GW Bridge Fall Explained

No, it's not the George Washington Bridge, named after the President who could not tell a lie. It's the Global Warming Bridge, as we could know the I-35W bridge from now on because of some who do lie. The latest hyped claim on the bridge collapse comes from an official and scientist with the former Clinton administration and who works in a "think-tank" loosely affiliated with the Clintons. Is it possible that he really believes this stuff? What follows are selections from his recent article.

Did Climate Change Contribute To
The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?

Some may object to even asking the question, “Did climate change contribute to the Minneapolis bridge collapse?” My guess is those are the same people who deny that global warming is caused by humans or that it is a serious problem — the same people who inevitably say “we can adapt to whatever climate change there is.”

The Bush administration has blocked research into the impact of climate change on this country and muzzled climate scientists from discussing key climate impact issues, such as the connection between global warming and the recent increase in intense Atlantic hurricanes....

But given that a remarkable 70,000 other bridges in the country are also structurally deficient, we should seek to learn whether such troubled bridges can take the ever-growing stresses generated by global warming.

I knew that Bush was behind the fallen bridge somewhere. Maybe Hillary Clinton will tell us what she will do for those other 70,000 bridges. Perhaps she could melt down ships, tanks, and planes into steel reinforcing bars. If global warming is really the greatest threat to mankind, then why spend on the military?

Collapsing Warm Front?

Seems as though much of Owlgores Global Warming science is falling apart, not that it was REAL science to begin with.

H/T: Fausta

UPDATE... Terrific Video, again, my thanks to Fausta - A blog friend that if you DON't Have on your favorites list, you have no idea what you are missing.

Acquired Green Delusional Syndrome

I've been having so much fun lately posting snarky posts about the left and Democrats in general, I've neglected my contribution to the field of mental health recently. Oh, my clients are doing well with their therapy, but I've not contributed much to the knowledge of mental health in the recent past and because of that I've put on my thinking cap and done a little research into the field. Following DSM IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (of Mental Disorders) Forth Edition - Text Revision) one has a diagnosis and then criteria that meet that diagnosis. There are of course other factors that affect the making of the diagnosis, so I'll post those as well albeit briefly. So, for your reading pleasure I present:

300.9 Acquired Green Delusional Syndrome (AGDS)**.

Diagnostic Features: The essential feature of Acquired Green Delusional Syndrome is a belief, learned from others and not based on one's own research or knowledge that global warming is a fact, that rock concerts burning huge amounts of fuel, using massive kilowatts of electrical power and attended by a few but supported by many, that using ethanol is a energy saving device and that replacing all electrical bulbs with CFLs will make a significant difference in the global climate.

Associated Features and Disorders: Associated features of this disorder may include eco-terroristic acts, an overwhelming sense of the importance of consensus in science and a belief that folk with sub-doctoral educational status have as much knowledge about what is happening as those that have made a lifetime study of the field, especially when many (most) of those who disagree with GW can be and are categorized as "wingnuts."

Specific Culture and Gender Features: The disorder seems to be more prevalent in those from more industrialized cultures, those with more money than common sense, politicians with an ulterior motive, and celebrities who believe that their ideas are more important than the ideas of the folk that made them celebrities in the first place. Sex differences do not seem to be as much a factor as does being educated in public schools and universities or being under the influence of liberal leaning professors and teachers.

Prevalence: Twenty five years ago, this disorder was far overshadowed by "Its A New Ice Age Delusional Syndrome" which has since been eclipsed by AGDS. The numbers individuals with symptoms of AGDS were increasing exponentially until recently when former greenies and members of the Church of Global Warming began questioning the basis of the belief system. It is expected that within 25 years, the syndrome will be antiquated and or obsolete with only a very rare number of adherents and those looking back will wonder how on earth any one with a room temperature IQ or higher could possibly have believed that stuff.

Differential Diagnosis: There are no existing described disorders close to AGDS. The closest disorder is now considered to be obsolete (see above mentioned Its A New Ice Age Delusional Syndrome).

Global Warming Causes Giant Cats!

Continue reading "Global Warming Causes Giant Cats!"

"Consensus" Explained

Left: Skeptics ----- Right: Grant Recipients

Via Matthew at Physics Geek

Bush Gets Serious on Global Warming

Bush Addresses Climate Crisis

WASHINGTON, DC—In a nationally televised address reminiscent of President Kennedy's historic 1961 speech pledging to put a man on the moon, President Bush responded to the global warming crisis Monday by calling for the construction of a giant national air conditioner by the year 2015. (Continue Reading)

Sell Carbon Credits in Your Sleep

From The Joy of Tech via John Ray at Greenie Watch

More Proof!

Of what? Don't ask.

South Africa: Johannesburg recorded its first confirmed snowfall for almost 26 years overnight as temperatures dropped below freezing in South Africa's largest city....

Australia: Local citrus producers have their fingers crossed waiting to see if their fruit suffered frost damage after the area experienced its coldest June day ever last week.

Global Warming Threat Gets Under Your Skin

Today's global warming threat is sponsored by America's pharmacies, who are itching to serve you.

Climate Changes Are Making Poison Ivy More Potent

Poison ivy, the scourge of summer campers, hikers and gardeners, is getting worse.

New research shows the rash-inducing plant appears to be growing faster and producing more potent oil compared with earlier decades. The reason? Rising ambient carbon-dioxide levels create ideal conditions for the plant, producing bigger leaves, faster growth, hardier plants and oil that's even more irritating.

To fight this, we're going to need an ocean of calamine lotion. (Scroll to appropriate song in this nostaligic flash back.)

Good grief.

Blowing Smoke Over Global Warming

This:

Al Gore Speech on Katrina and Global Warming
Now, the scientific community is warning us that the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming.

Gives us this:

Study links hurricane stress to teen smoking
Teenagers in a southeast Texas county were more likely to smoke cigarettes if they or their family members were affected by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita, according to a university study. ..."The hurricanes had an emotional impact on the youth and we need to recognize that and give them the help they need. Otherwise, they use tobacco as a crutch and then they become addicted."

Mankind makes global warming worse, which makes hurricanes worse, which makes kids smoke more, which kills them. None of this has anything to do with other factors, naturally. And, it's Bush's fault, too.

Attack of the Killer Worms

Obviously, birds are not doing their jobs to eat enough worms. As a result, global warming could be getting out of control because of these wigglers, who seem intent on taking over the world after destroying mankind...if the melting ice caps don't drown them first. I also blame fishermen who spare worms by switching to artificial lures as bait. Note this article from Material Recycling Week.

Worms are killing the planet

Worm composting could be doing more harm than good to the environment, a leading researcher claimed today.

Composting Association research director Jim Frederickson said: “Worms produce a significant amount of greenhouse gases. Recent research done by German scientists has found that worms produced a third of nitrous oxide gases when used for composting.”

The ‘wiggly ones’ naturally produce nitrous oxide gases when they are put into the process of composting.

...Frederickson said: “Everybody loves them because they think they can do no harm but they contribute to global warming. People are looking into alternative waste treatments but we have to make sure that we are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

...“The emissions that come from these worms can actually be 290 times more potent than carbon dioxide and 20 times more potent than methane. In all environmental systems you get good points and bad points.”

This is a serious problem. Worms represent a group that Democrats can't control by promising amnesty and the right to vote. ...but, I bet that they thought about trying. They each have something in common...they are both slimy.

Don't think that attacking worms and cutting them into pieces will help. Doing that will allow them to regenerate into even more worms. How sinister can they get?

Carrying Global Warming Too Far

How far would Al Gore go to lower Lady Liberty's carbon footprint?

Anything so that he can keep his pool heated.

Time to Get Serious About Global Warming

There are times to make jokes and there are times to be serious. This is one of them.

Adoption Group: Cat Invasion
Due to Global Warming
From Live Science

Droves of cats and kittens are swarming into animal shelters nationwide, and global warming is to blame, according to one pet adoption group. The cause of this feline flood is an extended cat breeding season thanks to the world’s warming temperatures....

I don't know. Maybe we need those extra cats to deal with the extra mice, who must also be breeding due to global warming.

I have one question. Why do the cat people want to destroy western civilization with their global warming problem?

Do Higher Taxes Solve Global Warming?

If you like higher taxes, be sure to support the fight against global warming and support politicians who see global warming as a priority issue. Coming to a country near you, before it goes on the road to the states....

Greens' climate plan sees 12-cent tax at the pumps
Carbon toll is price to avert environmental 'catastrophe'

Ottawa - The Green party wants Canadian drivers to pay an extra 12 cents a litre at the gas pumps as the price of averting environmental "catastrophe." Leader Elizabeth May is boasting that her party is the only one politically brave enough to call for carbon taxes that would discourage automobile use....

This next part is a real hoot.

"We will use those carbon taxes to reduce taxes elsewhere."

Yeahhhh, right. Never seen that happen.

The political leader also likened the gobal warming challenge to that of Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon. Of course, as I remember, the predecessors of this bunch opposed the race to the moon saying that the money should be given to the poor, instead. Hey, let's give the carbon tax to the poor!

Or, we could simply ask the oil companies to increase the price of gasoline by twelve cents and ask them to use that money to study global warming themselves, rather than have government handle the collections, spending, and research? Such studies would avoid the middle man and would have as much credibility.

This is just the start. To fight unproven global warming created by mankind, there will be on-going demands by politicians for more taxes and mandated pollution controls of questionable value that will drain companies and individuals of money.

This isn't a fight on global warming. It's a fight against the economies of the West and a fight to control the finances of nations. And, the "problem" will never go away and the taxes will only increase. I've never seen a crisis that liberals solved. They depend upon them for votes and taxes, and solving anything would end their source of power.

GW can stand for "global warming," but it can also stand for "grabbing wealth." Watch your wallets when liberals get causes.

Global Warming Skeptic Beaten into Submission

Just disagree with any bunch of liberals and the attacks become so vicious and relentless that a person will agree to anything to survive and keep his job. It's the liberals' form of retribution using sophisticated torture. Of course, the liberals will demand the "customary apology" so that you don't dare disagree again. Such has been the saga of NASA Administrator Michael Griffin over global warming.

NASA chief regrets remarks on global warming

...NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that “unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.”

“All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this,” he said.

Griffin made headlines last week when he told a National Public Radio interviewer he wasn’t sure global warming was a problem.

“I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists,” Griffin said on NPR. “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

The radio interview angered some climate scientists, who called his remarks ignorant. ...

The last sentence is somewhat of an understatement. They taught him what happens if you disagree with "scientific consensus."

In other news:

They call this a consensus? - Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

...Today, Al Gore is making the same (1992) claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

...More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet.

Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

...Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled.

...What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. (T)he IPCC Secretariat responded..."The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

...Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused. ...

Global warming is a looney religion of the Left. Let's hope that rational people can hold out long enough for this "crisis" to pass and before we bankrupt the globe over something that demands scientific proof--not political consensus.

I'm sorry for the abuse that NASA's chief, Michael Griffin, had to take, but his courage brought sincere doubts about global warming to the surface and may provoke others to stand up to "consensus."

Al Gore: Fisked By A High School Genius

I have a masters degree and a total of 60 hours of grad study under my belt. I have 38 years experience in the mental health field and a fairly good understanding of science and the scientific method. Woody and I have written over 50 post on the Global Warming issue, some serious, some humorous. I have read countless articles on global warming, both in the scientific literature (both pro and con) and in various blogs (both pro and con). Woody and I have jousted with GWTBs (Global Warming True Believers) in numerous posts and a number of different blogs. And yet, never, NEVER, NEVER

NEVER

have I come across such a delightful and factual fisking of OWLGORE and his Inconvienent Truth than a young lady doing a high school science project which she posted on the internet. Ponder the Maunder, a sample:

Throughout the film, he made inferences to his personal and political life, which has nothing to do with global warming. When he wasn’t lecturing about his personal life, he was lecturing about how global warming is man-made.

With these lectures he only considered one point of view, and did not consider the other side of the story (warming being natural), which would have made his movie a little more believable. Not only did he not look at both sides, he always assumed that every harmful phenomenon (extreme weather, rising sea levels and horrible diseases) was correlated or associated with global warming and due to “man made” emissions.

Now, lets start at the beginning of the movie, and see what has and has not been misinterpreted.

If you don't do anything else this week, read this excellent post and ponder the intellect that must be behind it. Kristen Byrnes, you will go far young lady.

Climate Scientists Have Second Thoughts

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

...Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. (R)eview the list of scientists (in the link below) and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007.

The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. ...It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears)

Continue Reading via this link: Once Believers, Now Skeptics

In other news, the average temperature in April was cooler than the average for the last century and was the 47th coolest April in 113 years.

Global Warming's Latest Crisis

I cannot add anything to make global warming seem any sillier than does the information in this supposedly serious article.

Arctic Leaders Blame Warming for Wolves, Suicide

Global warming sent marauding wolves into an Alaskan hamlet, killed Norwegian reindeer with unlikely parasites and may even spur suicide among Inuit youth, Arctic leaders said Thursday.

The Nation Turns It's Eyes

Guess which extremist magazine recently published the following conservative article.

Is Global Warming a Sin?
[from the May 14, 2007 issue]

In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.

The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution--and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed.

....Next: Who are the hoaxers, and what are they after?

Do you know where this was published? Go to the continuation link below to find out.

Continue reading "The Nation Turns It's Eyes"

Global Warming Religion

Others and I have often stated that global warming is like a religion to many. Now, we have further evidence of that.

Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won't find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' former Vice President Al Gore's book about global warming. [Link]

Did Christ and Gore both come to save the world? Many who reject the first cling to the second.

