Being a citizen is a full-time job. If we wish to reclaim our rights, we first must begin by reclaiming our responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities are inextricably linked and cannot be separated.
For the alarmists. The powerful effect, NOT!, of CO2 green house gases are being swamped out by measly natural effects. First it was the sun who decided to forgo it's spots, then the land temperature fraud was exposed, then the ARGO sea buoys said it's cold, then the PDO flipped to cold, the AMO is flirting with following ... what next?
Will a volcano blow it's top? Why yes it might, one is giving it a try ... Volcanoes are notorious for blowing their ash and aerosols high into the atmosphere, blocking out the sun's warmth and causing worldwide cooling. When Mt Pinatubo blew it's top June 1991 it was said global temperature plunged. While this event does not look to be of the same magnitude, once they go off who knows if this is just the beginning of a long stretch of activity or will the big one come soon.
In Chile the Chaiten volcano has erupted suddenly, it was thought the Chaiten volcano was extinct, last known eruption was 1000s of years ago. Not so extinct anymore. Some vulcanologists are now warning that a cataclysmic eruption is possible, many more are being evacuated from the danger area. Chile is loaded with volcanoes, so this isn't really that unusual for them.
The 3,550-foot Chaiten volcano belched fire and ash Thursday night, causing more than 60 small tremors in the Los Lagos region, 750 miles (1,200 kilometers) south of the capital, Santiago, the government's Emergency Bureau said.
Who knows what effects this will have, but it likely will add to the cooling in the Southern Hemisphere at least. Volcanoes are in continuous eruption somewhere on Earth, so their effects are mostly factored into the baseline climate. A large even like the Mt. Pinatubo Eruption can change that, but we will have to see how this plays out.
Think about what reducing energy consumption 20, 30, 50 percent will really mean. Because that is what the lunatics mean when they talk about reducing CO2.
And why not nuclear power? Why that's too scary for the enviro-lunatics.
Like all Liberal proposals, they don't think through the results of adopting them before it's too late. Yes, I mean you Hussein and Hildabeast, and you too McCain. The un-scientific DDT ban has killed tens of millions of African children, don't let this stupid CO2 tax do the same to modern society.
Does nyone remmeber chicken little? The modern environemtal groups are made of them, with Al Gore leading the band.
UK Astronomer Dr. David Whitehouse, who authored the 2004 book The Sun: A Biography, said on May 1, 2008:
"Isn't it curious that over the next decade man-made global warming will be cancelled out by natural cycles. It's nice that Mother Nature (not the journal) is helping us this way but it does beg the question as to whether the man-made effect was all that significant if it can be nullified this way."
Curious indeed.
When the PDO changed in 1977 from cold to warm, the "ice age is coming" scare melted with it -- Only to be reborn as "we are all toast" as the warm cycle continued. And now the PDO has shifted back to "the next ice age is coming". I wonder if anyone understands how bad they have been had.
Now that the sun has joined in by going quite, the next years are going to be really interesting. Warm is good, cold is not so good. Learn to live with it, the natural variability of our planet.
The only thing CO2 drives is increasing taxes and fear mongering.
An engineer, a scientist, and a global warming modeler were all interviewing for a job. The interviewer calls in the engineer first. The interviewer tells the engineer, "I have one question, what is 2+2"? The engineer replies, "I can tell you with exact certitude the answer is 4.00000". The interviewer makes some notes, lets the engineer go and then calls in the scientist. "I have one question", says the interviewer. "What is 2+2?". The scientist thinks for a moment then replies, "I can tell you that the answer lies somewhere between 3.998 and 4.002.". The interviewer lets the scientist go and then calls in the global warming computer modeler. The interviewer tells the modeler, "I have one question, what is 2+2?". The modeler thinks for a moment, looks to the left of him, then looks to his right. Then he lowers his head, leans in and whispers to the interviewer, "What answer do you want it to be?"
