Video Tribute to “Earth Day”… Hippies Crying Over Trees

Happy Earth Day -- Perfect opportunity to post what many consider to be the hands-down, greatest earth day video of all-time, ‘Hippies Crying Over Dead Trees”…





Your brains have gone missing as well.

McCain Doesn't Challenge Hannity's Global Warming denierism

He wanted to get away from global warming as fast as he could.

Video: IPCC chairman, RK Pauchuri, says children are tools to utilize in fight against climate change, and can ’shame adults into taking right steps

Interviewer:

“What do you see as the tools, the next tools that you could try to utilize to try to create change?”

Pachauri:

“Children. I think we have sensitize the young, and tell them how their futures are going to be affected if you don’t take action today. And I think children are by and large very sensitive, and they understand. They know what’s at stake. And I think if we can get them to understand the seriousness of the problem, they will probably shame adults into taking the right steps.”

That speaks for itself.

Weather Girls - Its Raining Men

Cause Of Global Warming Found ?

Keynote: Vaclac Klaus, ICCC 2009

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and the European Union, speaks at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. Klaus argues that global warming "alarmists" are short on data and long on coercive measures that will reduce wealth and development in the Third World without having any impact on environmental concerns.

Reason's science correspondent Ronald Bailey will be filing dispatches from the conference. For more info, go to reason.com.

Ending The CO2 Drives Climate Argument

President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus criticizes the strong government control at The Wall Street Journal’s Eco:nomics Conference. In this interview with Robert Thomson, managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Klaus also argues against the idea of global warming.

This right here would end the politics of the AGW argument. For the last 10 years the earth's mean temperature has been flat and over the last few years dropping. Meanwhile CO2 is rising, gone up a few parts per million(ppm) in the last century, proving CO2 is not the forcing factor of Earth's climate. UK MET office data will do fine, although NOAA has now fixed the errors in their data and it agrees with the UK MET office.

Neither data set takes into account the warming distortion causing a skew in the surface temperatures because of the urban heat island effect of station siting, bad measuring station placements not meeting USHCN specifications, or other factors that are in control of the people running the monitoring stations.

End of story for this hoax. But some more facts ...

The sun's modern maxima came to an abrupt end in fall 2005. Yes that's right, the sun's modern maxima is the most recent period where the sun was radiating more than usual energy to the Earth, About 1930-2004. Any sunspots chart will show that data if you care to check it out. Try solarcycle24.com for all the latest charts and data. The data comes direct from the most reliable sources.

You are right, do some reading and research, use real corrected surface temperature data sets. Use real satellite data. Prof Bob Carter has a video lecture series on youtube that can be helpful in getting an overall picture of the real aspects of Earth's always changing climate.

Also while you are at it, check for that warming blanket surrounding the Earth, yes we now have satellites that actually directly measure it, look right where the GCMs predict it should be. One major problem, it's not there is it?

Did you know that actually greenhouses, those things they grow plants in, don't warm up and the operators increase the CO2 to about 1200 ppm so the plants grow bigger, faster and get greener?

Did you know that if we lowered the CO2 in the atmosphere to less than about 200 ppm, about half what it is today, most plants plants on Earth would die.

Did you know that if we removed CO2 from the atmosphere, all life on Earth would disappear as CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis and cellular respiration -- CO2 is literally the stuff of life for carbon life forms on Earth, and yes that includes man. CO2 is not as some alarmists say, a pollutant.

Do some reading, forget politics. Yes Greenland was name Greenland back about 1000 AD because, well you know, the Vikings found it was green and they could farm and raise livestock. It's now too cold for those activities in the scale they were when the Vikings were there.

At the same period in time, grapes grew in London, might make sense all those streets named after vines, grapes and wines when you think about it -- Yes wine was produced in England at the same time the Vikings were farming Greenland. Odd.

One more point, since the end of the last glaciation period, about 12,000 years ago, sea level has risen by 100 meters or so. Yep, that's 100 meters, to where it is today.

Next up, the real ice age. Facts and real data, better than all the political arguments you can make.

If you want to tax, ration and regulate energy, then at least have the honesty to say so.

More here:

Arctic Dinosaurs

Dinosaurs in the Arctic? Has anyone else seen the documentary on NOVA, “Arctic Dinosaurs“? It is about the discovery of at least 8 different species of dinosaur bones found on the North Slope of Alaska, only a stone’s through from the Arctic Ocean. How can that be?

The original discovery was made in 1961 by Shell Oil geologist Robert Liscomb who came across a large fossil. He sent the specimen back to his office, intending to have it classified by a paleontologist.

Unfortunately, Liscomb died the next year, in a rock slide, so they were in a Shell warehouse until about the mid-1980s, when Shell was cleaning house, and they sent them to the U.S.G.S. There, a paleontologist by the name of Charles Repenning, found the bones and immediately recognized that they were dinosaur bones.

Early March 2008, Alaska's North Slope, the frozen Colville River: a team of scientists has pitched camp here, at the base of these cliffs, willing to brave the perilous polar winter to investigate a startling discovery.