Well, one thing's for sure. With Al Gore's book on the nightstand, people won't have trouble finding a way to fall asleep.

CFL Bulbs - Not Light on Budget

There has been a rush by global warming alarmists to force everyone to have to buy the compact flourescent lightbulbs (CFLs) to save the world. When I put some into our house, my wife pulled them all out because the light from them was not acceptable. It's a good thing that she didn't break one in the process.

Light Bulb Lunacy by Steven Milloy

How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor — unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn’t include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.

Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) — a move already either adopted or being considered in California, Canada, the European Union and Australia.

According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter’s bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.

Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

Well, now that you know that the Dept. of Environmental Protection has been called, can you guess where this is going? Here's the link to the article so that you can read all about this expensive game. LINK

I played with mercury from broken thermometers when I was a kid, and I'm not dead yet, although some may claim that it affected me. Enviromentalists have gone too far to not weigh costs vs. benefits, but what do they care as long as it's someone else's money.

Free Carbon Credits !!!

To address "global warming" and if you want to be considered "carbon neutral" and if you want to "feel good," you may pretend to offset your "carbon footprint" by obtaining "carbon credits or offsets," which are available at a price from Al Gore's own company. On the other hand, I like to try something before I buy it, and I like things that are free. Given that, Denny in Atlanta has shared a source that gives FREE CARBON OFFSETS. This could solve melting glaciers and all evils against nature by mankind.

Here's my carbon offset certificate! I now can leave the air conditioner running in my house all summer without destroying the Earth. I did my part.

Get your very own certificate suitable for framing from Free Carbon Offets (link)! Give some as presents, too! Won't your kids be excited on their birthdays to receive carbon offsets rather than video games? The wife would especially like this for your wedding anniversary. Trust me.

Sorry, Al. That's the way the free market works. The world is saved!

UPDATE: This is GM, normally I don't add to or change Woody's posts, but this is too important, we must save the world from Owlgores hot air which is heating up the planet. To do that, I have created our own Certificate of Carbon Offsets and placed it below this paragraph. To use, simply right click on the certificate, save it to your computer, print it, write in your name, date it, and take it to your nearest Garden Center. There, purchase an OAK TREE, pay for it in full and take it home and plant the tree. You will have done something for the children (hey, we can't let the Democrats be the only ones doing "it" for the children.). In fact, you can print as many as you want, then everytime you buy something green to plant in the garden, a container, the flowerbox or on the patio, you too will feel smug and superior.

Global Warming - Make Up Your Minds

Does claimed anthropogenic global warming create a more severe hurricane season, as warned, or a milder hurricane season, as now being claimed in THIS ARTICLE?

These folks want it both ways. No wonder they changed their mantra from "global warming" to "climate change." They want to be right no matter what happens.

Take it from me, because of global warming, the Red Sox will either win the pennant or lose it. That makes as much sense and has the same degree of certainty.

More Cowbell for Al Gore

Today on Capitol Hill, former V.P. Al Gore testified about global warming.

In an emotional plea, Al Gore said, "The planet has a fever,"

..."and, the only prescription is...more cowbell!"

Well, he really did say that the planet has a fever, but I might have made that last part up. Maybe keeping the beat with a cowbell will do as much for global warming as many proposals. Come to think of it, aren't cows responsible for a lot of the GW emissions into the atmosphere?

To pacify Al Gore, do your part for the Earth's fever...buy a cowbell and strike it every time that he says that we are having a planetary emergency. You'll have fun and make a statement...well, forget the statement part. Just have fun ridiculing Gore.

"I'm tellin ya fellas, you're gonna want that cowbell!"

Global Warming Debate - It's Not Over

Some things that you won't see in the major media about global warming....

Scientific Smackdown:Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners AgainstGlobal Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.

Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view.

...The New York City audience laughed as Gore became the butt of humor during the debate.

...NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, one of the scientists debating for the notion of a man-made global warming "crisis" conceded after the debate that his side was ‘pretty dull’ and was at "a sharp disadvantage." Schmidt made the comments in a March 15 blog posting at RealClimate.org.

One commenter at Jennifer Marohasy's site who has followed this said, "I notice that Gavin Schmidt of the RealClimate site thought they lost the debate because Crichton was so tall and had a greater presence." Remember, "Real Climate" is the site of preference to quote for people who don't know much about AGW but still strongly believe that it is an immediate crisis. And, wasn't Al Gore taller and have more presence than President Bush during their debate when Gore broke protocol and walked over to Bush? We know who won that one, though.

Now, the global warming deceivers are playing "I wish I had said this or thought of that."

Next, for Al Gore's upcoming meeting with a Senate committee....

Al Gore Continues to Demand Special Treatment

From behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: Former Vice President Al Gore, despite being given major preferential treatment, has violated the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee’s (EPW) hearing rules.

...The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore’s testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) -- the day of the hearing. It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.

The question looms on Capitol Hill: Is Gore delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy?

Gore's getting special treatment is what he expects, as he doesn't believe that he has to follow the same rules as others or the ones that he preaches (See "Al Gore's unility bill.) Maybe if he stands up tall and intimidates the Senate committee members, he can feel that he won.

Big Government Encroaching

Big government knows no bounds. Recently, we've discussed speech codes, forcing a total switch to flourescent lights, in Australia they want people to cut down on showers (unlike France where showers are rare), and now they are coming back to reduced speed limits--this time on the sacred German autobahns where no speed limits exist--all for the environment.

Maybe the E.U. was worried that Germans could invade France before France had time to raise the white flags.

I tell you. It's just the beginning. Big government leftists will keep making up every way they can to tell other people how to live. It's all for the environment...and, oh yes, the children...not for them, of course.

Cooling Down Global Warming Claims

A film that the global warming deceivers don't want you to see...

The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that carbon dioxide released by human industrial activity is the cause of rising global temperatures today. That Earth's climate is changing and always has done is not disputed by anyone. That it is warming now is also not disputed by anyone. But some people think that the warming is our fault, whilst others believe we have nothing to do with it.

The film argues that rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide have nothing to do with climate change. Further, the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions may have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

Recent research, presented in this film, apparently shows that the effect of cosmic radiation, and solar activity may explain fluctuations in global temperatures more precisely than the carbon dioxide theory.

This film made for British television and posted below, is one hour and sixteen minutes long, but it's more interesting than Al Gore's Oscar winning Power Point presentation...and, it's honest. Click the play button and watch.

[Alternate link if film does not play or for larger image]

Also, see the interview with Director Martin Durkin

Of course, you may expect frantic liberals to use misleading isolated quotes and hand-picked studies to dispute this and deceive you, and I have seen some, but they're afraid that people will start to see through exaggerations and phony claims by Al Gore, his Hollywood friends, and accomodating scientists.

Make up your own mind. Don't let anyone tell you that the scientific argument is over and that you shouldn't question something being rammed down our throats. I get suspicious when someone says that I have to decide on something immediately rather than having adequate time to consider it.

We are starting to see brave politicians and scientists standing up to the railroading of people across the globe. The attacks and intimidation against them by the left is just starting. They need our support.

[Get Ready for the Alarmists]

You have to read this "for the other side." Continue with the link below and read the even more frantic and extreme claims, which are pretty hard for reasoned people to swallow.

Continue reading "Cooling Down Global Warming Claims"

Dear Global Warmers, Lighten Up

Do you like your bright floodlights, your dimmer switches, your easy-to-read-by light bulbs, the motel light that Tom Bodett leaves on for you, and your choice to buy whatever you want? Well, just as the left wants to control what you say, now they want to tell you what kind of lights to purchase. It happened in Australia, is happening in Europe, and might be happening next in a country near you.

EU leaders to make Europe change lightbulbs

"The European Council ... invites the Commission to rapidly submit proposals to enable increased energy efficiency requirements for office and street lighting to be adopted by 2008 and on incandescent lamps and other forms of lighting in private households by 2009," the final statement said.

Incandescent lamps are traditional lightbulbs which use a filament. They are inefficient compared with new fluorescent lights and other alternatives.

"We are very impressed by the Australians and before we came to the summit, we had already been in touch with them and looking at the issue. We support this scheme and hope to take it on," Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said.

I didn't like it when the government said that water holding tanks on toilets should be smaller to conserve water, but those frequently result in double-flushing in some cases. Don't even think of a courtesy flush. Well, we may be seeing the same thing with electricity.

Now, governments ruled by the left are starting to tell us to use "their" light bulbs. If I'm going to have adequate light to read, then I would use three times as many of their bulbs to get the necessary brightness. So, how much would that cost for additional bulbs and how much energy would that take?

It's only starting. The "we know better than you, leftist, global warming" crowd wants to gradually run every aspect of our lives. By the way, did you know that PETA wants everyone to become vegetarians to stop global warming? Next thing you know, we're going to be told that we can only drive 55 mph on the highways. Oh...we've been there. And, it sure would be hard to watch night baseball with only flourescent and LED lights to shine the way.

This summer, I intend to go to the Braves games driving 70 mph, to grill meat while we tailgate, to watch the game under bright non-flourescent lights, and to flush the toilet in the men's room twice if I want. It's the American way, and I'll do it because I like it and because I can. So, lefties, go away.

Following Al Gore's Example on Carbon Offsets - Cheat

Al Gore has justified his home's high energy consumption by claiming that he purchases "carbon offsets" to make him "carbon neutral." Can you guess who receives the money that Gore pays for the carbon offsets? Why, it's himself! How "convenient."

The Prophet of Doom - via Bill Hobbs.com (selections)

As the controversy over global warming doomsayer Al Gore's voracious energy-eater mansion rolls on, there's an angle I think merits deeper investigation than it is currently getting. While much of the focus has been on whether or not Gore is an environmental hypocrite, the story has raised the profile of the role of "carbon offsets" in achieving a "greener," more environmentally friendly world.

In its original story, The Tennessean reported that Gore buys "carbon offsets" to compensate for his home's use of energy from carbon-based fuels. So far, so good. But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. ...In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

I hereby declare myself carbon neutral because I gave myself money from an ATM today. If it works for Gore, then it works for me.

If Al Gore refers to me as a global warming denier, then I'll just refer to him as a global warming deceiver.

Daylight Savings Time! A New Contest For The GWTB's

In a very short time-span, it will be daylight savings time. In order to keep our carbon foot print from causing global warming GM's Corner is sponsoring the Daylight Savings Time Savings Contest. This contest is only open to the GWTB's the Global Warming True Believers and has simple rules. As we know, Daylight Savings Time saves daylight. If we save enough, it will get darker because we won't be using daylight. Save as much daylight as you can, and let me know in the fall how much you saved. The winner gets a one way ticket to siberia where, when the warming does hit, it ought to be a tropical paradise.

Aliens Can Solve Global Warming

No,I don't think that this means illegal Mexicans. This is about getting space aliens to solve global warming. (Yeah, the "global warming delusionals" really have their heads screwed on right.)

Alien technology the best hope to 'save our planet'

A former Canadian defence minister says be believes advanced technology from extraterrestrial civilizations offers the best hope to "save our planet" from the perils of climate change.

Paul Hellyer, 83, is calling for a public disclosure of alien technology obtained during alleged UFO crashes -- such as the mysterious 1947 incident in Roswell, New Mexico -- because he believes alien species can provide humanity with a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

"Climate change is the No. 1 problem facing the world today," he said. "I'm not discouraging anyone from being green conscious, but I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation ... that could be a way to save our planet."

"We need to persuade governments to come clean on what they know," he said. "Some of us suspect they know quite a lot, and it might be enough to save our planet if applied quickly enough."

If there is a consensus that space aliens in flying saucers have visited Earth, then this guy should get a global warming grant just like the rest of the consensus scientists and advocates.

What other sources can we come up with to solve global warming? How about Ghostbusters or the Abominable Snowman?

G.M. Owes the World $8 for His Cat

...and possibly hundreds of dollars for himself! You see, it's all about global warming as described in this article quoted below:

If you own a cat, you know the smelly truth: they break wind and it's foul. Not only that, it harms the planet. All forms of flatulence - from cats, dogs, even from Dad - contain methane, a greenhouse gas thought to contribute to climate change.

If you've been feeling guilty about it, help is at hand. For just $8, a Sydney-based company, Easy Being Green, can now make your cat carbon-neutral, so it can "live guilt-free for a year".

The scheme can be applied to any product, animal or person. For $20, the company made Jenny Cracknell into a "carbon-neutral granny" last year. Her daughter, Emily, gave her a gift certificate to offset two years' worth of flatulence. "I don't like to brag, but I actually don't have much flatulence," Mrs Cracknell says. "But when I do, I feel OK about it, because the damage to the planet has been offset."

The big question, of course, is what Easy Being Green and other carbon offset organisations...do with the money. ...Mr Gilding said: "First, we help them cut their emissions. We install energy-saving lightbulbs, shower heads, and actually bring down emissions."

Oh, this is real, all right. Last year, in this similar post, we wrote about a U.S. operation which will take $99 of your money as penance for your carbon footprint on our globe.

And, besides easing your conscience this way, just think of the smiling faces from your kids and grandkids when you tell them that you bought them carbon credits for their birthdays and Christmas! "No toys, kids! You're helping Al Gore!"

Now, if G.M., his cat, and Mrs. Cracknell can control themselves, then we have a good start towards conquering global warming. Until such time, pay your money and watch our for that Mexican food.

via Jennifer Marohasy

Help Me, G.M., With Global Warming Psychology

G.M., I need the help of you and your psychology buddies to help me understand if it's the other guys or me who is psychologically off base on this so-called global warming thing. An Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe wrote an op-ed piece that basically states that I'm nuts because I am skeptical about global warming claims.

