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.

Good news?

Just saw this:

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- An influential coalition of Fortune 500 companies and environmental groups that was formed to support climate-change legislation has splintered over the Lieberman-Warner bill that is headed next week to the Senate floor.

The U.S. Climate Action Partnership formed last year won't take a position on the bill, although nine of its members - including General Electric (GE, Fortune 500), Alcoa (AA, Fortune 500) and four utility companies - signed a letter to senators backing the legislation.

The letter, also signed by big environmental groups and obtained by Fortune, says: "Prompt action on climate change is essential to protect America's economy, security, quality of life and natural environment."

But other members of the coalition known as U.S. Cap, most visibly Duke Energy (DUK, Fortune 500), a coal-burning utility, are strongly opposed. "It's going to translate into significant electricity price increases," says Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO.

Without widespread corporate support, passage of the bill - already a long shot at best - becomes even more unlikely this year. President Bush remains opposed. House Democrats have been slow to act.

Besides that, a backdrop of rising gasoline prices and the sluggish economy makes it difficult to win votes for a regulatory scheme that will raise the prices of electricity and gasoline. In fact, a key purpose of the bill is to put a price on the emissions of greenhouse gases, as a way to speed the transition to a clean-energy economy and slow down global warming.

Hopefully this will kill this bill. There's nothing like a good global warming scare to keep the sheep in line.

Tags: Lieberman-Warner, global climate change, legislation, economy, prices, climate porn, Lord Nazh

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

FemGore

Hillary is attempting to play to the AlGore! crowd now:

While higher fuel effecieny standards and lower emissions are good, the way to go about it is with R&D first and then to start in on the people that don't jump on board AFTER you get the science. Global warming (like global cooling circa. 1975) will fade, but the policies that any of the Democrats would enact would be with us long after the crisis was over.

If the Democrats truly want to help the US get over foreign oil, they should support domestic oil production. ANWAR and off-coast drilling, new explorations and R&D for the removal of oil from shale; all oil that could be brought into refineries without any dollars going to the mad mullahs (or Hugo). Of course if they were serious about the dependency, they would have thought of this already. The 'green' flap you hear is simply pandering for votes.

tag: Clinton, global warming, democrats, oil, Blogpower, LordNazh

GCC (again)

Via MVRWC:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.[link]

Again, this won't change the minds of James and others like him, but it should open them abit more :) Since this is based on writings, there will always be wiggle room, but the thought that the only evidence presented for future warming due to man is in fact computer models should hurt. As Martin (MVRWC) says, "...show me a computer model and I’ll show you whatever you want me to."

When they get the models to correctly predict last weeks weather, maybe I'll listen more. When they can get the models to correctly predict weather a month from now, I'll listen even more. They can't do this now, yet the computer models are 'spot-on' in predicting what will happen 50-100 years from now. As Hillary would say, "...really [would] require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

GCC Consensus

Remember the 'consensus' on man-made global warming? The study that found the consensus used search terms from papers published between '93 and '03. Since it was old, the study has been redone (using the same methodology):

CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher

August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

As you can see, the papers being written don't seem to add up to a 'consensus' any longer. Not that this will make a difference to those already a part of the GCC church, but it is a start.

I don't expect the James' of the world to change their minds on it, but a little opening of the mind couldn't hurt.

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.

GCC

Update: It is being reported that this was a hoax (sort of April Fool's just on the wrong day). Not sure if it is or not, but there are lots of people covering it.

Global warming climate change laws, are they really for the environment?

BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.

Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.

The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.

Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming. (link)

I wonder how many burning grills they'll have to find before they can 'offset' the use of the choppers for it? Climate change proponents (if they truly believe what they preach) should worry about cases like this. Not only is the 'science' of your movement under heavy scrutiny (and it doesn't stand up all that well to some of it); it is also very bad when a known CCP country makes a law as blatant as this one.

If it was simply about the environment, at least the helicopters would run on water or something, no?
__________
Reason for doubt

Filed: Belgium, Climate Porn, laws, LordNazh

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

Issues

I told James H (from across the pond) that I would attempt to do a good post last night. Alas it was not to be as me and my internet got into a fight. :) Needless to say, I did not post any last night.

Let's touch on a couple (or three) issues that I feel strongly one way or the other about.

Global Warming Cooling Climate Change:

ON GLOBAL WARMING Let me clarify a little my position. I think there are a lot of questions about global warming: how much, and what, should be done. However, I regard two questions as basically no longer worth debating, at least by people with my level of science education:

1) Is AGW happening?
2) Should we do something about it?

The first is a technical question that seems to be largely settled; when you've convinced Ron Bailey it's happening, you've convinced me. The second is a moral question that seems obvious: should I drive a huge, empty car many miles when doing so will help flood Bangladesh, merely because the comfy leather seats are right here where I can see them, and the dead future Bangladeshis aren't? . . . this is a question that seemingly only has one right answer. I say this as one who is conscious that I could use less electricity, and should, and am trying to but not as hard as morality should require. But I digress.

Unfortunately, I think that politics renders the questions that are worth arguing, pointless; we won't find a political solution to the problem because . . . mmmmmm, leather seats. I'm hoping instead for a technological breakthrough that renders the question largely moot. Meanwhile, I'm buying real estate in the Canadian hinterlands.

posted at 02:57 PM by Megan McArdle

This is via Instapundit and one of the guest bloggers there. If anyone wants to know why I strongly dislike people that claim this disaster is imminent, that's one of the reasons.