What with catastrophic global warming proceeding at such an alarming rate, regular updates are required for people to stay up to date on our planet's sweltering doom. From Science Daily:
The Antarctic deep sea is getting colder, which might stimulate the circulation of the oceanic water masses. This is the first result of the Polarstern expedition of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association that has just ended in Punta Arenas/Chile. At the same time satellite images from the Antarctic summer have shown the largest sea-ice extent on record.
Ninety percent of the ice currently on this planet is in the Antarctic region. If ice is growing there, that means we can forget about the rising seas scenario Al Gore and the environmental whacka-doodles have used to frighten money out of the gullible.
So far the only tangible symptom of the global warming crisis is rising food prices caused by the biofuels boondoggle and rising fuel prices because the very same whacka-doodles won't allow any more drilling and refining — Unless you count global warming having killed the Loch Ness Monster.
Predictions of environmental doom have been with us for a long long time, as the Washington Policy Center reminds us:
•“...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.
• By 1995, “...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
• Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
• The world will be “...eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.
• “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction,” The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.
• “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...” Life magazine, January 1970.
• “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.
• “...air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.
• Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years.
• “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
• “By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
When I was in College in the 70s, we were all going to die because of global cooling. Then it started getting warmer and we are all going to die because of global warming. See a pattern? When it was getting cooler, we were all going to freeze into little itty bitty ice cubes. Then it got warmer and we were all going to toast brown on all side because of global warming. Then we finally recognized that we had to change the lingo and call it climate change, because we couldn't tell if we were going to die because we were all going to freeze, or toast.
Learning from our missteps ...
Now we call it climate change, run around like our hair is on fire, and try and convince people that whatever the natural forces effecting planet does, we are all going to die. Easier this way, since you just have to yell 'we are all going to die' and not worry about the details.
As the endless winter drags on, don't you feel better that it's covered by climate change?
Democrat President Jimmy Carter stated repeatedly that by the year 2,000 all the oil on Earth would be used up and we needed to invest in sweaters now and prepare ourselves for the inevitable. Misery and malaise spread across the USA, we even invented a "misery index" to show how bad things were. Jimmy conducted fireside chats to help people adjust. Most people just laughed at the fool, but since he ran the government, he could do real damage to the economy and the economic well being of the country.
During the Presidential campaign of 1976, Democratic candidate, Jimmy Carter, made frequent references to the Misery Index, which by the summer of 1976 was at 13.57%. Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high, had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the 1980 election to Reagan in a landslide -- People had had enough of fireside chats to last them the rest of their lives.
Carter was a false prophet and turned out to be the problem, not the solution. There are a lot of Carter parallels to the current crop of Presidential wanna-bees.
Meanwhile ...
Here we have the biggest head in sand that has ever infected our political leadership in the USA. Not since Democrat President Jimmy Carter did his one man wrecking ball act on the US economy has there been so much ineptitude in Washington. In the mad dash to return the US economy to the pre-civil war days, the politician's ignore the obvious. The US economy runs on oil, and will for the foreseeable future -- Period. Nothing is going to change that.
All in the name of an obvious hoax, science education being what it is these days ...
Do you know how the hoaxers draw those scary looking graphs? Do you know what positive feedback is? No, then it's how you draw the scary graphs. It's not science it's fear mongering.
As for CO2 as a greenhouse gas, CO2 is a minuscule part (0.038%) of the Earth’s atmosphere, but the politicians don’t want anyone to know that. Why? Are they afraid that even stupid people will put one and one together and come up with two, that the hoax is based on a minor insignificant part of the atmosphere, a part that allows our carbon based lifeforms to thrive? Without CO2, plants would die, ever heard of photosynthesis? Photosynthesis is the process by which plants convert sunlight, light energy, into chemical energy by living organisms. The raw materials are carbon dioxide and water; the energy source is sunlight; and the end-products are oxygen and (energy rich) carbohydrates, for example sucrose, glucose and starch. This process is arguably the most important biochemical process, since nearly all life on Earth either directly or indirectly depends on it. It is a complex process occurring in higher plants, phytoplankton, algae, as well as bacteria.