I thought that skeptism was a good trait and kept us from making rash, bad decisions. She thinks that I'm in deliberate denial. Take a look at selections from her article:

Continue reading "Help Me, G.M., With Global Warming Psychology"

Global Warming Is Real!!!!

I'm convinced, I'm absolutely, positively, thouroughly convinced that Global Warming is real.... and now, and ONLY now, do I have the proof, direct from the semi tropical far "frozen" north.....

Continue reading "Global Warming Is Real!!!!"

The Unscientific Inquisitors

A tip 'O The GM Derby to Mike's America

Can Global Warming Help G.M. and Dr. Sanity?

It's true. Global warming is accused of creating many problems, some of which you would never imagine. The latest GW issue could increase work for mental health care providers.

Global warming possibly linked to an enhanced risk of suicide: Data from Italy, 1974–2003

This study sets out to explore the impact of global warming on suicide mortality.... For males, increasing anomalies in monthly average temperatures associated to a higher monthly suicide mean from May to August and, to a lower extent, in November and December.

An improvement in the ability of communities to adjust to temperature changes...by implementing public health interventions may play an important part...in limiting the worst consequences of suicidal behaviour.

You believe that, don't you? People behind global warming scares wouldn't be guilty of hype, would they?

There's no hype in this additional bad news about global warming. It appears that a hedgehog is having emotional distress because of it.

The hedgehog with 'global balding'

A nice, soft fluffy coat is of little use to a hedgehog. But poor old Glen is having to make do without any prickles - apparently thanks to global warming.

I'm worried that the hedgehog will be so distraught over its loss of hair that it may try to run over a cliff. ...Hey, take this seriously!

We had snow today in my area. I'm blaming global warming.

Global Warming Cause Robs Families

To fund global warming programs, money and resources are kept from other, perhaps more worthy, needs. Money for any program cannot be created from nothing. People have to work for it. That earned money can be used to provide for their families or invested in education, medical research, and protection from terrorists.

Those segments of our economy have known benefits. I and others believe that global warming claims fall short. People who are sincere about global warming threats must produce substantive proof and believable cost/benefit studies on it before the entire country accepts that issue a higher priority than families.

A scientist fighting malaria in Africa has similar problems with the anthropogenic global warming alarmists, who misrepesent facts in his field and soak up money which could save millions of lives from that disease. Here is a link to his article along with selections from it, but please go read the entire article:

Dangers of disinformation, by Paul Reiter

Fallacies infect every debate about the environment and affect policy, taxpayers' money and victims' lives.

Scientists ask questions, formulate hypotheses, design experiments, look at the evidence, modify the hypotheses and probe further. Then activists, news media and politics take over.

Look at climate change: The public hears again and again that there is scientific consensus, that it's happening now and that we are on the brink of disaster. This is nonsense. Now, every politician of every stripe must embrace the "climate consensus" or be branded a callous skeptic.

I am a specialist in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. So, let's talk malaria. For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims that climate change is causing the disease to spread. We have failed miserably.

The weather is largely out of our control, but malaria is not. While billions are spent on climate change prevention and by advocacy groups, malaria remains rampant, killing millions, making life a misery for hundreds of millions....

Pseudoscience will damage your health and your wealth just as surely as malaria.

Do global warming activists think that billions of dollars mysteriously appear for their research and political activities? It comes in large part from fathers and mothers who worked for it. If an activist says that you should pay more to the global warming cause "for our grandchildren," tell him that "your children" need education, health care, and security today, and doesn't he care about them?

Save Melting Glaciers - Donate a Tray of Ice

I'm sincerely worried about global warming and the melting glaciers, which we have been told is the result of human carbon emissions. We must do something to stop this ice recession and reverse a 14,000 year pattern, that we foolishly used to think was a natural occurrence after the last glacial period.

Therefore, I am announcing a plan, eligible for federal grants, I hope, to rebuilt the glaciers! We will use ice cubes donated by American people and we will show the world that we care.

Here's how it works!

Step 1: Freeze a tray of ice.
Step 2: Take the ice out of the tray and put it in a large envelope.
Step 3: Mail the envelope to our collection station in McAllen, Texas. (G.M. has the address.)

From there, we will put the ice cubes together and send them north to rebuild the glaciers that have retreated soley due to mankind's neglect of Mother Earth. We need to treat our mother better.

It's as simple as that!

If you cannot mail the ice cubes but want to make a financial contribution, then mail $50 to our collection station in Atlanta, Georgia (I know that address), and we will make an ice cube for you and will inscribe your name on it, just like they do bricks in parks.

If someone sends me $50,000, then I will name an entire glacier for you! But, we will accept any contributions for lesser amounts.

Don't waste your money buying those doo-wop CD's to support public television. Send it to a cause that makes a difference! In fact, you may be able to take a deduction for the cost of the ice as a charitable contribution on your tax return! Call it a gift of a frozen asset.

We need a name for this program--maybe one that is an acronym. Something like ICE or International Climate Effort. What do you think?!

Bloggers, spread the word! We'll have a multi-level marketing program that can make you rich if you sign up early and freeze out your competitors. Ha Ha.

Take this as seriously as I do. To paraphrase John Lennon, give ice a chance!

Global Warming: Hysteria Will Prevail Over Science [Updated]

The battle over global warming is over. We lost, "we" meaning skeptics who don't want to jump the gun on expensive and likely useless solutions. There's just no official representative to raise the white flag. Why is the battle lost? Is it based on science or something else? It's the something else. Global warming activists will keep up their rabid attacks until every scientist who doubts them is destroyed and every skeptic is silenced.

Hysteria over global warming: the extent of it, the causes of it, the solutions for it--all credibility issues, have prevailed over reason and cooler heads. It's like a lie about someone's reputation that gets spread so far and so fast that there is no hope of redemption.

If man-made global warming is so real, then why has politics replaced science, why have well-meaning skeptics been demonized, why does liberal media present only one side, and why does this require indoctrination of young people in schools? Like most things, conservatives are going to lose this battle--not for lack of scientific honesty, but because the left totally dedicates itself to radical causes, especially those that cripple capitalism, while the rest of us put our priorities on maintaining responsible jobs and families. They gradually wear us down.

Here are some of the latest efforts to ram global warming's radicalism down our throats. For time reasons, I will provide links and selected quotes from several articles which illustrate this problem. They are found on the next page. It's long, but enjoy.

Continue reading "Global Warming: Hysteria Will Prevail Over Science [Updated]"

Ursus Maritimus Delinda Est - NOT!

Ursus Maritimus, the great white Polar Bear is in danger of becoming, not extinct, except to the degree that any species anywhere (including man perhaps) is in danger of becoming extinct. But the Polar Bear is is becoming another symbol. A symbol of the left's attempt to make global warming a dread catastrophe.

The polar bear is an off-shoot of the famous brown bear, the grizzly (Ursus Arctos) along with other Brown bears probably share a common ancestor until about 20,000 years ago. This can be discerned from changes in the molars of the polar bear. It should also be noted that the polar bear can mate with the brown bear (and has) indicating that the polar variety is probably a subspecies of the brown bear.

A little less than two years ago this was reported:

A leading Canadian authority on polar bears, Mitch Taylor, said: "We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change."

Mr Taylor estimates that during the past decade, the Canadian polar bear population has increased by 25 per cent - from 12,000 to 15,000 bears.

He even suggests that global warming could actually be good for the bears, and warns that the ever-increasing proximity of the animals to local communities could mean that a cull will be required sooner rather that later if bear numbers are to be kept under control.

In another article, published just 6 months later the claim is there is a serious decline due to "global warming"

So, since February of '05, the big fuzzy white bear has gone from a 25% increase to "nearing extinction?" Balderdash.

But really, lets take a look at what the reality is. The reality is that there are a number of differing populations of polar bears. One may decline, others increase. One article noted above indicates a decline in the "condition" of momma bears in the Hudson Bay area while a side article notes that "increased ice" in the Baffin Bay area has threatened narwhals who need holes in the ice to breathe.

The U.S. has indeed indicated that it wants to put polar bears on the endangered list, but is this good science, or more hysteria? Lets look at the numbers:

Estimates of the size of the population of polar bears in the Chukchi Sea are lacking, but the catch per unit of effort during research tagging there may suggest an increase, as do observations and kills by coastal residents. Uspenski and Belikov (1991) believe there are more bears in the Chukchi Sea now than in the past despite the absence of a reliable population estimate.

Thus, the good news of apparent increases in numbers is accompanied by increased challenges for management. Those challenges can only be met by a better understanding of the dynamics of the polar bear's ecosystem. In the Chukchi Sea, there is a pressing need for development of new methods for determining numbers and trends. This need appears more urgent in view of the likelihood that the ban on polar bear hunting in Russia, in effect since 1956, will be lifted. The bounds of optimum sustainable population levels are not known in the Beaufort or Chukchi seas, and interactions between polar bears and their prey and polar bears and sea ice, which establish these levels, are not understood. If managers are to keep polar bear numbers at optimum sustainable population levels in the face of increased harvests and other local and global perturbations, they will need more accurate and precise population estimates and an understanding of the ecosystem forces that limit polar bear population size.

A 2005 estimate was that there were between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in all populations.

In a closed meeting here late last month, 40 members of the polar bear specialist group of the World Conservation Union concluded that the imposing white carnivores -- the world's largest bear -- should now be classified as a "vulnerable" species based on a likely 30 percent decline in their worldwide population over the next 35 to 50 years. There are now 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears across the Arctic.

And since these stocks are fertile with other brown bears, the chance of full extinction is slim.

There are other voices however and one wonders why the emphasis on this animal rather than others. One explanation:

Polar bears are cute. Just ask the marketing executives at Coca-Cola which used animated polar bears to hawk their wares in recent years. Bears, pandas, lions and elephants are "charismatic megafauna" -- meaning basically cute animals that people care about. If you want to sell a product, or a cause, just tie it to one of these animals and you've got the attention of millions of people; kids and adults alike.

Thus, environmental alarmists have made much of research claiming the Arctic's great white bear faces extinction from human-caused global warming. Snails, snakes and spiders withering in the sun just don't pack the same emotional punch as a cuddly, furry polar bear slipping beneath the melting ice.

In the same article, we find indications that the picture is much less bleak than the global warming enthusiasts would have you believe:

Fortunately, a new study by David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research, throws cold water on the claim global warming threatens polar bears survival.

Mr. Legates critiques the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment that proclaimed Arctic air temperature trends strongly indicate global warming, causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, Mr. Legates says, the Assessment ignored data that undermine these claims.

For example, coastal stations in Greenland are cooling and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased by 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since measurements began in 1987. In addition, records from Russian coastal stations show the extent and thickness of sea ice has varied greatly over 60- to 80-year periods during the last 125 years. Moreover, the maximum air temperature they report for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly four-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than the air temperature in 2000.

Ice core data from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea also show that even if there is warming, it has occurred before. In Alaska, the onset of a climatic shift -- a warming -- in 1976-1977 ended the multidecade cold trend in the mid-20th century returning temperatures to those of the early 20th century.

In addition, a study commissioned by Canada's Fisheries and Oceans Department examined the relationship between air temperature and sea ice coverage, concluding, "the possible impact of global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice."

The above referenced article concludes:

Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. But, their own data on polar bear populations contradict claims that rising air temperatures are causing a decline in polar bear populations.

According to the WWF there are some 22,000 polar bears in about 20 distinct populations worldwide. Only two bear populations -- accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total -- are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region. By contrast, another two populations -- about 13.6 percent of the total number -- are growing and they live in areas were air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea.

As for the rest, 10 populations -- comprising about 45.4 percent of the total -- are stable, and the status of the remaining six is unknown. Conclusion: based on the available evidence there is little reason to believe the current warming trend will lead to extinction of polar bears.

These bears have survived for thousands of years, during both colder and warmer periods, and their populations are by and large in good shape. Polar bears may face many threats, but global warming is not primary among them. Global warming alarmists are like the wizard of Oz, asking the public fear the spectacle, but not to pull back the curtain and unmask them for the charlatans they are.

So, Ursus Maritimus Delinda Est? I think not, but then I'm a global warming skeptic. The true believers will use the polar bear issue to the hilt, not because it is true, but because cute cuddly white bears have a definate anthropomorphic quality and the charlatans aren't above pulling on heart strings to get your attention. Fear tactics only work when the populace isn't aware that that is the method being used.

UPDATE: One of our commenters who calls himself GW (but is really Mark York incognitio) typically likes to point out that "government" scientists, in particular "BUSH GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS" (you do note the sarcasm here don't you yorkie?) upholding his claims of a major catastrophe two weeks from when ever he says it will happen. (snark) Well, here is a "Government Scientist" from Canada that flat out desputes Yorkie:

Dr. Mitchell Taylor
Polar Bear Biologist,
Department of the Environment,
Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada

May 1, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Flannery is one of Australia 's best-known scientists and authors. That doesn't mean what he says is correct or accurate. That was clearly demonstrated when he recently ventured into the subject of climate change and polar bears. Climate change is threatening to drive polar bears into extinction within 25 years, according to Flannery. That is a startling conclusion and certainly is a surprising revelation to the polar bear researchers who work here and to the people who live here. We really had no idea.

The evidence for climate change effects on polar bears described by Flannery is incorrect. He says polar bears typically gave birth to triplets, but now they usually have just one cub. That is wrong.

All research and traditional knowledge shows that triplets, though they do occur, are very infrequent and are by no means typical. Polar bears generally have two cubs — sometimes three and sometimes one. He says the bears' weaning time has risen to 18 months from 12. That is wrong. The weaning period has not changed. Polar bears worldwide have a three-year reproduction cycle, except for one part of Hudson Bay for a period in the mid-1980s when the cycle was shorter.

