Democrats Protecting Gore’s Global Warming Lies

You, will not question my authority

Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on the facts of global warming. He refuses to answer questions at his sermons about global warming. The mainstream media will not publish or air any opposing facts about global warming. Now, the Democrat lead Congress itself is protecting the lies spewed by Al Gore. Follow The Money!!

Washington, DC – UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment’s fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed ‘celebrity’ as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The “celebrity” witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats’ “celebrity” with an unnamed “celebrity” of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

Climate Depot has more with some updates.

H/T marinetbryant @ GCP

Speaking of lies and following the money, Steve Milloy of Green Hell Blog has found Gore lying directly to congress. Do you think the Dem controlled congress cares if another Dem lies to them? Yes, that is a rhetorical question. But read about it HERE.

!!Update!! Don’t miss part 2 of Gore lying to congress. Steve Milloy at Green Hell Blog has a lot of details.

An Earth Day Tribute

The John Coleman Interview Here

Al Gore Admits He Was Wrong About Global Warming

Yesterday, in a stunning reversal, Al Gore broke down in tears in front of a throng of reporters at Chicago’s World Green Day conference, admitting publicly for the first time that the theory of Global Warming, which the former Vice-President has touted for the better part of three decades, has been nothing more than “hot air”.  ”The fear that I’ve been perpetuating a hoax has been growing inside me for some time. I finally had no alternative but to admit that my confidence in the global warming theory was melting away faster than the ice caps supposedly were. The mountain of evidence and hard scientific data has overwhelmingly persuaded me to reverse my previous position on Global Warming.”

Gore went on to plead his case by presenting another powerpoint slideshow depicting what he described as  “irrefutable evidence.”

Some highlights:

The Polar bears aren’t drowning. (the pictures of them clinging to icebergs for their lives, are actually the bears frolicking, as they have done for centuries)

CO2 is not responsible for climate change, i.e. it does not trap heat within the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, a proliferation of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere, if true, would actually be beneficial to plant-life, as this is what they actually breathe”.

The Artic and Antarctic ice sheets are not melting.

The world’s oceans and seas, that are all interconnected, are not rising. (He admitted sheepishly that his six year old niece pointed out to him that it’s impossible for sea levels to rise in one place and not another) He added, “I’m quite sure the millions of people who live on the coast of America would have reported ever encroaching seas by now if this sad and disingenuous tale was true.”

There is no consensus amongst any scientists that the earth is heating up. The only consensus is that left-wing extremists agree that fear and hysteria is the best way to gain grant money from gullible governments.

The graph used in the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” known as the “hockey stick” because of it’s dramatic up sweep in the last 20 years, was in fact doctored to suit his own scaremongering needs. The previous 200 million years, which show similar up-sweeps; peaks and valleys,  did not suit his hysterical viewpoint, so, he made a conscious decision to jettison this sound-science.

Carbon offsets are one of the saddest jokes ever perpetrated on the sheeple of this planet. (Almost as bad as the global dimming theory)

Carbon offsets do not work. (Planting trees to reduce CO2 emissions is likened to people drinking sea water to keep the world’s oceans down — as CO2 is only held by a tree for a certain time before being released back into the atmosphere)

Even if the world heated up by 5 degrees Celsius, the coldest parts of both poles are minus 30 degrees Celsius. Higher temperatures would result in more condensation at the equator,  which results in more snow over the polar caps at the coldest points and thicker ice sheets; this would, in effect trap more water as ice, not less, resulting in lower coast lines. (This has not happened, proof-positive that the world is not heating up)

The environmental movement, a once noble cause, has been hijacked by the loony left, homeless anti-capitalists like Ed Begley who use fear for political expediency, who stymie growth through the use of hysterical propaganda. They deliver the propaganda to a willing audience of conspiracy theorists, weak-minded individuals, and worse still,  starfuckers who are so awestruck by a cadre of environmentalist Hollywood elitists who, whilst being the most outspoken on environmental issues, end up,  more often than not, being the biggest hypocrites with their lavish lifestyles, private jets, energy-sucking 10-bedroom mansions, fleets of limousines, prestige cars and entourages of hangers-on that serve no real purpose to either them or humanity.

The rise in temperature: Is the Earth hotter now than it was 40 years ago?