In other words, our very life depends on the conversion of CO2 and water to plant material and oxygen, which we and other animals then eat and breath. Read that again before you condemn CO2.
I wonder, is education in government run schools this bad that processes like photosynthesis are not taught in school these days? Doesn't anyone in the general population understand physics and chemistry anymore?
So why ignore oil, and drilling and refining new oil. Simple, for 60 years politicians have searched for ways to control people in the USA. They are too free, they use too much they produce too much, was the cry. So now, they have developed a scare monger's approach to the whole affair, scare people by claiming the planet is doomed, unless we act now. The fight is coming in June, when the McCain-Lieberaman "cap and trade" fiasco is coming up for a Senate vote in June. Oh yeah, I forgot, it is now called Warner-Lieberman, since McCain is running for President and doesn't want you to know he was the original sponsor. This stupid bill will cap the CO2 emissions and make many people very rich. Power companies stand to gain from this farcical piece of legislation. Many other companies will try and get filthy rich of this scheme. Companies like Al Gore's, stand to profit enormously from this climate hoax. How someone goes out as a public speaker for a policy that then stands to gain from the policy is beyond me.
In the UK the high court has labeled his movie fiction, and cannot be shown in schools without so noting and showing other views which correctly portray the Earth's Climate.
There is plenty of oil, 95% of the US shoreline is off limits to new drilling. Other wastelands are now called wildlife refuges and declared off limits, like ANWR. ANWR was called the WASTELAND OF THE NORTH, nothing is there but a few people who go there to see that nothing is there a few months out of the year, when it thaws out.
So the task that has been accep[ted by Liberals, like Jimmy Carter before them, is to destroy US capitalism. Liberals hate it, it empowers people, listen to what Obama and Hillary say, not what you think they say, they are MARXISTS in every definition of the term. MARXISTS seek control over over people. Here is a dictionary definition ...
... the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Karl Marx; notably a theory and practice of socialism including the 'labor theory of value', dialectical materialism(A Marxian term, look it up), the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society
Karl Marx's most famous writings, the "Communist Manifesto". The people must be ruled, fairness is the methodology, and the end result, which never seems to show up, is a classless society.
Class warfare, which party exposes class warfare? Democrats, they use the language of we need to make Walmart pay, we need to "tax the rich" for the public good. Class warfare is all they are preaching and Karl Marx handed down the doctrine of their religion.
Obama when asked about lowering the capital gains tax, specifically that it had produced higher revenues to the treasury, he said "It's not about the money, it's about the fairness". You should stencil that on your forehead if you are an Obama voter. Wear it proudly, they will probably make up some song you can sing.
I have one that I am saving for the occasion ... a short verse goes like this ...
Hey Hey Ho Ho Where do my job go
Sing it you will need it. Jimmy Carter would be proud.
Meanwhile, if you want something to watch that should give you a chuckle, here is the 1970s version of global warming, global cooling. Yes that's right, the first try was we are all going to die because the ice age is coming and we are causing it. some of the cures, like spreading carbon black over the poles might seem a little humorous but it was real. Note some of the people named in the video are the very same who are now pushing the global warming hoax -- Yes same ones. They just hope you are young enough to not know.
Two Latin American leaders have issued warnings about the effects of biofuel production on food supplies.
Speaking at the UN in New York, Bolivian President Evo Morales said the development of biofuels harmed the world's most impoverished people.
And President Alan Garcia of Peru said using land for biofuels was putting food out of reach for the poor.
Meanwhile UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is hosting a meeting to discuss European policy encouraging biofuels.
Ahead of the meeting, Mr Brown said that the UK should be "more selective in our support" for biofuels, which convert cereals into fuel.