One polar bear population (western Hudson Bay ) has declined since the 1980s and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased. We are not certain why, but it appears that ecological conditions in the mid-1980s were exceptionally good.

Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.

It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population ( Davis Strait ) may actually be over-abundant.

I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.

Dr. Mitchell Taylor

Got a Problem? Blame Global Warming

Chickweed is taking over my yard. It's because of global warming. There's a new crack in my driveway. Global warming. The pass slipped through the perspiring hands of the receiver. Coach, it was global warming, I tell you.

E6 motorway collapses

A new motorway south of the Swedish-Norwegian border and Strømstad collapsed during the night, and experts fear the same thing can happen to Norwegian roads. They blame climate change.

Yeah, tell that to the insurance company. Is there no end to what people will blame on "climate change?" Maybe Norway needs to get some better engineers and road builders.

What problems has global warming caused you today? Well, blame it, anyway. Government needs the crisis to take over more control of our lives and businesses.

P.S. The referenced paper has some pretty neat pictures of the Northern Lights. Normally, I would say that the sun is responsible, just like it is for our climate, but let's attribute this one to global warming, too.

GW Wants An Answer

Filed under Global Warming

In a recent post on Global Warming Woody posted a spoof of the "irrational" panic driven belief systems of the global warming true believers. One commenter, going by the initials GW (Global Warming? - Mark York, have you slipped through the ban once again?) made the comment:

Read and back up your work. Who says and why? Giv eme 500 words with links that show beyond any doubt I'm wrong. Hint: you as a layman knowing nothing stating an opinion doesn't count. It is "overwhelming" even if I didn't say it in those words. The experts back me up. Pony up or shut up.

Gee, GW, I thought that is what we have been doing all along. But I guess not. It seems that GW believes that consensus is scientific proof enough for him, which really does show a lack of critical thinking on GW's part. So, let's take a look at some of the possibilities shall we? First, from The Reference Frame (a Physics Blog) we find that 2006 was the "Coldest year" since 1998. Wow, the same set of data used by The World Meteorlogical Organization to show Global Warming is actually a set that can be shown that we may be "gasp" nearing an ice age? Lets take a look at WMO's data shall we?

The global mean surface temperature in 2005 was 0.47°C above the 1961-1990 annual average (14°C). This places 2005 as the second warmest year in the temperature record since 1850. The warmest year is 1998 with annual surface temperatures averaging 0.52°C above the same 30-year mean.

The last 10 years (1996-2005), with the exception of 1996, are the warmest years on record. The five warmest years in decreasing order are: 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

If you place those on a chart showing the temperature change by "order" this is what you get (courtesy of The Reference Frame):


Of course, GW being a true believer will say "that is nonsense, you can't pick and choose." Which is, of course, exactly what the true believers do so you can't discount it entirely. But, I digress. In earlier posts on Global Warming Woody stated:

It drives people on the left crazy, or should I say crazier, when reasoned people don't take them seriously. (Why should we?) They'll argue and pull out all sorts of articles and research in attempts to convince others that they are right, I mean correct. It is especially funny when we make tongue-in-cheek comments and post entries ridiculing their positions, but they take the remarks dead seriously. I have done this over-and-over and they just don't get it. Such was the case, also, with G.M.'s entry on the relationship between global warming and the number of pirates in the world. The guys on the left actually tried to have an intellectual argument to refute that! They're nuts! They will argue and try to prove us wrong, when we're just making a joke. That is like watching the movie "Airplane" and doing a critique on Leslie Nielsen as a drama actor. Guess what. He's not being serious in that movie. Sometimes, as in this case, we're just having fun. Lighten up!

OK, I admit it, I was being facetious. But there are real questions to be answered as indicated in this post of mine. And there is this old post as well as this one Now, because of the transition from my old URL to Munuvianna (mu.nu) there are a few "–" you will have to ignore, but the data is accurate.

So GW, Let's summerize the info at the top from The Referance Frame. WMO says last few years are warmest, but if placed on a chart, actually show a cooling phase with 2006 being the coldest. Stock up on you long johns GW, you are going to need them. OH, and by my count, this is 676 words. Challenge met, proof put forth, the ball is in your court.

Global Warming Fun Time

Just something to put things in perspective about those who panic over mankind's contribution to global warming and its immediate consequences....

Global Warming - Time to Panic!

Global Warming Today - Two Sides

Well, tonight's low temperature forecast for where I live is 15 degrees F. Where's global warming when you need it? And, in today's global warming news, here's how the two sides approached the issue.

For the skeptics:
SENATOR INHOFE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC RELEASE OF “SKEPTIC’S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING”

Senator Inhofe has challenged the media in a series of speeches and hearings to stop the unfounded hype.

“The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific “consensus” that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a “climate emergency” that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve.” (Click here for pdf file of report.)

For the fanatics:
Crucified Santa gains few fans for B.C. artist

A Vancouver Island artist (Jimmy Wright) has put an effigy of a crucified Santa Claus on his front lawn, causing some neighbours to complain it’s traumatizing their children.

"All I wanted to do was to promote a dialogue," Wright said. "Global warming is consumption-driven so there’s the argument. We have to come to terms with our hang-up on consumption."

What an idiot. Global warming worshippers never quit showing how nuts they can be.

"Inconvenient Hurricane Season" for "An Inconvenient Truth"

Total named storms (tropical storms & hurricanes)
as of given dates for this year so far, and compared to normal.
(From WeatherStreet.com)

Al Gore and alarmists from the Left predicted that hurricanes in 2006 would become more numerous and more forceful because of mankind induced global warming. To stop this, we had to act now. After all, there is a consensus among scientists and the debate on global warming is over. Guess what. The year after those predictions, hurricane activity was down.

Hurricane Predictions Off Track As Tranquil Season Wafts Away

With cataclysmic predictions that hurricanes would swarm from the tropics like termites, no one thought 2006 would be the most tranquil season in a decade. Barring a last-second surprise from the tropics, the season will end Thursday with nine named storms, and only five of those hurricanes. This year is the first season since 1997 that only one storm nudged its way into the Gulf of Mexico.

Do you know what I expect as a result of this? First, the alarmists will say that we're lying about their predictions. That's their automatic response. And, later, I honestly expect that those who attend the "Church of Global Warming" will blame man-induced global warming on the decrease in hurricane activity, now that their predictions for an increase failed. They take any and all sides to make their points. To prove our side, we just have to wait two-hundred years to see how false their predictions proved to be and how dishonest they are being now.

The Left likes that. Their solutions to short-term problems get exposed as false very quickly. It can take decades and centuries for their long-term predictions for disasters to be proven wrong. In the meantime, I'm against wasting significant money on this issue, whether paid with taxes or impact on our economy.

Because hurricane destruction was less than predicted this year, do you think that Al Gore is more glad for mankind or upset for his cause?

Global Warming Alarmists Scare Kids

The global warming alarmists on the left have no shame and will do whaever it takes, including scaring kids, to attack western economies.

New UN Children’s Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids

A new United Nations children’s book promoting fears of catastrophic manmade global warming is being promoted at the UN Climate Change Conference in Kenya. ...The new children’s book, entitled “Tore and the Town on Thin Ice” is published by the United Nations Environment Programme and blames “rich countries” for creating a climate catastrophe and urges children to join environmental groups.

...The polar bear (tells) Tore, “It looks like many animals and fish and birds will go extinct—die out—during your lifetime, partly because of changes in climate.” ...After a whale appears to present more climate fear, the boy finally screams, “Listen, I’ve had all the bad news I can stand. Our world is melting. Polar bears are starving and all sorts of animals won’t survive. I don’t want to hear anymore!” The whale responds, “That’s the spirit! Get good and angry. You’ll need all that energy to make a difference.”

Nice. Child abuse, perhaps? You may ask if this is a joke, which it seems on the surface, but this is real and shows the desperation of the anti-West and anti-capitalist movement, which has hijacked science with left-wing politics and scare tactics. Is this what they want "for the childrennnnn?" Maybe Stephen King's next scary book can be on global warming.

If you want to see a copy of the actual book, click on the book title above which takes you to a pdf copy of it. But, for information on global warming which is honest, here are scientists who let us know the truth:

Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming
Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics

Global Warming (Yes, Again) Offers New Threat

Global Warming is causing all sorts of havoc across our globe, but the one bad affect that global warming activists don't want to discuss is its threat to freedoms of speech and debate. Al Gore didn't warn us about that. Two articles point out the sides and concern by addressing: (1) What defines a global warming skeptic or denier and (2) Should we arrest them for crimes against humanity when they express skepticism (no kidding)? First, let's see what defines the skeptics.

Why do people become "sceptics" or "contrarians"?
Why do people become climate change deniers?
by Richard D. North

It is deeply pejorative to call someone a "climate change denier". This is because it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust Denial – the label applied by nearly everyone to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did not annihilate Jews, and others, in any very great numbers. There is a relatively small group of climate scientists who disbelieve very much of the global warming (GW) hypothesis. Unpick that a bit and one finds that there are many varieties of climate change denial. ...Some people labelled as "deniers", aren't.

...There are many more specialists who are well short of complete denial, but who are nonetheless sceptical that it will matter very much if mankind continues to emit increased amounts of greenhouse gas. Such people are inclined to believe that it will be cheaper and easier to respond to whatever climate change throws at us, rather than attempt to stop it in its tracks.

I don't know that there are that many deniers of the Earth heating, but there are more skeptics over global warming claims and proposed solutions than the "consensus' would like to admit. I'm in the skeptic group. Well, what should be done about these deniers and even skeptics? Here's what some on the left want to do with their right to speech.

Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech
by Brendan O'Neill

...One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial.' (She wrote:) "David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. ...Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all. (1) Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming…Holocaust’ (2)."

Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. There has been no decree from on high or piece of legislation outlawing climate change denial.... Because in recent months it has been turned into a taboo, chased out of polite society by a wink and a nod, letters of complaint, newspaper articles continually comparing climate change denial to Holocaust denial. An attitude of ‘You can’t say that!’ now surrounds debates about climate change, which in many ways is more powerful and pernicious than an outright ban.

...It is not only environmentalist activists and green-leaning writers who are seeking to silence climate change deniers/sceptics/critics/whatever you prefer. Last month the Royal Society – Britain’s premier scientific academy founded in 1660, whose members have included some of the greatest scientists – wrote a letter to ExxonMobil demanding that the oil giant cut off its funding to groups that have ‘misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence’.

...Effectively, campaigners and officials are using scientific facts – over which there is still disagreement – to shut down what ought to be a political debate about what humans need and want. This is the worst of it. Whatever side you take in the climate change clash of facts, this undermining of debate should be a cause of concern.

Chilling. What are they afraid of? And, doesn't this particular debate get to the heart of other political debates that the left wants to control? But, rather than just utilizing social control through "political correctness," such as that pointed out in the recent post by G.M., many want to exercise legal control and to criminalize what we consider free speech.

So, what's a more serious threat: (a) Questioning global warming claims or (b) limiting and/or criminalizing speech of those who do? The Left has a lot of explaining to do.

Global Warming Surprise Link

Using the logic of explaining cause and effect by tracking randomly selected trends, we finally are beginning to get a handle on global warming causes. First, G.M. linked pirates to global warming (with good comments by Civil Truth). Now, we have the more likely cause from Guns & Butter.

"Ninety-eight percent of global warming can be attributed solely to the existence of Al Gore," said Massachusetts Institute of Technology climatologist Dhananjay Wilson. Global temperatures really began to take off in 1948 -- the year Al Gore was born."

It could be that Al Gore is blaming other causes on global warming to deflect blame from himself.

Dollar Sense on Global Warming: PWC Report

I've often complained that the financial costs to solve "solve" gobal warming cannot be justified based upon a reasonable return on investment and will probably result in a negative return. Of course, my belief is as subjective as is the information and claims from the other side, because adequate and reliable data does not appear available. However, now a report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) titled "The World in 2050: Implications of global growth for carbon emissions and climate change policy" addresses the financial costs and benefits, but not in the direction that I expected, which makes me not only a skeptic of global warming but a skeptic of reports on global warming economics. From a PWC firm summary:

The rapid economic growth of emerging countries such as China and India — together with continued more moderate growth in today’s advanced economies — could have serious long-term consequences for global energy consumption and carbon emissions.

...The author...is John Hawksworth, head of macroeconomics at PricewaterhouseCoopers’ UK firm. He says: "As they increase in relative size to overtake the current G7 countries (US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Canada), the emerging ‘E7’ economies (China, India, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey) will increasingly provide the motor for global growth and could account for almost half of global carbon emissions by 2050 according to our model. But this begs the question: Can the world sustain such rapid growth without serious adverse effects on its climate? Our new report provides one possible answer to how this might be achieved".

This report takes a lot more time than I have to analyze in depth, so this is my quick, and I mean really quick, take on it. You'll have to click on the link below to discover this wisdom.

Continue reading "Dollar Sense on Global Warming: PWC Report"

Urgent Reason to Stop Smoking

GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"

Oh, yes. Smoking also causes cancer and heart disease, if you thought that global warming wasn't enough reason to quit--but, the global warming fanatics, who defend Gore, might label you as a wacked-out "skeptic" to think that cancer is to be feared more than global warming.

Found at Drudge Report

P.S. "Then, Gore had his staff opened a stack of cardboard boxes to begin selling his new book, "An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It," $19.95, to the U.N. diplomats."

Put me down for none.

What Is a Global Warming Skeptic?

