh

Climate Porn and Children

You knew it would happen sooner or later, Climate Porn^TM would finally morph into a staple lefty issue. Seems now that global warming cooling climate change will begin to be linked to abortion?

Children 'bad for planet'

Article from:

By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London

May 07, 2007 12:00am

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."(link)

Of course this idiot isn't calling for abortions (yet) but he wants the 'rich' countries to have less children. No more than 2 per family (never mind that the fertility rate of the EU and England are already less than 2). It's all about the carbon footprint of the children that will contribute to a problem that no one has a clue what it really is.

The first thing the so-called experts need to do is to determine exactly what the problem is and prove it is a problem (yes we all know the climate is changing, been doing that awhile, something to do with that big burning ball we see every morning). The next thing to do for these experts may be to run and hide. I have friends that actually believe this crap and it's real hard for me to understand how they can. They always seemed like sensible people, but they've wrapped this new religion around them so hard they can't see the world any longer.
__________
Reason to doubt

Filed: Climate Porn, fertility, BlogPower, LordNazh

GCC (again)

I can't write much on this as I'm busy atm, but I'll leave a snippet and the link. This is especially for the climate porn people that come here (and James I'm not including you in that group, yet^^)

Why So Gloomy?
By Richard S. Lindzen

Newsweek International

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface. (link)

Read the rest. This is a professor and scientist of Meteorology at MIT, so maybe he has a slight clue what he's talking about.

Climate Porn

Just say no to Climate Porn!

March 18, 2007
Is there an average global temperature?
By James Lewis

It is already painfully clear that models of anthropogenic global warming are ridiculously inadequate, and do not meet the basic tests of experimental science, no matter how many "scientists" yell "consensus." Now comes a serious question from a serious scientist that threatens to undermine the fundamental premise of the alarmists.

Danish physicist Bjarne Andresen has raised the interesting point that there may be no global warming, because there is no such thing as global temperature! That is because the earth atmosphere is not a homogeneous system. It's not a glass lab jar in your high school physics lab.(link)

Read it all. There is nothing to say this guy is correct, just like none of the climate porn hacks can claim to be correct either. If everything was a cut-and-dried as the Al Gore's of the world would want you to believe, there'd be proof of something, no?
__________
Reason to doubt
Filed: global climate change, climate porn, American Thinker, LordNazh