Gore saved his most elaborate explanation for the microscopic rise in urban temperatures that has been reported relentlessly in the mainstream-press.

“When we talk about Earth’s temperature, we are really talking not about overall temperature but about our cities’ temperatures, as that’s where the vast majority of people live. The fact is: cities are in fact hotter now than they were 40 years ago. This is true. The higher temperatures in recent decades is the direct result of ‘urban sprawl’.” Gore stated. ”Take a city like Los Angeles which has urban sprawl in all directions, sprawl that has tripled and quadrupled over the past 50 years. The vast networks of roads, concrete, glass, steel, and other raw materials now covering this once arid landscape create the temperature rise. Simply put:  concrete, tar, metal, glass, steel, heat up far more during the day than fields, valleys, rivers, and forests, thus increasing temperature in the most densely populated cities. If temperatures were measured in the middle of nowhere there would be no significant increase.

If we were to return Los Angeles today to the rural landscape, as it was in say 1880, the temperature in the middle of the day would be 5-10 degrees lower than it is now. So, the bigger the urban sprawl, the higher the temperature. We have used these alarming statistics, that this city, or that city has posted the highest temperature, or the hottest month in the past 100 years to scare people and manipulate statistics to support our hysterical viewpoints.” Gore went on to say. “And for that, people of planet earth, I am truly sorry.”

Gore went on for two hours taking aim at myth after myth and shooting it down. All that was left after the marathon three-hour admission of guilt was a shadow of man who once came within a heartbeat of being President.

Source

More Global Warming Lies From The Obama Crowd

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the left just will not quit with their lies. There has been no warming since 1998, temperatures are falling everywhere and the solar cycles say we are heading into another ice age. Why do these people keep beating this dead horse? Money and power. It’s a perfect way to control the citizens and people like Al Gore, who has at least two carbon credit selling businesses, can continue to commit fraud for profit. Look at what the “Energy Secretary” had to say the other day about global warming and it’s tragic results. He’s either lying, which seems to be encouraged in the Obama administration, or he’s ignorant of the facts. Either way, he needs to go.

PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago — Caribbean nations face “very, very scary” rises in sea level and intensifying hurricanes, and Florida, Louisiana and even northern California could be overrun with rising water levels due to global warming triggered by carbon-based greenhouse gases, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Saturday.

Chu’s comments followed meetings with environmental ministers attending the fifth Summit of the Americas. He did not shy away from the most perilous predictions about the potential effects of global warming.

He said global temperatures have already risen by 0.8 degree Centigrade, that another 1 degree increase was certain to occur and “there’s a reasonable probability we can go above 4 degrees Centigrade to 5 and 6 more.”

Chu painted a dire picture of the implications.

“So imagine a world 6 degrees warmer. It’s not going to recognize geographical boundaries. It’s not going to recognize anything. So agriculture regions today will be wiped out,” Chu said.

“I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes. This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. The island states in the world represent — I remember this number — one-half of 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. And they will — some of them will disappear,” he added.

Chu said the United States would not be spared, either.

“Let me state what the official IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) prediction is: It (sea levels) could go up as much as three-quarters of a meter in this century, but there is a reasonable probability it could be much higher than that,” Chu said.

He said a rise in levels of one meter, coastal areas around Florida around Louisiana would move much farther inland.

“Lots of area in Florida will go under. New Orleans at three-meter height is in great peril. If you look at, you know, the Bay Area, where I came from, all three airports would be under water. So this is — this is serious stuff. The impacts could be enormous,” he said.

At least he’s being challenged.

Conservative climate change skeptics immediately denounced Chu’s assessment of the threat and potential consequences of global warming.

“Secretary Chu still seems to believe that computer model predictions decades or 100 years from now are some sort of ‘evidence’ of a looming climate catastrophe, said Marc Morano, executive editor of ClimateDepot.com and former top aide to global warming critic Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.

“Secretary Chu’s assertions on sea level rise and hurricanes are quite simply being proven wrong by the latest climate data. As the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute reported in December 12, 2008: There is ‘no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise.’”

Morano said hurricane activity levels in both hemispheres of the globe are at 30 years lows and hurricane experts like MIT’s Kerry Emanuel and Kerry Knutson “are now backing off their previous dire predictions.”