Frequently, anyone who questions claims on global warming or disagrees with Al Gore is immediately labeled a "global warming skeptic" and condemned. Is it really fair or accurate for the global warming Left to do that? Well, forget the fair part, because anything that furthers their agenda is fair to them, so let's stick with accurate. Well doubting scientists in Australia have been placed on a list of global warming skeptics, which suggests that they are a small and misguided 'clique'. What does it take to be placed on that list? Here are some positions that do that:

As a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are currently increasing. There is no evidence, however, to suggest this will bring doom or that, by signing the Kyoto Protocol, Australia would make a significant difference to global carbon dioxide levels or to the rate of climate change.

Science shows us that global temperatures have varied throughout the earth’s history. And science has also shown itself more than capable of overcoming remarkable challenges. Sorry if that disappoints the apocalyptically-minded."

I have a problem with the inhabitants of Tuvalu and Kiribati spruiking their imminent demise from greenhouse related climate change. ...The claim about the sun is an even more obvious candidate for skepticism. If it is that much hotter in Kiribati, then one would expect it to be much hotter in a lot of other Pacific Islands, or here in Australia, for that matter.

It is human nature when faced with a problem too large to solve to simply ignore it in the hope it will go away. Funnily enough, the other eco catastrophes so confidently predicted 30 years ago - acid rain, nuclear winter, species extinction, the population bomb - never did eventuate.

Anything unreasonable in those views? Yet, these "skeptics" (a bad name) and people like them are called liars, industry hacks, unqualified, stupid, and worse. The Left wants to win the global warming debate not with science but by being crude and by being bullies. It's just likely that these skeptics are going to keep the world from making a tragic mistake in a gross misallocation of resources over a problem that cannot be solved by man. I would call them honest and sensible. Hmmm. No wonder the Left cannot identify with their views.

It sounds as if we need more skeptics.

Global Warming to Blame Again

Of course, we're always hearing that global warming is to blame or is a threat for many calamities, but here's the latest.

Global Warming Could Boost Illegal Immigration, Expert Says

Global warming might cause an increase in illegal immigration as people "flee storm-ravaged or sun-parched regions" to find refuge in the U.S., according to an expert (Devra Lee Davis, director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute) who addressed a gathering on climate change in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. ..."Even HIV/AIDS can be thought of as a climate-related disease," she noted.

Wow! Global warming is to blame for a lot. With this expanded knowledge, now I can state with confidence why the Braves didn't win their division this year. Yes, it has to be the fault of global warming. Don't ask me how. Just accept it. However, we shouldn't stretch this too far or kids will start blaming bad grades on the same thing.

What has global warming done to you today?

Jason Coleman Swings, And Knocks It Out Of The Park

My friend Jason at Jason Coleman has a terrific post up on "Burning Man" and its link to global warming. That and his post on the GW end temp in 2100 being lowered by half make for some really great reading. Take a gander then come back and tell me what you think.

One More Time! (Well, not as long as the GW true-believers are still around)

One of my favorite blogs, The Volokh Conspiracy takes down some global warming hysteria with some serious looking into their own data. A sample:

A 2005 Science article co-authored by the same group as the BAMS paper--Webster, Holland, Curry, & Chang, "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment"--does look at Northern Atlantic hurricanes 1970-2004 separately from Pacific ones, but lumps category-4 and category-5 storms together, showing an increase for the combination, not reporting anything on category-5 hurricanes alone. I went to the data source cited in the 2005 Science paper and this is what I found for 1960-2004 hurricanes (the Science study covered 1970-2004, excluding the first two rows below and the 4 category-5 hurricanes that occurred after the period of their data, in 2005):

Category 5 Hurricanes in the North Atlantic:
1960-64 . . 4
1965-69 . . 2
1970-74 . . 1
1975-79 . . 2
1980-84 . . 1
1985-89 . . 2
1990-94 . . 1
1995-99 . . 1
2000-04 . . 2

As you can see, in the data they claimed to have used in their Science article (as I counted the events), there is absolutely no trend in category-5 hurricanes in the period of their study: 1970-2004. Indeed, the 1990s showed insignificantly fewer hurricanes than either the 1970s or 1980s. Thus, all of the increase in the North Atlantic category 4-5 storms reported in the 2005 Science article must be due to an increase category-4, not category-5 storms.

Neither paper reports any data that would show a statistically significant increase in category-5 storms that would form the scientific basis for their public claim, made along with their release of the 2005 Science article: “The southeastern U.S needs to begin planning to match the increased risk of category-5 hurricanes.�

What increased risk?

If they have the data to support that claim, they should make it public. Anyone reading that claim would think that their Science paper showed such a significant increase. But it didn’t. Even after I added the 2005 data on category-5 hurricanes, which they did not use because the season wasn’t over yet, the quick regressions I ran didn't show any statistically significant increase in category-5 storms.

Did they just fabricate this claim of "increased risk" of category-5 storms?"

So, adding the above (and the rest of a really readable and delightful article) to what we already know about the true believers and global warming (GW) is:

Ahh yes, the increase in destructive hurricanes is due to................ GW
The decrease in destructive hurricanes is due to............................ GW

The increase in glaciers melting is due to.......................................GW
The decrease in glaciers melting is due to......................................GW

The increase in global mean temperature is due to.........................GW
The decrease in global mean temperature is due to........................GW

The increase in warm weather is due to........................................GW
The decrease in warm weather is due to.......................................GW

The increase in cold weather is due to..........................................GW
The decrease in cold weather is due to (oh, wait, there is no decrease in cold weather)

The increase in global temperature on Mars is due to....................GW
The.... well, you get the picture.

The decrease in believablity of the true believers is due to............ Al Gore!

Help Me With This Global Warming Thing

I just cannot get it straight. Does global warming cause glaciers to retreat or does global warming cause glaciers to grow--or, both, or it depends upon what suits Al Gore? As in a recent post and others in the past, I stay bewildered on this issue, and the following article contradicts something that we have been told previously.

Global warming boost to glaciers
Global warming could be causing some
glaciers to grow, a new study claims.

I know one thing that really can be caused by global warming--confusion. Dishonesty does that, also, and activists have intertwined the two.

Global Warming Confusion

Today's entry on global warming covers confusion on two matters--one as to events in the current weather and the other as to political leadership.

In the first case, Johannesburg has experienced its first snow since 1981, and South Africa is in the grips of continued snow and ice. In the second case, Illinois Sen. Obama said that gas guzzlers add to the world's hotter temperatures and that people should switch to higher mileage hybrids. So, why is there confusion?

Well, as to the snow in South Africa, snow and ice are cold--not hot. But, I guarantee you that some leftist is already explaining how global warming is causing the colder temperatures there. After all, they have made statements before to that effect. It must be nice to take a position on global warming to where you are right if it gets hotter and you are also right if it gets colder. That's like me picking the winner of the World Series by saying that a certain team may win--or it may not win. Take that tip to your bookie.

As to the good Senator, after condemning gas guzzlers, he left in his SUV. His spin folks covered the damage by saying that his SUV ran on ethanol--which it does not. Maybe that explains the pinging he's been hearing.

Never underestimate the fables and hypocrisy of the left--especially when it involves global warming. I'm still waiting for some real and honest science to prove exaggerated claims on that issue. The only problem...you don't get grants unless your position is to accept the premise up front; and, those activist "former" scientists, if paid enough, will claim that we can fly to the sun if we simply go at night.

Global Warming Redux

In exactly (more or less according to new but untried and or untested computer models used by the left and by the GW Cultists) the world will implode, or flood, or something like that; At any rate, we are all doomed!

Cheerfully and shamelessly swiped from Oyster at Soy Como Soy

Global Warming Cult: "We Don't Have to Prove Anything."

If hurricanes are getting more numerous because of (human induced) global warming, as claimed, shouldn't the people who make those claims back it up with data that they can prove? Apparently not--to them. We have to prove them wrong.

Hurricane 'spike' debated

Studies that link a spike in hurricane intensity with global warming are spotting "artificial upward trends" because they rely on bad historical data, a paper suggested today in the journal Science.

US hurricane expert stirs global warming debate

...Chris Landsea, a leading researcher at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, challenged studies that found a dramatic jump in hurricane intensity in recent years.

The paper is the latest salvo in the debate among climate scientists on whether human-induced global warming is producing stronger hurricanes.

Landsea is among a group of scientists who say the impact of global warming on hurricanes is not clear, and the studies do not account for inaccurate information in storm databases

Okay, Landsea says that the data used by global warming advocates is not accurate. So, how do the GW advocates respond?

Experts respond to questions challenging link between global warming and hurricanes

... no one has done a rigorous error or uncertainty analysis on the data, so in my opinion Landsea's statements about the trends are not supported at this point.

Did you get that? The global warming supporters use data to "prove" that global warming is causing more hurricanes and that they are more severe. But, a scientist with the hurricane center says that, while their method is okay, their data is faulty. Now, here's what I like. In response to him, a GW advocate says that we have to accept their data is correct until someone proves that their data is bad. Is there something backwards here? Shouldn't it be the other way around to where the global warming advocates have to prove that their data is correct--period? Otherwise, why not just make anything up or use any convenient and unsupportable information? Oh, wait. They already do that. That's their science.

Well, file it away. The scientific debate is over on human induced global warming. Let's go spend a few trillion dollars based on their word.

Kyoto Score Cards Fudged in Europe

Knowing that some leftists will go berserk over the thought that anything to do with Europe is bad and anything to do with the Kyoto Protocol is bad, how will they feel when they learn that there are problems with both Europe and Kyoto? Well, some of this is coming to light, so watch out for the flying mud.

Europe Cheats on Kyoto by "right wing" Dr. Jennifer Marohasy explains the current "creative accounting" for carbon emissions where each country does its own accounting and says, "Trust me." This article was a follow-up to another one on the same subject titled "Broken Trust, Broken Carbon Trading, Broken Kyoto?" by the same author.

Golf is a gentlemen's game and the only activity where I trust the participants to keep their own scores. The Kyoto Protocol isn't golf, and the European nations who cheat aren't gentlemen--but, they expect us to join their group. No thanks. The stakes are too great in this game.

For Global Warming Supporters: Just One More Question [Updated]

Global warming "enthusiasts" just hate to answer questions and want those who ask them to just go away. But, just when the GW crowd thinks that they're in the clear, there's just one more question that can trip up their "well thought out" plan.

Global Warming? With all due respect, it doesn't add up.

Here we go again...dealing with global warming activists who think that they can just outlast sensible people. They might outlast "sensible people" who give up rather than waste more time arguing with zealots, but they won't outlast me when they want to hide the truth and destroy our economy and, in the process, steal finite resources that could be used for education, research, medical care, and other programs with proven benefits.

The current issue at hand is that the GW Club continues, day-in and day-out, to declare that the scientific debate is over when it is hardly over. Continue reading to see what others think about the scientific debate and why the left is afraid to engage in one.

Continue reading "For Global Warming Supporters: Just One More Question [Updated]"

"A Convenient Untruth" About "An Inconvenient Truth"

When I read the Associated Press article titled "Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy," I went to see the substance of that claim and realized that it was more leftist fluff than fact. Well, someone else has done a little more research and spilled the inconvenient beans on the crusade with "AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE", which adds additional information, like: "The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President." Maybe he got free popcorn along with some grants, too.

I've noticed how in every interview that I've seen of Al Gore lately that, when questioned about scientists who have doubts about human induced global warming, Al Gore quickly shuts the questioner down with the same phrase, "The debate is over." That's it. Period. It reminds me of a congregational saying: "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not aware of anyone who died and made Al Gore God. So, excuse me if I still express doubts on his claims and respect debate on the issue.

Fire Breathing Preacher Adds Hot Air to Global Warming

Just the other day, I was reading "Discover" magazine (which I'm not renewing) and came across an article by one of Al Gore's disciples, who had this praise of Al Gore in a feature titled "FILM: Idlers on climate change, watch out! Al Gore is on the warpath." (bottom of page.) In that article, the writer said this (emphasis mine), "While much of this movie may be old hat to savvy Discover readers, it is most definitely worth watching by skeptics...."

Okay, if I accept Al Gore and global warming hysteria without further debate, then I'm savvy; but, if I'm a skeptic then I'm not savvy. Maybe the truth is that a "savvy person" keeps an open mind, listens to all points of view, and comes to logical, rather than emotional and false, conclusions.

Count me as a savvy skeptic.

Global Warming - Can ABC Make It More Stupid? [Updated]

Man, is this ever going to bring the global warming loonies out of the woodwork. Since global warming has been "proved" by Al Gore's movie, now the next thing that the left wants are personal observations of the global warming crisis(?) for the rest of the unwashed masses. ABC asks for your personal examples--such as ice cubes melting in your favorite beverage faster than they used to or how it was really, really hot last Saturday and it must be George Bush's fault. That ought to be good for them, even though it does a disservice to science.

Here's ABC's article and request:

ABC News 06/21/2006
Global Warming Affecting Your Life? E-Mail Us
Send Us Your Stories and Video...Extend the Reach of ABC News' Reporting by Sharing Your Observations

Witnessing the impact of global warming in your life?

ABC News wants to hear from you. We're currently producing a report on the increasing changes in our physical environment, and are looking for interesting examples of people coping with the differences in their daily lives. Has your life been directly affected by global warming?

We want to hear and see your stories. Have you noticed changes in your own backyard or hometown? The differences can be large or small — altered blooming schedules, unusual animals that have arrived in your community, higher water levels encroaching on your property.

Show us what you've seen. You can include video material of the environmental change, or simply tell your story via webcam. Please fill out the form below, and be sure to include captions or other descriptive information if you're sending video. We hope to hear from you. Thank you.