Campaigners say providing a renewable alternative for conventional fuels could help stop global warming.
But as food prices climb worldwide, there is a fear that development of biofuels could reduce the production of badly-needed basic foodstuffs.
Ethanol production is on course to account for some 30% of the US maize crop by 2010, dramatically curtailing the amount of land available for food crops.
The EU has meanwhile come under criticism for its target of getting 10% of road transport fuel from crops by 2020.
The head of the UN World Food Programme and the chief of the African Development Bank chief are among those attending the London meeting.
Bio-ethanol project
Opening a UN forum on the global impact of climate change on indigenous peoples, Mr Morales said that capitalism should be scrapped if the planet is to be saved from the effects of climate change.
"If we want to save our planet earth, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system," he said.
And what would we replace freedom, captilism and liberty with? MARXISM, like that being preached by Mrs Clinton and ever deft Barrack (no middle name) Obama.
Hmm this sounds familiar, I wonder what Bolivia's President did recently, oh yeah, I remember ...
Bolivian President Evo Morales seized control of the country's natural gas industry Monday, sending soldiers to occupy fields that he contends private companies have plundered for years.
Morales said that unless foreign energy firms agreed to give Bolivia's state oil company oversight of production and a majority of their revenue generated in Bolivia, the government would evict them from the fields.
Newsbusters has the story right here. Is anyone surprised? Yes I am, shocked that ABC would expose it. This comes after the UK High court issued the printed record of the items in the film which was in fact false. The story about the ruling was run on October 7, 2007, but then there were virtually no stories in the US media about the lies Al Gore told.
Is it OK to use computer generated movie scenes to try and make a fact that you cannot find in nature to try and fool the public?
And rightly so, computer models are not reality and even the UN IPCC has acknowledged that their 'predictions' are not to be viewed as 'predictions' anymore, just scenarios. Scenarios of what? Ignorance is your enemy, science and the truth is brings will set you free. Al Gore, a failed politician and charlatan getting rich off the hoax has no credential to talk about anything science. In fact, he bars all press from his high cost talks.
Is it any wonder that the polls show that Americans are educated enough to realize the hoax when they see it.
A new Gallup Poll shows a high level of awareness among Americans about global warming, but a far lesser degree of worry about the phenomenon.
The survey released Monday reported that while 80 percent of Americans said they understood the issue, only 40 percent believed it would become a serious threat in their lifetimes.
About a decade ago, a poll showed that 25 percent feared climate change would be a serious problem in their lifetimes.
Two-thirds of Americans say they worry a great deal or a fair amount about global warming. Only 17 percent said the issue doesn't worry them at all.
"The trend data suggest that despite the growing attention to and emphasis on global warming in recent years, there has been no consistent increase in worry about it since Gallup began asking the question way back in 1989," Gallup said in a written statement.
using the Saul Alinsky model, it's time to pick another subject, because you have failed with the global warming panic play.
The telephone survey was conducted March 6-9 and surveyed 1,012 Americans 18 years or older. The margin of error was plus or minus three percentage points.
Environmentalism is the lefty's new Communism, on the war on capitalism.
All people think that we should balance our actions, endless strip malls lining the roads, maybe the planning commissions should just say no to some of this. But the nonsense spewed by the left is just, well, it's just nonsense.
Real science tests their models, if the models are so accurate run a simple demonstration, set the initial conditions for 1979 data and predict the climate in 2007. Why these end dates, 1979 is the first year where reliable satellite data is available and 2007 is the last year that the record is complete. May the best model win ... LOL.
Why the 'LOL', they have done this, hence the scenario designation. It doesn't work.
Get a copy of Iain Murray's timely new book. The New York Post had a glowing review yesterday.
Tuesday is Earth Day, the calendar's High Holy Day of Green theology. With each passing year, environmentalism more clearly assumes the trappings of a secular religion. Now, along comes Iain Murray to assert that the Green God is dead.