He said Chu is out of date on the science and is promoting unverified and alarming predictions that have already been proven contrary. SOURCE

Let’s have a Green Tea Party, before it’s too late

Steve Milloy notes that there is a 60 day public comment window before the EPA makes some really stupid laws.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is seeking comment on its proposed finding that greenhouse gases threaten the public welfare. The agency will be accepting comments from the public for 60 days.

Click here for the EPA proposal.

Take action:

It’s time for a green TEA party. Tell the EPA that you are taxed-enough-already and that you oppose the agency’s use of junk science to tax and regulate you even more.

Click here for information on submitting your comments to the EPA.

Source: Green Hell Blog

The Greens Are Lying To You….Again

And of course the Main Stream Media just parrots everything they hear without even questioning it.

This ABC News video, “Combatting ‘Vampire Energy’” spotlights the alleged eco-friendliness of Asus’ new laptops made with bamboo. While soaking in the the video’s empty-headedness is worth the 5 minute-watch, the relevant portion begins at 3:55 — just in case you’ve already reached the saturation point on green vacuity and want to fast forward to the laptop part.

About the laptops, ABC’s Andrea Smith reports:

… What’s great about it is that it’s not plastic, so that, No. 1, it looks really cool. You’ll look like you’re totally eco-friendly and very chic… The No. 2 thing is that when you’re done with this and you need to recycle it, there is no plastic here to clog the landfill… It’s bamboo and it’s a self-regenerating plant and there’s lots of it.

So let’s consider the Asus bamboo laptop, Ms. Smith’s report, and, importantly, reality:

• There is still plenty of plastic used in the laptop. Only the case is bamboo. And what about the bamboo’s shiny urethane finish?  Despite the name, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have generally been viewed by the greens as  environmentally-incorrect.
• Bamboo doesn’t recycle so much as it decomposes — giving off greenhouse gases. The plastic in laptops can be and is often recycled for other uses. The plastic is actually a better “carbon sink” than the bamboo.
• Recycling doesn’t matter anyway — almost all laptops are thrown in the trash. Fortunately, there is no shortage of landfill space. In fact, the U.S. has more landfill capacity than ever before.
• Most bamboo comes from Vietnam and China. Not only are greenhouse gases emitted while farming bamboo, but transporting the bamboo or bamboo finished products to the U.S. involves even more greenhouse gas emissions.
• The Asus bamboo laptop costs $732.81 more than the comparable Asus plastic laptop on Amazon.com.
• Bamboo is not necessarily eco-friendly. Growing bamboo on a mass-scale requires lots of water, energy and fertilizer inputs. Without fertilizer, continual harvesting of bamboo will deplete the soil in a short-time.

The bottom line on Asus bamboo laptop?

You may look cool, chic and eco-friendly, as ABC’s Andrea Smith says, but the reality is you’re being fooled and ripped-off, while doing nothing for the environment.

So they slap some wood on the outside of a laptop, charge you more to clear your mind of guilt, and they are real proud of themselves without having actually done anything. Again.

Steve Milloy keeps you informed with his new site Green Hell Blog. As always you can find great information at his JunkScience web site.

Al Gore: Huh, What Earth Hour?

What, me sacrifice? I'm only in it for the money

In yet another “Do as I say” display from The Goracle, he thumbs his nose at Earth Hour.

Even during Earth Hour. President of the Tennessee Center For Policy Research Drew Johnson takes a Saturday drive by Al Gore’s during the time most environmentalists went dark:

I pulled up to Al’s house, located in the posh Belle Meade section of Nashville, at 8:48pm – right in the middle of Earth Hour. I found that the main spotlights that usually illuminate his 9,000 square foot mansion were dark, but several of the lights inside the house were on.

In fact, most of the windows were lit by the familiar blue-ish hue indicating that floor lamps and ceiling fixtures were off, but TV screens and computer monitors were hard at work. (In other words, his house looked the way most houses look about 1:45am when their inhabitants are distractedly watching “Cheaters” or “Chelsea Lately” reruns.)

The kicker, though, were the dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of Gore’s mansion.

I [kid] you not, my friends, the savior of the environment couldn’t be bothered to turn off the gaudy lights that show off his goofy trees.

You would think the leader of the Global Warming Scam would at least support the biggest moonbat hour of the year.