Of course, none of this is really science and none of it approaches proving that man-induced global warming is a problem, but don't let that spoil their fun. Maybe they can incorporate these personal examples into phony climate models, make a documentary, and tell us that we have to start watering the golf courses only twice a week--which is going too far.

I had a television weatherman eat dinner with me and he told me that the Atlantic Ocean would be within twenty miles of Atlanta within ten years. I said that was great, because we wouldn't have to drive as far to go to the beach. Hey, I take this seriously. He never even caught what I said. Oh, that was a several years ago, so something better happen fast or he's going to have to explain the delay--like global warming turned into a global freeze. Some have actually done that. There are no limites to their rationalizations to take the spotlight and to use issues of nature for political purposes.

Well, back to ABC's request, we don't want only nut cases to share personal examples and observations of global warming to be used as propaganda. Let's share our observations with them, too! In fact, throw in examples that counter global warming, like how you hurt your back shoveling five feet of snow off of your driveway last winter...and you live in Houston. Or, in supprt, come up with something more silly than the left, if that's possible--like seeing that armadillos are now migrating futher north and that you're pretty sure that you saw one outside of Chattanooga, but it could have been a possum on the half shell. I'm sure that you can come up with some great examples for them--and, they deserve it.

Don't let rational global warming skeptics down. Come up with your examples, be sure to post them on ABC's site, and then tell us what you said. It should be a lot of fun and will let them know how ridiculous many of us view their completely off-the-wall attempt to further drive the global warming hysteria with tales of gloom by everyday people who are not scientists but who want to feel important as activists. I can hardly wait to read their stories.

Get started and go to this site and do your duty.

***** Update *****

Oh, I found another site just as stupid as ABC's: TargetGlobalWarming

Here's what the site says about its organization, which claims to be for hunters and fishermen: (You decide if it's accurate, or if it just represents liberal hunters and fishermen.)

National Wildlife Action advocates for the conservation interests.... Like our sister organization, the National Wildlife Federation, NWA is committed to inspiring Americans to protect wildlife for our children's future.

Targetglobalwarming.org is an exciting new project of National Wildlife Action. The website was created to engage sportsmen and women across the country on the issue of global warming. It is a place for hunters and anglers to voice their concerns about the impacts of a changing climate on America’s outdoor heritage.

I knew this had to be a liberal site when they said that they are doing this "for the childrennnn." Everything liberal is "for the childrennnn." When you google the organization's name you find nothing but activist support for liberal causes. I think that they are really hunting for Republicans and angling for fish stories.

Okay, here's their recap on their brilliant poll and where they give you a chance to add your own personal global warming tales.

When it comes to observing wildlife and wild places, America's 40 million hunters and anglers have long had a front row seat. What have they witnessed in the past few years in the woods and on the waters where they hunt and fish? According to the National Wildlife Federation's Opinion Survey of Hunters and Anglers, a majority are already seeing changes in climate and attributing it to global warming.

Note that they mention 40 million outdoor enthusists as if they actually represented them and as if the opinions of those people are accurately portrayed on the site. That's like me saying that I represent accountants and that there are ten million of us and they all agree with me. They just might not know that I represent them and many might not accept my positions.

Then, these guys go on to display the poll evidence evidence of climate change with observations like these: Warmer or Shorter Winters, Less Snow, Earlier Bloom Times, .... Go to their site and see these yourself.

But, then they follow up with this brilliant question: Do you believe that the weather condition(s) that you observed is/are related to global warming?

Great! What does that prove? They first ask for subjective conclusions on weather conditions for the last year or two and then follow that up with a subjective question as to whether or not global warming is the cause--from people who have no idea. It's all about polls and perception--not truth.

Of course, such changes can be measured objectively and scientifically and such tests should be carried out over a much longer period of time. Then, if the data suggests that changes have occured, doesn't it make more sense for science to determine why rather than get the opinions of some hunters and anglers--and activists?

But, guess what. They'll fool a lot of people and just hope that they get their unproven, economy destroying legislation passed before everyone catches on--which is the normal plan for the left. The Democrats always have a hard time during campaigns because they have to hide their true agenda and historical records and hope for enough time to get elected before anyone uncovers them. Thank goodness the majority of Americans aren't as stupid or gullible as this organzation and Al Gore would hope--and as John Kerry found out.

Save us from the idiots of the left.

Global Warming and Other Fearmongering? Nah!

Greenpeace's fill-in-the-blank public relations meltdown

Before President Bush touched down in Pennsylvania Wednesday to promote his nuclear energy policy, the environmental group Greenpeace was mobilizing.

"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet decrying the "threat" posed by the Limerick reactors Bush visited.

But a factoid or two later, the Greenpeace authors were stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.

We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."

Had Greenpeace been hacked by a nuke-loving Bush fan? Or was this proof of Greenpeace fear-mongering?

The aghast Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, said a colleague was making a joke by inserting the language in a draft that was then mistakenly released.

"Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, I don't even think it's funny," Smith said.

The final version did not mention Armageddon. It just warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns."

Don't let anyone tell you that the GW and other sundry environmentalists are ABOVE the use of Fear Mongering... nah, it's just "ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID[S]." Yeah, that's their story and they're sticking to it, no matter what.

Al Gore Admits Global Warming Lie [UPDATED x2]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the left practices situational ethics. Their causes are so noble (to them), that any means to achieve success is okay--lying especially. Al Gore gave further support to this claim when he said the folowing:

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

He's serial...I mean serious.

Via Maggie's Farm and Free Republic--both with good comments

UPDATE: From comments left at "Free Republic" (with thanks for the borrowing extended to ancient geezer)

"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
-- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; see also (Dixy Lee Ray in 'Trashing the Planet', 1990) and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." (Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect"
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!"
-- Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)"

MORE UPDATES AND ADDITIONS

What do you do about a leading climatologist who won't toe the liberal line on global warming? Why you demand that he be fired!

From Drudge Report:

'GLOBAL WARMING' PROTESTERS CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF HURRICANE CENTER DIRECTOR
May 31, 2006

SILVER SPRING, MD – Hundreds of concerned citizens and leaders from across the nation will join Hurricane Katrina survivors Wednesday to call for the resignation of the heads of the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration....

(A)dvocates will demand that NOAA stop covering up the growing scientific link between severe hurricanes and global warming while insisting on real solutions to the problem of global warming....

Yet, despite a flurry of peer-reviewed scientific studies linking planetary warming to storms like Katrina, leaders at NOAA and the NHC continue to claim that the recent hurricane devastation is part of a "natural cycle."

Don't tell these same people that the sun is at the center of our solar system. They may want other scientists hung for heresy.

NEXT--

Scientists Say Arctic Once Was Tropical
May 31, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) - Scientists have found what might have been the ideal ancient vacation hotspot with a 74-degree Fahrenheit average temperature, alligator ancestors and palm trees. It's smack in the middle of the Arctic.

First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally.

Skeptics of man-made causes of global warming have nothing to rejoice over, however. The researchers say their studies appearing in Thursday's issue of Nature also offer a peek at just how bad conditions can get.

"It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

Wow! Forget about getting hot and rising sea levels. With mosquitoes that big we're going to have one serious outbreak of the West Nile virus. Can you imagine the itch that bite would cause? But, isn't one thing funny? Rather than seeing the obvious point that global warming is part of natural long-term cycles in our climate, the left tries to tell us that this should be a warning as to how bad that it can get if we don't start solving GW now. Well, what was Bush and mankind doing 55 million years ago that caused this problem?

See. With the worshippers of the Global Warming God, everything proves their case--even the things that refute it.

You know. With the lying, firing your critics, and the cover-ups, I'd think that we would be covering Watergate rather than global warming believers. I guess the left admires Nixon more than we knew.

One More--

Finally, from our buddy and a self-described global warming expert on Gore's (or someone's) penchant to lie:

Environment II by Mark A. York:
(Yes, that Mark A. York aka Jake Elmore whose site gives his purpose: "Dedicated to bashing the myths perpetuated by the untrained conservative mind on environmental and other political issues facing the world at this critical juncture.")

Yeah
May 30, 2006

Swift Boating the Planet, By Paul Krugman

"Al Gore and others who hope to turn global warming into a real political issue are going to have to get tougher, because the other side doesn't play by any known rules."

I haven't read it but I know what he said.

What rules? Lying, firing qualified scientists who see otherwise, scaring people, stealing money for research instead of helping people? It seems that the left has a monopoly on cheating rather than playing by the rule book. (You're welcome for the link, Mark, as much as I appreciate your insight.)

Al Gore Admits Global Warming Lie [UPDATED x2]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the left practices situational ethics. Their causes are so noble (to them), that any means to achieve success is okay--lying especially. Al Gore gave further support to this claim when he said the folowing:

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

He's serial...I mean serious.

Via Maggie's Farm and Free Republic--both with good comments

UPDATE: From comments left at "Free Republic" (with thanks for the borrowing extended to ancient geezer)

"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
-- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; see also (Dixy Lee Ray in 'Trashing the Planet', 1990) and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." (Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect"
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!"
-- Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)"

MORE UPDATES AND ADDITIONS

What do you do about a leading climatologist who won't toe the liberal line on global warming? Why you demand that he be fired!

From Drudge Report:

'GLOBAL WARMING' PROTESTERS CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF HURRICANE CENTER DIRECTOR
May 31, 2006

SILVER SPRING, MD – Hundreds of concerned citizens and leaders from across the nation will join Hurricane Katrina survivors Wednesday to call for the resignation of the heads of the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration....

(A)dvocates will demand that NOAA stop covering up the growing scientific link between severe hurricanes and global warming while insisting on real solutions to the problem of global warming....

Yet, despite a flurry of peer-reviewed scientific studies linking planetary warming to storms like Katrina, leaders at NOAA and the NHC continue to claim that the recent hurricane devastation is part of a "natural cycle."

Don't tell these same people that the sun is at the center of our solar system. They may want other scientists hung for heresy.

NEXT--

Scientists Say Arctic Once Was Tropical
May 31, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) - Scientists have found what might have been the ideal ancient vacation hotspot with a 74-degree Fahrenheit average temperature, alligator ancestors and palm trees. It's smack in the middle of the Arctic.

First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally.

Skeptics of man-made causes of global warming have nothing to rejoice over, however. The researchers say their studies appearing in Thursday's issue of Nature also offer a peek at just how bad conditions can get.

"It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

Wow! Forget about getting hot and rising sea levels. With mosquitoes that big we're going to have one serious outbreak of the West Nile virus. Can you imagine the itch that bite would cause? But, isn't one thing funny? Rather than seeing the obvious point that global warming is part of natural long-term cycles in our climate, the left tries to tell us that this should be a warning as to how bad that it can get if we don't start solving GW now. Well, what was Bush and mankind doing 55 million years ago that caused this problem?

See. With the worshippers of the Global Warming God, everything proves their case--even the things that refute it.

You know. With the lying, firing your critics, and the cover-ups, I'd think that we would be covering Watergate rather than global warming believers. I guess the left admires Nixon more than we knew.

One More--

Finally, from our buddy and a self-described global warming expert on Gore's (or someone's) penchant to lie:

Environment II by Mark A. York:
(Yes, that Mark A. York aka Jake Elmore whose site gives his purpose: "Dedicated to bashing the myths perpetuated by the untrained conservative mind on environmental and other political issues facing the world at this critical juncture.")

Yeah
May 30, 2006

Swift Boating the Planet, By Paul Krugman

"Al Gore and others who hope to turn global warming into a real political issue are going to have to get tougher, because the other side doesn't play by any known rules."

I haven't read it but I know what he said.

What rules? Lying, firing qualified scientists who see otherwise, scaring people, stealing money for research instead of helping people? It seems that the left has a monopoly on cheating rather than playing by the rule book. (You're welcome for the link, Mark, as much as I appreciate your insight.)

Global Warming - Cause and Effect [UPDATED]

*

Left: Cause of Unwarranted Hysteria................Right: Effect of Natural Changes

....................

Time's latest contribution to hyped-up hysteria, as pictured on the left (appropriately), starts with this headline on global warming: "Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever... More And More Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point."

On the right, is an animated map from the Illinois State Museum showing the retreating North American ice sheet over the millennia after the end of the last ice age.

You can draw one of two conclusions: Either (1) the Earth has been warming naturally for the last 11,000 years or (2) prehistoric man was bad, bad, bad, and started the chain of events leading to melting glaciers today.

Early Man Emits Carbon into the Atmosphere

Innocent or guilty? Did prehistoric man trade his comfort for the devastation of future generations?

Global Warming from the Left

Just to be fair, here is an article which discusses gobal warming and current proposals from the left.

What's your take on it?

Feinstein takes aim at global warming
Environmentalists praise proposal targeting immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER, Inside Bay Area

California's senior senator laid out a blueprint Monday for curbing global warming, the latest congressional proposal for turning greenhouse-gas pollution into a multibillion-dollar commodity in hope of doing away with it.

Environmentalists gave generally good marks to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's new climate bill because they say it commits to immediate reductions in greenhouse gases, with an initial target of returning to 2006 levels of emissions by 2010 and making gentle but steady cuts totaling just more than 7 percent from then until 2020.

Feinstein pointed to signs of warming through-out the world, from more severe storms to masses of ice flowing into the oceans at the poles.

"The clock is ticking on global warming," she said in a statement. "If we do not slow, stop and reverse global warming soon, we will do irreparable harm to the world around us."

Continue Reading the Complete Article

Maybe we should implement her proposals in California first and see how they work before we apply them to the rest of the nation.

Cities Warm, Glaciers Melt, and Bush Does Nothing

There's disturbing news about our warming weather that will impact everyone in our country. We cannot say for sure that President Bush is responsible, but many in the scientific community believe that our nation's leader is doing nothing about this situation which will cause our cities to become hotter and glaciers to melt faster. Many of you may want to know what is happening and why Bush sits on his hands.