Declaring that something is a given requires proof not consensus. The fact that almost every planet in this solar system is in the middle of some kind of 'global' phenomena dealing with the sun leads one to believe that maybe our problem may be related to the sun also. It's not only juvenile to state that the case is closed and there should be no debate, it is also dishonest to not take the rest of the planets into effect when talking about what is happening.

Is the planet warming? According to measurements indeed we have gained about .6 degrees celsius in the past century. What will that mean for the future? NO ONE KNOWS. Of course there are plenty of people that tell you what they THINK it means and what THEIR computer models show them, but these people don't actually KNOW anything. Until they can prove their side, then debate is not only open, it is NEEDED. It is not enough to ruin the economy of most of the countries in the world and to deny the people of the third world their chance at becoming 'industrialized' nations on the thought of people that don't know what will happen next. (In 1975 there was a severe threat of a new ice age...)
----
The non-scandal over the US Attorneys

The power of the President to fire politically appointed people is not in question, this story should be a moot one. The republicans in office today are scarily consistent. If the democrats cry "SCANDAL" then the republicans will jump into a defensive stance and look for a suitable candidate to fire. They don't actually try to defend themselves or laugh off baseless accusations, they simply retreat into a cubby hole and send someone to the firing deck.
----
Abortion
I believe that Abortion is indeed about choice. But I believe the 'choice' that is happening is between the woman's rights of reproduction vs the child's right to life. It's very hard for me to see how anyone could pick the former over the latter.

To be 'pro-choice' to me would imply that the baby has a choice (yes BABY) but it does not. The choice that the woman has (except in cases of rape) was already made when she decided to have sex (sex being the cause of 99% of all known pregnancies) and therefore she has already exercised her reproductive rights.

The press is quick to point out how many U.S. servicemen have died in the Iraqi war (somewhat slower to point out the Iraqi casualties) but you hardly ever see any reports on the number of U.S. children killed due to 'freedom of choice'. It is galling that people would be more concerned with the fate of death-row inmates than they would with the next generation of citizens (considering most of these same people also want to 'fix' the world for the next generation, shouldn't they be more concerned with bringing the next generation into the world o.O)
----
Immigration

Immigration is the greatest thing in the world for EVERY country. Unless you live in the cradle of civilization, your country was founded at some time by immigrants. The 'Native' Americans may have been the first people in this country, but they arrived here from somewhere else too.

Illegal Immigration is the problem. In a running argument with a friend of mine, I support the border fence, he detests it. He says it will not stop the flow of immigrants, is too expensive, etc. I say the point is not it 'stopping' the flow, but slowing it. Trying to divert the people that want to come into this country into the places where they are EXPECTED to cross (legally) and to try to halt some of the 'not known' crossings we have now.

Of course the fence (only being 700 miles) will not stop illegal immigration. To stop it, it would have to be much longer and have people on it 24/7 manning the top at 5-10 foot intervals. We know that won't happen. But if all you have to do now to get into this country illegally is to walk through the desert, then something has to change. Of course, we should also start enforcing the laws we ALREADY have against illegal immigrants, but that of course is another issue.

Notice the MSM will hardly ever put the word illegal in front of immigrant. They want you to think that people that are against illegal immigration are really against immigrants. period. They do not want you to think about the fact that people that are illegal immigrants are already criminals in this country and shouldn't be paid for by the hard working people of this country.
__________
Reason to rant
Filed: global climate change, law, Instapundit, Immigration, abortion, LordNazh

Heh of the day

Over at SixMeatBuffet, Cranky preaches on the AlGore Bible (^TM):

The Secular Faith - The Book of Algore

¹⁹ … now therefore, gather all the four hundred and fifty climatologists, and the four hundred prophets of Algore. We shall meet upon the mountain Thursday after next.

²⁰ And Algore sent a message to all the people, and said, “How long will you falter between two opinions?

²¹ Yea, do you not realize that there is but One True reality and the other a lie?”

²²Then Algore said to the people, “I alone am left a prophet of the Climate; yet you must see that the Great Warmening is nigh.

²³ Therefore let us have a challenge; On the Thursday after next, you masses run your SUVs, your Suburbans and your Hummers for many hours.

²⁴After you have run your SUVs, your Suburbans and your Hummers for many hours, the Climate shall withhold the rain and your crops shall be smitten.”

²⁵So the prophets of Algore and the climatologists carried his message to the villages and the furthest parts of the countryside.

²⁶On the Thursday after next, Algore arose ascended the mountain. “Where are my four hundred and fifty climatologists and four hundred prophets? Indeed, where is everybody?” Algore asked of the seventeen men assembled on the mountain.

Read the rest, it'll give you a laugh (unless of course you are a member of the Global Warming Climate Change Church).
__________
Humor
Filed: SixMeatBuffet, Cranky, Al Gore, GCCC, LordNazh

Goredom

How do you spell hypocrite? G - O - R - E would be a very good way to do it. He of the 'Inconvenient Truth' global warming cooling climate change fame really needs to look introspectively before he preaches to the masses.

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”

Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006. (link)

This is just one of his homes, does not include his jet-setting or other transportation costs. Amazing how the 'key' to the survival of the planet is cutting back and it's being harped by someone who is revving up.
__________
Reason to laugh

Filed: Gore, Global Lie, hypocrisy, LordNazh