Source

!Update! Gore responds. (thanks erictheredvm)

The EPA is run by Morons

The Washington Times has a great article about the idiocy at the Environmental Protection Agency. They won’t be happy until all life on earth is snuffed out. I’ve been telling you all along, C02 is not a pollutant.

One man’s meat may be another man’s poison, but the Environmental Protection Agency has taken the idea to an absurdity. EPA has just sent a proposal to the White House that would classify carbon dioxide as a health hazard.

But if there wasn’t carbon dioxide around, there would be no plants. And, for that matter, neither would there be any people or pets if we weren’t allowed to exhale. The claimed “health hazard” from carbon dioxide is, of course, global warming, yet the data we have seen, such as Stanford economist Thomas Gale Moore’s work, show that warmer temperatures and higher incomes are associated with healthier, longer-living people. In case environmentalists haven’t noticed, bio-diversity is also much greater when temperatures are higher.

Over history, human civilizations have expanded during warmer periods but declined when it got cold. For a history lesson, we recommend University of California Professor Brian Fagan’s excellent book, “The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History.”

Obviously, higher temperatures support more plant life, and that in turn supplies the food for more animals. If you want more plants, animals, and healthier people, more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures are beneficial and certainly not “hazardous to health.”

All sorts of bizarre regulations already are devoted to “protecting” us from warmer temperatures – regulations that do endanger health and safety. Take mile per gallon regulation rules for cars. These rules directly endanger health and life because smaller cars are simply inherently less able to protect their passengers. Then there are mandates for compact fluorescent light bulbs that contain mercury. The EPA itself has extremely detailed and scary instructions about requiring people to leave the area once a bulb is broken. You can’t vacuum the spot, and if the spill occurs on a carpet the EPA claims that you should cut out that portion of the carpet and dispose of it properly.

There is little rational discussion on global warming these days. Consider the following questions. A “no” to any of them should logically imply that we should not restrict carbon dioxide.

(1) Are global temperatures rising? They were clearly rising from the late 1970s to 1998, but temperatures just as clearly have not gone up in the last 11 years. Indeed, the more recent numbers show evidence of cooling.

(2) Is mankind responsible for a significant and noticeable portion of an increase in temperatures? Mankind is responsible for just a few percent of greenhouse gases, and changes in greenhouse gases are responsible for just a tiny fraction of changes in global temperatures. The big factor is variations in the sun’s energy output. Last December, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a list of 400 prominent scientists who questioned the general notion of significant manmade global warming.

(3) Are increased temperatures “bad”? That answer is hardly obvious. Higher temperatures could increase ocean levels by between 7 inches and 2 feet over the next 100 years. On the other hand, massive areas from Canada to Europe to Russia would be much more habitable than now. We have already noted the other benefits to life.

(4) Finally, let’s assume that the answer to all three previous questions is “yes.” Does that mean we need more regulations and taxes? No, that is still not clear.

If we believe that man-made global warming is “bad,” we still don’t want to eliminate all carbon emissions. Having no cars, no air conditioning, or no electricity would presumably be much worse than anything people claim results from global warming. We would want to balance the benefits with any costs of additional carbon dioxide emissions.

One can see government do stupid things daily; the staggeringly harmful course it is already on is breathtaking. But hold on to the gunwales, for the ship of state in President Obama’s new environmental era will leave the United States pitching and yawing, with the world much poorer and less healthy because of it.

Source

H/T Tom Nelson

Saturday, 8:30 PM: TURN THOSE LIGHTS ON!

And grill with charcoal, have a bon fire, take a joy ride, mow the lawn, burn winter debris, run the a/c, do some laundry, run the dishwasher, eat some beans……you get the idea. The whole annual Earth Hour is such a farce we have to protest it somehow. Read a bit of what Alan Caruba has to say.

They call it pollution-We call it Civilization

We have reached this nauseating time in our society as the result of a vast environmental movement, truly worldwide, that are masters of propaganda and possessed of the millions necessary to brainwash a lot of people into accepting an endless assault on all the advancements in science, engineering, and technology we accept as part of our everyday lives.

So, naturally, the World Wildlife Fund has come up with “Earth Hour”, an event in which at 8:30PM, Saturday night, in everyone’s respective time zone, people will be asked to turn off their lights and, presumably, the use of all electricity to increase awareness of “energy conservation.”