As you may know, very small changes to the Earth can result in major changes to our weather. Discover Magazine reported the latest impact with this information for the month of March: "Daylight increases at its fastest pace of the year: it grows longer by three minutes per day in New York City and Denver, seven minutes daily in Fairbanks, Alaska." Can you imagine what this added effect of the sun will do to our weather and our ice cap? Go to the information linked at "Continue Reading" to understand this better. And, oh yes, for our readers--everyone, don't worry...and enjoy the Spring.

Continue reading "Cities Warm, Glaciers Melt, and Bush Does Nothing"

Earth in the Balance - And Liberals in the Dark

Global warming protestors should be upset about a recently publicized phenomena--U.S. cities being plunged into darkness by daily changes in our planet. Has mankind affected the Earth so much that this is the result, or are we to accept wing-nut claims that this is just part of nature? Just read excerpts from this article explaining the problem, likely causes, and reactions.

the Onion: Rotation Of Earth Plunges Entire North American Continent Into Darkness

NEW YORK�Millions of eyewitnesses watched in stunned horror Tuesday as light emptied from the sky, plunging the U.S. and neighboring countries into darkness. As the hours progressed, conditions only worsened.

As the phenomenon hit New York, millions of motorists were forced to use their headlights to navigate through the blackness. Highways flooded with commuters who had left work to hurry home to their families. Traffic was bottlenecked for more than two hours in many major metropolitan areas.

"Vast gravitational forces have rotated the planet Earth on an axis drawn through its north and south poles," said Dr. Elena Bilkins of the National Weather Service. "The Earth is in actuality spinning uncontrollably through space."

"I looked out the window and saw it getting dark when I was still at the office working," said Albert Serpa, 27, a lawyer from Tulsa, OK, who had taken shelter with others at Red's Bar and Grill. "That's when I knew I had to leave right away."

Ronald Jarrett, a professor of economics at George Washington University who left his office after darkness blanketed the D.C. metro area, summed up the fears of an entire nation, saying, "Look, it's dark outside. I want to go home," and ended the phone interview abruptly.

Is this the future of the planet--nightly darkness?

Why should you be concerned? Because the threat to life, the anecdotal evidence, and the prevailing claims of Bush's culpability on this are just as valid as similar proof and claims on global warming. If you can accept one, then you can believe the other. Save the Earth! Show your degree of logic and intelligence by writing letters to the editor to oppose the darkening of our hemisphere every single day. Don't accept crazy claims that the setting sun is a natural occurence, do demand billions for research...and, be sure to blame Bush! The Democrats need issues.

Do Flame Wars Contribute To Global Warming, Are Paul and York Environmentally Sound? Tune In Beloved Readers

Flame War! Wikipedia defines flaming as: "The motive for flaming is often not dialectic, but rather social or psychological. Sometimes, flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority.?" And so it is. On the other hand, we at GM's Corner are not about to let challenges go unanswered because to do so merely encourages the scoundrels (was that necessary?... ed... Probably not, but when I have an itch I scratch it... GM)

Yes, by all means let's talk about Mark A. York's qualifications. First, he is as narcissistic as John "Do you know who I am?" Kerry. Mark brags about "endangered fisheries." This of course he means to imply that he is fighting to save, as he once published in the "DailySundial" wild salmon. But fisheries is defined as:

The industry or occupation devoted to the catching, processing, or selling of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic animals.
A place where fish or other aquatic animals are caught.
A fishing business.
A hatchery for fish.
The legal right to fish in specified waters or areas.

Hah, this guy has a bachelors degree in journalism Not biology, if he has any biology at all, it is as a minor and that requirement is only 18 hours. Furthermore, according to his book, he was a GS-4 Technician.... The lowest of the low, the least qualified of the qualified, so low that a degreed person with NO experience was placed over him in his sojourn to the ANWR and that his work was seasonal. Oh, and his lifetime of environmental work... hmmm, according to his own words (he published this remember): he spent 17 years as a construction worker going from "the kid who always got beat up to the terminator." as he protected the others in his fisheries crew from having to deal with the "tough" oil field hands.

Oh, by the way, that's from his book "Against A Strong Current and you can find an excerpt here: Chapter 7. Interesting book by all accounts... NOT!

Actually, this book is sent to an electronic publisher, not accepted for mass publication by an “accepted publisher�, but printed on order by Xlibris Corp a vanity type press and he rails against Woody and me for unsourced material but where we weren’t being humorous, we sourced just fine. Oh, and by the way, Mark has a screed against the vanity press here: July, 07 which when you read it is hilarious; this guy has more bathos than the Marx Brothers. But I digress, here is a "review" of York's Against A Strong Current:

Refreshingly objective and candid nonfiction concerning an issue at the core of our very existence-the environment.

While others turn a blind eye or are swayed by the powers that be seeking to exploit the
planet, the author is a fearless champion for the planet as evidenced also by the conditions he braves on his quest. [emphasis added, but I couldn’t help myself my gawd, this guy is overweening]

At the core of our very existence. Lion's and Tigers and Bears Oh My!!

That review is a little over the top and I have absolutely no doubt that York himself wrote it using a fake ID for the purpose. However there are two other reviews which kind of put York in his place:

Sorry Mark, but this book needs some first aid. I decided to read it after reading the author's comments in a Rick Bass review. It reads like a stump-filled hillside, slipping, tripping, and falling all over the place. There is no sense that it was edited; there are misspellings, frags, story lines smashed to bits. Descriptions of the beautiful areas are adjective-free. There is also a lot of what I sense as " doesn't play well with others." I'll stop here.............

and

this book lacked any sort of editing on the author's part. seeing as the book was published with Print On Demand technology, he had no editor. It seems like he wrote this in a week -- maybe two -- tops, then just handed it in. Couldn't believe the horrible editing.

Editing makes a book hard to read, skimming over all those errors. Sigh.

Hey, i tried to read it. But... it was just so bland and awful - and that's editing aside.

Atta boy York, slammed twice for your hubris. However, our intrepid enviro-warrior doesn't quit, I'll give him that. Take a look at the sites he has been banned at beginning with mine (yet, he continues to come around). Also here (Roger Simon) and here (Done Deal) here (Press Think - 2 times no less). He claimed to be a "pen pal of sorts" with Bill Clinton He was kicked out of Yahoo Groups. Lastly, and then I'll quit because I really hate having a battle of wits with York when it is so obvious that he is half armed; York was banned from my blog for the use of foul language. He claims he didn't use anything stronger than "ass" and, unfortunately I deleted all the really vile language and York knows it. Unfortnately for York, the net is full of his postings and he typically and usually gets frustrated (low frustration tolerance is a hallmark of lefty trolls) and posts something like this [WARNING - strong language follows]

How pathetic do you have to to (sic) fixate on one website to get control for your sick ideas you ignorant shithead. I’ll tell you what Timo if I could get a hold [of] your sick neck it would be broken. Now that’s a promise you fvcking (sic) ad hom (sic) machine. Is it true because the credential-less tim-troll says it? LOL! What a dickhead. You scared little twit.

with all those misspellings this guy purports to have a degree in journalism? "Ass" indeed! "... doesn't play well with others." I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Which brings us to Randy Paul’s entry in the flame wars. Paul advertises his blog as “A Proud Member Of The Reality Based Community.� Oh my! He congratulates York here:

I thought that I would comment on this bizarre post attempting - with the aid of a right-wing think tank no less - (talk about aiming low and still missing your target) to refute claims that global warming is real, but someone beat me to it and did it well.

Paul goes on to say “here’s a little something about their source� and references a coal baron (one would assume) by the name of S. Fred Singer. Only one problem Paul, I didn’t reference Singer in a realistic post or any other post that I could find so I have no idea where you came up with it. And your reference of York’s post was in reference to my post. Paul, you really need to get a real life. Further, if you were really going to debunk the articles I posted on, then by all means do so, but be sure to cite your sources, not your fevered imagination.

OK, let’s go on to Paul’s qualifications in this little bit of byte-drama. Paul has a … are you ready… degree in F….I….L….M! There you have it boys and girls. A degree in film and a good deal of knowledge about south and central America. That’s it. OK, not quite it. In his next sentence he “proves� that Woody is all wet regarding the cost of removing CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels with that paragon of scientific journals (you know, the one that York always champions) THE … again… ready… here it comes…. a NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL…. Well, I’m sure castigated. Gawrsh as Goofy would say!

Well, the editorial does in fact say that removing CO2 would only be “$1.00 per ton� Only one problem, and that is the number of tons produced worldwide in a ten year period from 1994 through 2003 (and we are using those figures because that is what we will have to pay over the next 10 years if we start on Jan. 1, 2006… let’s see… it’s about 465,528.69 MILLION METRIC TONNES at one dollar per ton (and remember, a metric tonne weighs 2, 200 pounds whereas a ton weighs only 2000 pounds, so a metric ton is about 10% larger. Having said that, and even converting metric tones to standard tons we are talking about $512,081,559,000.00 we are talking about 512 billion dollars; you don't think you will feel that in your pocketbook?. Oh, and Paul, York, that figure is from YOUR guys… the ones that you say BELIEVE in GW.

Paul’s parting comment is “If you can't get the truth behind them they just make things up.� Paul, I propose that reducing the cost to only one ton and hiding the total number of tons is making things up.

But you see, radical out in left field lefties like Paul and Mark are all about that; scare, fear mongering and popular pablum; about purporting theory as fact (actually, to the amusement of all and sundry, that fellow York actually said "A theory in science is indeed fact." I'm surprised he graduated with that kind of thinking... all of my professors would have flunked me if I held that view. Then again, I went to a real university. and have more than 60 graduate hours with a 3.75 GPA, I'm a member of a national honor society as well. York on the other hand, maintained that grades of well, mediocre at best ) and their proposed solutions are the only hope of mankind. Well, remember global winter, the next ice age, how silicone implants caused all kinds of medical problems, how electric transmission lines caused cancer and other dire threats from magnetic currents (which is all the rage now, wearing magnets that is), how cell phones would give you brain tumors in a relatively short time… all debunked, but all part of the fear mongering and the cost of finding out that it was fear mongering was staggering. Dow Corning went bankrupt and spent over 3 billion dollars for the privilege, we spent well over 25 billion on powerline research, money that could have helped an awful lot of kids who were hungry, or a lot of treatment for aids victims in Africa or even on honest climate research. Reality based community indeed.

Update: Some of my readers have gone to leave comments at York's site. He banned them! Bwahahahaha!!! Oh Mark, you are such a dweeb!

Taking Global Warming Seriously - The Left Offers New Study [UPDATED]

The left has a new ally to back up its claims about the perils of and solutions to global warming. What is this giant of science that puts global warming on the cover and boldly discusses it? Why, it's none other than Rolling Stone magazine! That's right! Rolling Stone isn't just for drugged out rock fans. It's a well respected science journal for global warming activists coming off a high. I've been viewing it wrong. For instance, when I saw Gwen Stefani, a Madonna look alike, on last month's cover, I noted that she had her shirt completely open and her pants riding low. Now, I realize that she wasn't making a statement--she was trying to stay cool!

Science Magazine Explains
(Un)dressing to Stay Cool
In Global Warming

To learn more about Rolling Stone's global warming issue, also featuring an article by Al Gore, refer to these links:

Global Warming on the Cover of Rolling Stone, by Steven Milloy which references Junk Science. That site has a moving counter showing that, so far, the Kyoto Protocol has cost over $110,000,000,000 resulting in a potential temperature savings of (are you ready?) 0.001145 degrees C. !! -- which is a good indicator of the cost-benefit ratio that we would see with the Kyoto program.

Stay tuned. High Times might have an expose' covering the global warming effects on pot growth, and the left will surely be concerned about that information. They need to keep smoking to continue believing and pushing wild claims on this issue.

[***UPDATE***]

Visit the Left Who Keeps Us Entertained !

It drives people on the left crazy, or should I say crazier, when reasoned people don't take them seriously. (Why should we?) They'll argue and pull out all sorts of articles and research in attempts to convince others that they are right, I mean correct. It is especially funny when we make tongue-in-cheek comments and post entries ridiculing their positions, but they take the remarks dead seriously. I have done this over-and-over and they just don't get it. Such was the case, also, with G.M.'s entry on the relationship between global warming and the number of pirates in the world. The guys on the left actually tried to have an intellectual argument to refute that! They're nuts! They will argue and try to prove us wrong, when we're just making a joke. That is like watching the movie "Airplane" and doing a critique on Leslie Nielsen as a drama actor. Guess what. He's not being serious in that movie. Sometimes, as in this case, we're just having fun. Lighten up!

But, no. In checking our stats, I noticed unusual referrals from "radical leftist sites." Investigating, I found that two of our favorite bloggers on the left are having a conniption fit over our comments on global warming. Mark York (who was banned by G.M. for his inappropriate language) and Randy Paul (whom I earlier called a psycho--I apologized) have teamed up to discredit our comments with entries on their sites. Now, they didn't have the courtesy to let us know, but we were lucky(?) enough to discover them.

They went further to say that I was untruthful about having a science segment for kids on public television (not public access) a while back. Well, I did and I don't lie, so they're wrong--leaving me to conclude that their research is not infallible. We forgive them. After all, their desperate positions demand desperate accusations. Ultimately with the left, they abandon reasoned discussions to engage in personal attacks. It worked when they were five years old, so they keep trying it.