Murray's new book, "The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About - Because They Helped Cause Them," clarifies the difference between caring for the environment - a reasonable and virtuous belief that people rightly harbor - and the modern-day movement known as environmentalism. The latter, Murray notes, has amassed a shameful legacy over a half century that has killed millions of people and consigned billions of others to backbreaking poverty. "Environmentalism deserves to be as discredited as Marxism," Murray argues. His book does a superb job of doing just that.
Murray, an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, lives a low-carbon lifestyle. He loves nature and the outdoors. He's practically a tree-hugger. Nevertheless, he makes clear, "I am not an environmentalist."
Why? Because, as he explains, environmentalism has become a socio-political movement exploiting people's genuine regard for nature as a smokescreen for expanding government and exercising power. And the results have been disastrous for both humanity and the environment.
Murray chronicles seven environmental catastrophes, and shows the hand of the professional environmental movement in each one.
Thanks to the efforts of Green patron saint Rachel Carson, environmentalists have succeeded in curbing the use of DDT, which, Murray writes, is "highly effective in controlling malaria and thereby lifting millions out of poverty." While it's unclear if banning the pesticide has had much in the way of environmental benefits, it has been unquestionably harmful to humankind. Unchecked malaria has killed tens of millions of people, particularly in Africa, and continues to cost people their lives each year. "In 2005 alone, across Uganda, 50,000 children died from malaria," Murray notes. "That is the true Silent Spring."
Environmentalism, the new home of modern Communism.
Did you know that if everything recommended in the UN IPCC AR4 report were done, that it would have virtually no effect on global warming? Yes that's right, the expenditure of trillions will do virtually nothing. But if we started building nuclear power plants today, CO2 would be reduced with every nuclear power plant built and cheaper electrical energy would be provided. It is also true that most CO2 is due to fixed power plants, not automobiles.
Technology will advance, and when cheaper, better, lower polluting, more effecient forms of energy become available, they will be used. The market will speak. For now, nuclear power is the option that needs to be used where ever possible.
Rachel Carson, name ring a bell? Do you know who she is, what she did? She died in 1964 and has become a goddess to the environmental leftists -- Showing them the way of Gaia. Her book Silent Spring was published by Houghton Mifflin in 1962. The book caused the panic, started the whole process of lies about how DDT was destroying the world, hence the title "Silent Spring" -- When all things are dead. The book is a fairy-tale, not based on science, but fiction -- "Silent Spring" was not even close to scientifically accurate. All Rachel Carson did was what modern day leftists are doing today, they demonize an industry, in the case of DDT it was the chemical industry, accusing them of spreading mis-information, when in fact the chemical companies were trying to get the truth out. It took over thirty years to expose this hoax and get the truth out. Even today, the leftists are holding conferences and meeting to try and put the DDT genie back in the bottle, but no one is listening to them this time.
DDT is just one of many scares and silly wars perpetrated against objects, thoughts and diseases by leftist that are designed to panic the people into taking actions they would have otherwise avoided. In this case, banning of an insecticide based on no scientific data. In case you are wondering, WHO, yes that UN group, has removed the ban on DDT September 15, 2006. After over thirty years and millions of dead African children, the ban has been lifted and DDT has gone back into production to fight malaria. Yeah, they say it's only for indoor use, but who thinks that will stand the test of time. Why did millions have to die for a leftists fairy tale? There motives were clear, DDT allowed the pushing back of man's habitable boundaries and the leftists want to contain humanity to preserves of their choosing.
... And now we come to Al Gore, his fictitious movie "Inconvenient Truth" and global warming, just the latest in the long line of leftists scares and their sycophant perpetrators who are trying to tell us we can control the sun if we will only pay enough taxes and live like they want us to live. You figure that one out for yourselves.
OK, I'll provide my answer ...