Two questions: What does this have to do with wildlife? And why should anyone bother?

What need is there to “conserve energy?” One either uses it or does not. You can’t “conserve” it. You can use more or less of it, but you cannot save it up for later. Electricity is always “now.”

Is the Earth running out of coal? Hardly, the Chinese can’t build coal-fired plants fast enough to generate the electricity to grow their economy. In India, they’re launched on a huge program to build nuclear plants for the same reason. A nation without adequate electricity is strictly Third World.

Nor is the Earth running out of oil? The rumor is that there’s vast amounts in the Arctic and both the U.S. and Russia are making nasty noises at one another to ensure that neither one or the other gains control of it. Brazil just struck oil way offshore of its beautiful beaches and you don’t hear them complaining about it.

Read all of it HERE.

!Update! Michelle Malkin has joined in. She has a great video there. Leave the lights on: Celebrate Human Achievement Hour

New Study: Green Jobs Myths

Steve Milloy of Green Hell Blog has this piece about the non-existent “Green Job Revolution” the Obama administration is shoving down our throats.

President Obama touts “green jobs” and has hired a “green jobs czar.”

But check out the conclusions from this new study published by the University of Illinois College of Law and Economics about “green jobs”:

A rapidly growing literature promises that a massive program of government mandates, subsidies, and forced technological interventions will reward the nation with an economy brimming with green jobs. Not only will these jobs improve the environment, but they will be high paying, interesting, and provide collective rights. This literature is built on mythologies about economics, forecasting, and technology.

Myth: Everyone understands what a green job is.

Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists.

Myth: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.

Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.

Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.

Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.

Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.

Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference – such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests – will generate stagnation.

Myth: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.

Reality: History shows that nations cannot produce everything their citizens need or desire. People and firms have talents that allow specialization that make goods and services ever more efficient and lower-cost, thereby enriching society.

Myth: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.

Reality: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.

Myth: Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.

Reality: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today’s demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality.

In this Article, we survey the green jobs literature, analyze its assumptions, and show how the special interest groups promoting the idea of green jobs have embedded dubious assumptions and techniques within their analyses. Before undertaking efforts to restructure and possibly impoverish our society, careful analysis and informed public debate about these assumptions and prescriptions are necessary.

Another Step Closer to Communism

I don’t think even the Commies limit your choice of colors on autos anymore, but California will. And in the name of Global Warming no less.

In a move that will likely get California’s consumers in a huff, impending legislation may soon restrict the paint color options for Golden State residents looking for their next new vehicle. The specific colors that are currently on the chopping block are all dark hues, with the worst offender seemingly the most innocuous color you could think of: Black. What could California possibly have against these colors, you ask? Apparently, the California Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings – especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours. Anyone living in a hot, sunny climate will tell you that this assumption is accurate, of course. In fact, legislation already exists for buildings that has proven successful at reducing the energy consumption of skyscrapers.

So, what’s the crux of the problem… can’t paint suppliers just come up with new, less heat-absorbent dark paints? According to Ward’s, suppliers have reportedly been testing their pigments and processes to see if it’s possible to meet CARB’s proposed mandate of 20% solar reflectivity by 2016 with a phase-in period starting in 2012, and things aren’t looking good. Apparently, when the proper pigments and chemicals are added to black paint, the resulting color is currently being referred to as “mud-puddle brown.” That doesn’t sound very attractive, now does it? Windshields, backlights and sunroofs are also slated to get reflective coatings starting in 2012.

When we first heard of this issue, an internal debate immediately began as to whether this might be an elaborate early April Fool’s joke, but it isn’t. Read through CARB’s complete Cool Cars Standards and Test Procedures here (PDF link) for more.

Source

Monday Quick Bites

What, me worry?

Some Solar Cycle Information. Two pieces from Watts Up With That?

The Double Quiet Sun
Usually, and that means in the past year, when you look at the false color MDI image from SOHO, you can look at the corresponding magnetogram and see some sort of disturbance going on, even it it is not visible as a sunspot, sunspeck, or plage area.
Not today.
Is That a Sunspot?
Yesterday I lamented that the sun was blank, not only on the SOHO MDI, but also the magnetogram. Within a couple of hours, one sunspeck appeared. I cited Murphy’s Law. As one commenter put it: ” I think if you check back for the last six months or so whenever you mention the lack of sunspots on here, one shows up.”.