To show that there are no hard feelings, I want to encourage all of you to visit their sites and see the contributions that they have to offer to science and the world. We want everyone to see both sides of the global warming issue and politics in general, and you can decide if you want to accept their views--or ours, or neither. First, check out the "wisdom and punditry" of Mark A. York and his post on Butthead's Logic. Then, follow that to "a proud member of the reality-based community" Randy Paul and his article titled It Is to Laugh. But, don't just read their attacks on us and the right. View their main pages to read their philosophies and to check their credentials as climate scientists and overall experts. They will probably appreciate the traffic and will be glad that someone is actually reading their posts.

If you are led, be good sports and leave comments for them. Show them that we care for their views. As visitors, remember to be polite. You're representing the right, and we want to keep wearing the white hats. One last thing. Whatever you do, don't make jokes. They just wouldn't get them.

Global Warming: A Challenge, & Scare Tactics/Bad Science From The Left!

Not long ago, one Mark A York infested this neighborhood, this spot on the web that I call my blog. I banned said York following some rather vulger comments, and I deleted the most offensive of his verbage. I'm amazed at how trolls feel they have the right to come into your home (so to speak) and crap on your couch. At any rate, this isn't about York as much as it is about the assertion by York that Global Warming (GW) is readily accepted by the "vast majority" of scientists, and so well documented as to be incontrovertable. York "challenged" thusly:

That will a screaming good laugh at the expense of two blockhead amateurs who couldn't find their ass with both hands in this subject arena. Try me. I dare you.

"Try me. I dare you" Oh, the horror, the fear that this engenders. But, since I like a challenge, especially from a deranged lefty who imagines himself both a brain and a "scientist" ought to be fun.

The essense of many of York's arguments are 1). That GW is a proven fact without a doubt and 2.) The ice is melting and the lower laying areas of the world are about to be innundated.

Here at GM's Corner, both Woody and I have enjoyed posting on GW from a humorous point of view (here, and here). The "challenge was issued on that last post as apparantly York was incapable of understanding that the post itself was obviously a humorous post and not meant to be taken seriously by anyone, including York, but apparantly the humor was lost on York. In fact, humor is often lost on these types of people because they fall in the class of "True Believers." That is, those without a sense of whimsy, without in internal mechanism that allows them to appreciate humor or whimsy tend to take everything so seriously. But, I digress. York wants a therapist and an accountant to humor him in his challenge... Will do!

Let's take a couple of Yorks shiboleths and see if they can be looked at one at a time. First, aside from the two assertions above is that the vast majority, almost all, a heck of a big bunch, a terrific lot of and more than five (but less than 30 billion for sure) "scientists" (and here I would assume that he includes himself) agree that GW is fact. Let us look at that in it's historical context. While it is true that most scientists were wrong when they derided Pasteur and his theory of germs, they could not long overlook the evidence. It is equally true that most scientists derided Galileo for his solar centric assertions as well. Too, Hippocrates hypothesized that we (our personality and other traits) were essentially a combination of four humours: "SANGUINE, (blood);" "CHOLERIC (yellow bile);" "PHLEGMATIC (phlegm);" and "MELANCHOLIC (black bile)." This from the "Father of "MODERN" medicine. Interestingly enough, Hippocrates also is famous for what he didn't write (the Hippocratic Oath) and for being a Greek physician who laid the foundations of scientific medicine by freeing medical study from the constraints of philosophical speculation and superstition. And for close to a couple of thousand years, "the vast majority of scientists supported his assertions."

Well, that worked real well didn't it? But, the point of course is that wide acceptance is not the same as proof, any more than a high (positive or negative) correlation involves causality. If correlation was in fact the same as causality, my humorous assertion that the increasing temperature is a direct result of the decrease in the number of pirates in the world would be a major factor in the GW controversy (it is an example of a high negative correlation, as one data bit declines, the corresponding data bit rises). It's not, and correlation is not the same as causality. Anyone making even a D in elementary statistics should understand that, except perhaps for Mr. York.

So, let us look at the two issues, one at a time.

1). THAT GW IS A PROVEN FACT WITHOUT A DOUBT.

You know what? Just to make this a little more "fair" for York I will concede that GW is in fact, a fact. I also demand that he accept that Global Cooling (GC) is equally a fact and has accounted for numerous Ice Ages. But that of course begs the question. Are we in fact in a slight warming trend, a catastrophic warming trend where we will all turn into roasted homo sapiens (except those living in Alaska of course, they will become Baked Alaskans), or is this possibly a statistical anomaly? There seems to be a disagreement between these folk and these folk. At issue is a statistical interpretation of data that takes on the appearance of a Hockey Stick. Mann and his researchers first published their data in Nature in 1998. Essentially, Mann argued that because of human intervention temperatures gradually rose in a slight but not necessarily significant warming trend until the advent of the 20^th Century. Then a sharply upward trend of increasing temperature produced a form called, the hockey stick because it has the shape of said stick.

This is the shape we are talking about. Following Mann, two "non-climatologists," one a Professor of Economics Ross McKitrickand another a mining exploration consultant Stephen McIntyre, began looking at the formulas/models and methodology of Mann for what was purely personal reasons. McIntyre because he said the hockey stick reminded him too much of the kind of graphic used to "sell" investors a stake in a mining operation. McIntyre also noted that the graphic was very much like the Dot.Com graphs and we all know where that one went.

In a lengthy article, note above and here, Marcel Crok, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek (Nature, Science & Technology) (Antwerp) Crok states (translation from the Dutch by Angela den Tex):

Few people dispute that the earth is getting warmer, but there are people – so-called “climate skeptics� – who question whether the change is historically unique and whether it is the result of human activity.These skeptics are generally outsiders, reviled by �true� climate researchers.

On the one hand, Michael Mann, the first author of the two noted hockey stick papers (in Nature in 1998 and in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999), is the unofficial king of climate research. In 2002, Scientific American included him as one of the top 50 visionaries in science.On the other hand, the two Canadian skeptics are outsiders: Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Economics and Stephen McIntyre is a mineral exploration consultant – which Mann likes to call a conflict of interest.

Climate skeptics are most prolific on the internet, a platform for novices, the scatterbrained and the experienced alike. Not surprisingly, the climate researchers who we consulted (predominantly Dutch) presumed the work of the two Canadians to be unconvincing. Natuurwetenschap & Techniek was initially skeptical about these skeptics as well. However, McIntyre and McKitrick have recently had an article accepted by Geophysical Research Letters - the same journal that published Mann’s 1999 article.This, together with the positive responses of the referees to this article, quickly brought us around.

Full Disclosure: I'm one of those folk in the blogosphere, I'm not a climate scientist, but I can read, I can reason and I can put two and two together and consistently come up with four (we are of course, assuming a base 10 model). There is absolutely nothing inherent about being in any profession and being right all the time. Perhaps Mann hasn't learned that yet. Too bad.

Crok goes on to state:

The criticism by the Canadians is mostly technical in nature: they claim that Mann and his colleagues have misused an established statistical method – principal component analysis (PCA) – so that their calculations simply mined data for hockey stick shaped series and that Mann’s results are statistically meaningless.They have traced the problem to a simple error in a few lines of computer code.

The scientists that we consulted did not immediately recognize the implications of Mann’s eccentric method, suggesting the possibility he himself may not have been aware of the apparent mistake.However, in response to our inquiries, Mann denies any errors and rejects any criticism in strident terms.

The conclusion of McKitrick and McIntyre, after being engaged in nearly two years of heated discussions with Mann and other scientists, is alarming: there is something amiss in climate research.Have Mann and his fellow researchers committed fraud? McIntyre:“That is too strong a legal term.What we can say is that the IPCC and many paleoclimatologists have not provided their readers with ‘full, true and plain disclosure’ (to use another legal term), especially if it involves reporting results adverse to their claims.There is no excuse for anything less than complete disclosure of all data and methods and it is shocking that the authors of the major studies refuse to do so.We have found that peer review of paleoclimate journals is a very limited form of due diligence. If scientific studies are going to be used to justify policy decisions costing billions of dollars, a much more rigorous form of review is needed.�

The article referenced above is some 10 pages long and includes a mind numbing number of graphs and not a little technical jargon. But it is worth reading in it's entirety for a grasp of what McIntyre and McKitrick state are the problems inherent in Mann's methodolgy. Make the effort, the read is worthwhile!

Of course, I'm not about to predicate my arguments on single source material, no matter how complete that argument seems to be, there is also this, & this. These last two are by John Daly, a self professed climate sceptic who states that he is not a climitologist but that:

Originally from Britain, I came to live in Tasmania in 1980, settling near Launceston, and for the last 9 years have been one of the numerous `skeptics' speaking out publicly against the Global Warming scare, which makes exaggerated claims that the earth will warm by +1.5 to +6 deg. C. due to an enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

Climate and climate change has been a lifelong study of mine since my early days as a ship's officer in the British Merchant Navy. I have lived through and traced the progress of the `ice age' scare of the 1970's, the `nuclear winter' scare of the 1980s, and now the `global warming' scare of the present. All these scares have advanced the interests of what was a small academic discipline 30 years ago to become a mammoth global industry today. It is my view that this industry has, through the `politics of fear' which it has promoted, acted against the interests of the public.

Daly may not be a climatologist, but he is familiar enough with enquiry to gather materials and document his findings. But, I'm sure the climitologists will deride this saying "but he is an amateur." That's OK, it was amateurs that busted Dan Rather too.

No controversy would be worth it's salt unless the detractors had detractors. Here is the site that York has recommended, and I admit it's a good read. But, I'm not about to attempt to refute it "line by line" as York has asked, any more than he would attempt to refute Crok line by line. In Real Climate the author goes into little detail, but gives a couple of links, in particular this one in which the graph given certainly shows a hocky stick like increase. On the other hand, the compression of the graph right to left exaggerates this effect and doesn't give any real meaning as presented. The data may be correct, but the presentation seems lacking. See an example of this below:

This is chart one graphing temperature rise between 1900 and 1980 (This is false data, used for illustration purposes only)

This is chart two. The data is identical, the only difference is the compression/expansion of the size of the grid. I'm not saying the data referred to in the above link (this one) is wrong, I'm saying that it may not be presented in it's most accurate light.

Moving on to the second issue

2.) The ice is melting (because of GW one presumes - and depending on one's political philosophy and the degree of paranoia that could stand for Global Warming or George W.) and the lower laying areas of the world are about to be innundated.

This one was a little harder to research, but, being fairly decent at finding things on google and other sites, I perservered and came up with a couple. The first reports on the average thickness of the ice at the artic (north pole for some of you (insert very big grin). Now, if in fact we are in a significant warming trend with a concurrent melting of ice, it would seem then that the polar ice cap in the arctic regions would get thinner, and so it was reported:

Arctic sea ice has a complex structure, consisting of different kinds of ice and different thicknesses, ranging from very thin new ice to pressure ridges up to 50 m thick. Observations of ice thickness on a basin-wide scale have been obtained from submarine-based upward looking sonars that measure sea ice draft which is a measure of the subsurface ice thickness (the total thickness also includes the above-surface freeboard). McLaren [1989] presented draft data from two cruises (1958 and 1970) showing more severe ice conditions with thicker ice in 1958. Wadhams [1990] calculated a decrease of about 15 % of the total ice volume when analyzing draft data from two years (1976 and 1987) north of Greenland.

McLaren et al. [1992] investigated six cruises from 1977 to 1990 and found a large interannual variability but little evidence of a thinning ice cover. Recently, Rothrock et al. [1999] analyzed the presently available Scientific Ice Expeditions (SCICEX) submarine cruises ('93, '96 and '97) and found that the mean ice thickness had decreased by 1.3 m when compared to similar data acquired during the 1958-1976 period. They further stated that the thinning has continued during the 1990s and estimated an overall mean decline of 0.1 m yr−1. The latter conclusion, which has been cited widely, is carefully analyzed here using the most comprehensive data set presently available to the research community.

The conclusion?

Draft data from the North Pole, the Beaufort Sea, and transects between the two areas over a 7-year period from 1991 to 1997 show no evidence of a thinning ice cover. The Beaufort Sea area shows larger variability, being closer to the marginal ice zone and sensitive to circulation type and the location of the Beaufort high. Using a more extensive data set (6 years compared to 3), the negative trend in ice thickness found by Rothrock et al. [1999] during the 1990s is not supported by the present investigation. Combining the mean drafts derived by McLaren et al. [1992] from 1986 to 1990 with those from the present study, I conclude that the thickness of the sea ice cover has remained on a nearconstant level at the North Pole during the 12-year period from 1986 to 1997. This result is also supported by Wadhams and Davis [2000] who concluded that a substantial part of the thinning between 1976 and 1996 probably took place during the
rst of those two decades.

And finally, a little logical deductioning (though it may be logical, it is not necessarily true). If in fact, there is a degree of global warming and the polar ices melts as well as the ice in mountains and glaciers, than a significant amount will be taken up in water vapor. Warm air holds more moisture than cold air does. That will also result in increased precipitation in lots of areas that currently don't get a lot of rain (the Gobi? Sahara?) and that could be a good thing. Unfortunately, the data from the Artic don't support a massive melt off, now, or in the forseeable future.

Case closed, challenge met, but the greater question is unanswered. Is there a global warming trend as a result of green house gasses, is it an artifact of man or is it a natural cyclic phenomina? I can't answer that question and neither can anyone else, I don't care what initials there are behind their names. We can make some guesses, we can find data to support both sides of the equation, but until we know, going off half cocked, spending billions and billions of dollars with the resulting economic disruption based on a guess is not good enough. The predicted improvement in greenhouse gasses is all but insignificant. Let's get some real answers first.

Update: go HERE and read it all, then come back and comment!

Linked at Mudville Gazette, TMH Baconbits