The scam never changes, only the targets. Yes, the "Silent Spring" hysteria WAS similar to the present "global warming" hysteria -- as the real process of science was perverted by a social/political movement.
Remember what Saul Alinsky said ... and you will understand the current state of continuous panic being spewed by the left.
Disastrous stupid policy in the first place, to lead the world in showing they support the hoax
The European commission is backing away from its insistence on imposing a compulsory 10% quota of biofuels in all petrol and diesel by 2020, a central plank of its programme to lead the world in combating climate change.
Burning food is a dumb idea, the last to figure that out will be the leftists in the US Congress.
... they invent phony wars on objects, conditions, institutions, thought, diseases, and all manner of silly things. These are not wars. These are challenges and tasks. Assuming they are even real, and not merely political inventions. ..... Pat Dollard
Why not point out the fact that man burns the old crops and forests to plant crops, especially in third world countries? Is there something wrong with acknowledging the obvious -- That this simple act adds more pollution and CO2 to the atmosphere than many other so-called bad actors?
Some recent examples here, here and here. I wonder why this is never talked about when it comes to curbing CO2? I think you know the answer. These are just some of the images around the northern hemisphere as the crop growing season heats up.
It turns out, not very reliable. Anthony Watts at WattsUpWithThat has an ongoing project to find the truth. The results so far are not encouraging. If you want to visit some stations in your area, say while on a driving vacation this summer, and do a photo essay on what you find, look at surfacestations.org for USHCN sites that still needs surveying.
Why you might ask, is this not a matter of record? Good question, maybe the USHCN did not want to know the answer?
It's an all volunteer effort but the results are eye opening. Approximately 4% of the USHCN temperature monitoring stations surveyed so far meet the letter of the USHCN book for monitoring and accurately reporting on the surface temperature records. Most stations surveyed so far have siting problems which for the most part, bias the temperature readings upward.
If you use only stations that have correct siting, you get no temprature increase for the last years of 0.0 degrees C. Yes that's right, no change in surface temperature.
Running the numbers you get this distribution ...
CRN1 & 2: +0°C CRN3: +1°C CRN4: +2°C CRN5: +5°C
The grand total is an average warm bias of 1.95°C per station.
CRN1 and CRN2 are the stations with the least problems, with CRN1 having met the siting specification.
"I applaud the President for outlining a bold alternative climate initiative that rejects the concept that the United States must adopt economically ruinous cap-and-trade legislation such as the Lieberman-Warner bill that would significantly drive up the already skyrocketing cost of energy on the American public," Senator Inhofe said. "Today, as American families and American workers are faced with an economic downturn, the slumping housing market, and rising gas prices, they are unlikely to tolerate a `de-stimulus’ climate bill that will not have the sponsors’ purported impact on temperatures but will further exacerbate economic pain.
If the trace gas CO2 is the problem (CO2 is o.o32% of the total atmosphere) which it's not, then nuclear power is the answer. Nuclear power produces clean energy at one third the cost of coal and one fourth the cost of natural gas.
“Among all the deniers I have profiled,” Solomon writes, “I have never encountered one who disputes that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect, or that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.... The arguments are all about how powerful the effect is, especially when considered in combination with other factors, various feedback mechanisms both negative and positive, and other influences that might or might not overwhelm the effect of CO2.” In other words, Solomon found that the “deniers” are, in fact, not in denial at all. They are merely dissidents from the political orthodoxy of climate catastrophism.
Sign me up, I can agree with this. The greenhouse effect is well understood, and water vapor is by far the biggest contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect -- Without which the Earth would be a very unpleasant place indeed. CO2 grows really big plants and trees, any gardener will tell you that. CO2 is a minor player in the greenhouse effect, and is surly not a major factor. The only way the unverified computer models produce the scary temperature graphs, is by using positive feedback, which if it existed the Earth would have already "railed the climate system" most likely Earth would be a permanent snowball.