And a couple from Green Hell Blog

New planetary burden: Meat-eating pets
Paul Greenberg opines today in the New York Times that dogs and cats should go vegan. Writing about his cat, Greenberg says,

California (of course) to limit car color choices More evidence of California Communism
Carbon Control News reported today that California regulators have proposed that car makers use so-called “cool” paints to reduce the interior temperature of cars, thereby reducing air conditioning use and, consequently, improving gas mileage.

And some picks from around the blogasphere.

Skeptics Global Warming
We’ve got an update on the Companies Lobbying to Raise Your Energy Taxes.

HE’S MY PRESIDENT, BUT I DON’T HAVE TO LIKE IT
If I hear one more person point out that Obama is the president and that it’s our duty to support him, I just might run amok. For one thing, I resent being reminded that he actually won the election and that it’s not all a bad dream from which I’ll awaken as soon as the alarm clock rings. For another, there was a very good reason that I voted for John McCain, and it certainly had nothing to do with my having great expectations of the man, and everything to do with my conviction that Obama was a left-wing ideologue.

The Challenge Ahead: More than a Third of Senate Now “Swing” Vote on Climate – A high hurdle: of the 36 Senators identified as swing votes, all but seven must be convinced to vote “Yes” in order to secure passage of any climate policy in the U.S. Senate. (Breakthrough Institute)
Think we should encourage Senators to hold the line? Have your say and register your vote here.

New Study Proves Global Warming Skeptics Right

A new scientific study has come out in Nature Magazine and NPR has an article on it today. It is really a treasure trove of all things the Global Warming Cult and especially Al Gore, Do Not want you to know.  Please bear with me as I point out a few things.

Morning Edition, March 19, 2009 · A huge chunk of Antarctic ice can’t withstand nonstop global warming, according to a new study published in the latest Nature magazine. And if it melts, the ice will raise the global sea level by 15 or 20 feet — or more.
The only good news here is the catastrophe isn’t likely to unfold quickly.

Didn’t Al Gore just say we had only ten years?

The ice in question is called the West Antarctic ice sheet. In some ways, it’s the planet’s Achilles’ heel. It holds a vast amount of water, locked up as ice, and it’s sitting below sea level, so it’s inherently unstable.

Research On The West Antarctic Ice Sheet

David Pollard at Penn State University says there has been intense research recently to figure out how the ice sheet has behaved over the past 5 million years.

“Before there was only a vague idea of how the West Antarctic ice sheet grew and decayed over those time scales,” he says.

Now, a scientific drilling project has brought back sediment samples taken from underneath the ice sheet, allowing scientists to study the mud layers, like so many tree rings, to show what ice there has done over history.

“It’s really exciting,” Pollard says. “They’ve shown it really has collapsed and re-grown, multiple times.”

You may want to ask just what caused all that collapse and regrowth before the industrial revolution and it’s dreaded C02. And before Humans were even on earth for that matter. The study did go back 5 million years.

Pollard and a colleague have taken that detailed information and asked what it portends for the future of the West Antarctic ice sheet.

“The main reason that it collapsed in the past is the ocean has gotten warmer around the periphery of Antarctica, increasing the rate of melting of these floating ice shelves which fringe West Antarctica,” Pollard says.

Again, without our help.

These floating ice shelves act like buttresses to keep the much larger ice sheet pinned back. And whenever the shelves melt away, the ice behind them flows into the sea and sea levels rise.

Warming ocean water around Antarctica, by a maybe 2 to 5 degrees Celsius, could trigger that chain of events, Pollard says. That degree of ocean warming is not forecast for this century, but at the rate the planet is heating up, it seems inevitable at some point. But Pollard’s study indicates that the West Antarctic ice sheet won’t melt away too rapidly. He figures that will take at least 1,000 years, and more likely 2,000 to 3,000 years.

More likely 2000 to 3000 years? More predictions that are unprovable and will have no effect on anyone. If you can’t adapt in 3000 years to a gradual sea level rise, you should become extinct.

But instead of being reassured by this long time horizon, Pollard says, “I’d say I feel more nervous.”