They've unearthed dinosaur bones near the North Pole. The animal was called Edmontosaurus, a gentle giant, a 35-foot-long, four-ton, duck-billed plant eater, a member of the Hadrosaur family, found in 70-million-year-old rock, a mere 50 miles from the Arctic Ocean, where temperatures can drop as low as minus-60 degrees Fahrenheit. According to conventional wisdom, it shouldn't be here, because this is how dinosaurs are typically pictured: cold-blooded reptiles living in tropical climes, not in cold, arctic environments like this one. And the Hadrosaur is not alone.

In two sites along Alaska's Colville River, paleontologists have recently unearthed eight distinct species, represented by hundreds of fossils.

Dinosaurs living in the Arctic, a few miles from the current Arctic Ocean. How can that be? Well one things seems sure, it was considerably warmer on Earth when this was going on. Similar have been made discoverys, at about the same time in Earth's history, have been made near the South Pole in Antarctic.

Another interesting thing is conifers and ferns grew right up to the shore of the Arctic Ocean. Finds in the permafrost regarding about the vegetation of the region shows the area was much warmer than today. This implies a temperature that is about 30 degrees warmer than it was today. It means that 70 million plus years ago, when things were warm, dinosaurs were living in the area excavated. They would not be able to survive there today, because of the colder temperatures.

Two-hundred-thirty-million years ago, the Earth was even warmer than it was at the end of the age of dinosaurs. Those conditions fostered a great flowering of diversity, including the evolution of dozens of species which came to dominate the land, the air, the water, and eventually filled every corner of the globe.

And then, 65-million years ago: a devastating blow to the planet...a massive asteroid impact. The prevailing theory is that the resulting explosion threw massive clouds of gas and ash into the air and plunged the Earth into a global winter. The theory held that dinosaurs, tropical animals, were unable to cope with the darkness and the cold that followed. But the discovery that dinosaurs already lived in non-tropical conditions, enduring long periods of darkness, suggests that there must be more to the story.

Who knew that dinosaurs roamed the shores of the Arctic Ocean 70 million years ago, and 230 million years ago it was considerably warmer than it was 65 million years ago, and it was considerably warmed then than it is today. Since about 5 million years ago, Earth has cycled between an ice age and what is referred to as an interglacial period -- Which is what the condidtions are today ... And Interglacial Perido, soon to be followed by a period of glaciation.

There is an online viewable video at the NOVA site.

Positive Feedbacks

What if I were to tell you that the entire case for man caused global warming(AGW) were to rest on two papers written by two scientists, and they provide no proof for their conclusions. Not thousands of scientists concurring on the facts, but a couple of scientists, whose work is done at the auspices of the UN. That fact is now becoming widely known. This fools game, relying on theory for both your hypothesis and the evidence you need to support it, is not science it's a hoax offered for lay people to consume.

From Monckton's paper ...

"It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted."

Another eye-opener is his explanation of how the believers' climate models are verified:

"Since we cannot measure any individual forcing directly in the atmosphere, the models draw upon results of laboratory experiments in passing sunlight through chambers in which atmospheric constituents are artificially varied," writes Monckton. "Such experiments are, however, of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere, where radiative transfers and non-radiative transports (convection and evaporation up, advection along, subsidence and precipitation down), as well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate the picture."

In other words, an unproven hypothesis is fed into a computer, nothing wrong with that, but it can only be verified against experiments that have no resemblance to the chaotic real world system of Earth's climate. It is not hard to see how the scientists could produce an immaculate "model" that's theoretically perfect in every respect, all the equations balance, and it may even be programmed to offer perfect "hind-casting", but which has no practical predictive value at all. It's safe from the rude intrusion of empirical evidence drawn from atmospheric observation.

The proof comes when predictive results are compared to the empirical data, and sadly they do not match 'at all'. Engineers call it GIGO.

Blowing The Whistle On The AGW Hoax

David Evans was a consultant to the "Australian Greenhouse Office" from 1999 to 2005. He is a former global warming alarmist; however, he is also a scientist who goes where the evidence leads him. In this important article in The Australian, he blows the whistle on the fraud that many of the world's governments are in the midst of perpetrating:

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.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts.

You really need to read the whole thing to get the full impact, but here are a few highlights: The first point is important, CO2 greenhouse effects has a distinct signature in the atmosphere, especially in the tropics, it should show up -- It is not there.

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. ...

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. ...

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). ...

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. ...

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. ..

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it.

The same will be repeated fro any U.S. President that ruins the economy in the name of the global warming religion. And that goes for McCain as well.

AGW Prediction Racket

The issue is simple.

It is like this: A horse-racing tipster predicted a horse would win the Derby, but that horse came in last. Then, the tipster said he had amended his prediction method and - using his amended method - he was confident that the same horse would win the Derby next year. Would anybody other than a fool believe him?

Now, compare that to the following: Several teams made climate models and all those models predicted global warming with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. None - not one - of those models predicted that global warming would peak in 1998 then stop for the following decade despite atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increasing by ~5%. But that is what has happened.

Now, one team has amended their model so it shows the cessation of global warming in 1998. Their amended model predicts that global warming will re-start in 2015. Does anybody other than a fool believe them?

And so it goes: Before long it will be only the fools that believe, because it will be obvious to everyone else that AGW is a fools game. Increased CO2 drives taxes, it's no more complicated than that.