That’s because there’s now a clear history showing this massive ice sheet has melted before, under conditions that the Earth may soon experience. And while the full effect may not unfold for thousands of years, it would transform the planet into a place we would not recognize today.

That explains what many scientists have been saying all along. The Earth Is Cyclical. It’s kind of like that saying, “Been There, Done That”.

Behavior Of Ice Still Unknown

Stefan Rahmstorf at Postsdam University in Germany says there are still so many unknowns about how Antarctic ice behaves that Pollard’s study is surely not the final word on this subject. Nor does it have to be.

“We certainly don’t need a collapse of the ice sheet to cause major problems with sea level rise,” he says.

Even if Antarctica contributes little or no water to the oceans this century, Rahmstorf says, there’s a growing consensus that seas are likely to rise by at least two or three feet — and quite possibly more — before the end of this century “unless of course we stop the global warming fairly soon.”

Rahmstorf is not involved in the current Antarctica research, but he was at a scientific meeting last week in Copenhagen about rising seas and other aspects of global warming. Rahmstorf says Europe’s global warming policy at the moment is built around a goal to limit global warming to about 4 degrees Fahrenheit.

“Just like we have this temperature limit, we should also have a sea level limit,” he says.

He advocates setting that “sea level limit” at about three feet of sea level rise. Even if that can be accomplished, many vulnerable low-lying places on earth would be swamped, Rahmstorf acknowledges. But it’s hard to imagine doing any better. And, as West Antarctica reminds us, we could easily do much, much worse.

And this whole section starts off with, “Behavior Of Ice Still Unknown”. Well it is unknown to the Global Warming Cult. Or to be more precise, it will not do what they need it to do. But the highlighted sentence is golden.

Rahmstorf is not involved in the current Antarctica research, but he was at a scientific meeting last week in Copenhagen about rising seas and other aspects of global warming but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Source

Researchers Make Another Laughable Claim

A good fart joke is hard to beat for making people laugh. Here’s one of the best I’ve heard lately.

Underwater critters fart greenhouse gas: study

BERLIN (AFP) – Humans and farm animals were known to emit harmful greenhouse gases through digestion, but German researchers said Tuesday that aquatic worms and bugs are also culprits, releasing laughing gas.

Scientists at the Max Planck Institut and Denmark’s Aarhus University found that mussels, freshwater snails and other underwater creatures release nitrous oxide — laughing gas — when nitrate is present in water.

“There’s nitrate in water that has been polluted by humans, so the more we pollute, the higher the production of this problematic gas will be,” Fanni Aspetsberger from the institute told AFP on Tuesday.

Aspetsberger added that no quantitative data were available, but that it could be “seriously detrimental” to the climate if nitrate pollution continues to rise the way it has over recent years.

Laughing gas is one of many greenhouse gasses that has been released into the atmosphere since industrialisation. Such gasses act as a blanket around the Earth, causing temperatures to rise worldwide.

Rising temperatures have already had disastrous consequences for mankind — including major disruptions to global weather systems — and problems are expected to become worse in the future.

The main reason for global warming though, is the release of another greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, by the burning of fossil fuels. World leaders aim to strike a new global climate deal in Copenhagen in December. Source

Fanni Aspetsberger? Come on, that’s gotta be a joke….

I think everyone could use a little laughing gas right about now. Looking at the condition of my 401k, I know I could use a bit.

h/t Tom Nelson

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Feb. 20th 2009

The Daily Bayonet has the best round-up of the global warming hoax to be found anywhere.

Welcome to the hottest weekly round-up since last week’s edition.  It’s been a very busy week in the world of global warming changey-hoaxy, so I have a lot of links for you.  In fact, if this post were a breakfast cereal I’d tell you that you’re getting 20% more sugary goodness FREE, there’s that much more stuff this week.  Dip in and get your skeptic fill of news and laughs, you know you want to.

Part One: Al Gore and Friends

Global Warming prophet profit Al Gore has told anyone that would listen that the ‘debate is over’, which makes me wonder what debate he’s asking the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to get involved in, exactly?

The Goreacle speaks to the AAAS

Al likes to get others involved in his global hoax because it turns out he’s actually a shy guy and hates any sort of attention that might demand he answer a question or two about the real science.

Go read the rest: The Daily Bayonet

A Load of Hot Air

The Heartland Institute