Global Warming Biggest Science Hoax Ever

I’ve been saying this for years, and Anthony Watts did a study of every weather station in the USA to see if they were actually getting accurate readings. He found them on asphalt pads, in front of A/C exhaust fans and all sorts of heat inducing placements. I think it was a majority of them that were not in compliance, but you can check at his web site by clicking his name above and searching his site. There have been several instances of “cooking the books” over the years and now here’s another one just as B. Hussein Obama says the greatest threat to America is Global Warming.

polarlounge3

The Telegraph reported:

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

Read the rest here.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Advertisements

This is why we don’t believe the “Climate Change” scientists

 

H/T Chicks on the Right

We Didn’t Have “The Green Thing” Back Then

The   Green  Thing

Checking  out at  the store, the young cashier  suggested to the
older woman that she  should bring  her own  grocery bags because
plastic bags weren’t  good  for  the environment.

The woman   apologized and explained, “We didn’t  have  this green
thing back in my earlier  days.”

The clerk   responded, “That’s  our problem today. Your generation did
not care  enough  to save our environment for  future   generations.”

She was right  —  our  generation didn’t have the green thing in  its  day.

Back  then,  we returned milk  bottles, soda bottles and beer  bottles
to the  store. The  store sent them back to the  plant  to be washed
and sterilized and  refilled,  so  it could use the same bottles over
and over. So   they really  were recycled. But we didn’t  have the
green thing back in our   day.

We walked up  stairs, because we didn’t  have an escalator in  every
store and office  building. We walked to the grocery store  and
didn’t  climb into a 300-horsepower machine   every time we had to go
two blocks.  But she  was right.  We didn’t have the green thing in
our  day.

Back   then, we washed the baby’s  diapers because we didn’t have  the
throw-away  kind. We dried clothes on a line,   not in an energy
gobbling machine  burning up  220 volts  — wind and solar power
really did dry  our clothes   back in our early days. Kids got
hand-me-down clothes from  their brothers  or  sisters, not always
brand-new  clothing. But that  young lady is right.  We didn’t have
the  green thing back in our day.

Back then, we   had  one TV, or radio, in the house — not a  TV in
every room. And the TV had a  small  screen the size of  a
handkerchief (remember  them?), not a screen the  size  of the state
of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and  stirred  by  hand because
we didn’t have electric   machines to do everything for us. When we
packaged  a fragile  item to send in the mail, we used wadded  up old
newspapers to cushion it, not  Styrofoam or plastic bubble  wrap.
Back  then,  we didn’t fire up an engine and  burn  gasoline just to
cut the lawn. We  used a   push mower that ran on human power. We
exercised  by working  so we  didn’t need to go to a  health club to
run on  treadmills that operate  on  electricity. But she’s  right.
We  didn’t have the green thing back    then.

We drank from a fountain when we were  thirsty  instead of  using a
cup or a plastic  bottle every time  we had a drink of water.  We
refilled writing pens with  ink instead of  buying a new pen, and we
replaced the  razor  blades in a razor instead of throwing away the
whole  razor just because the blade got dull.  But we  didn’t have the
green thing  back  then.

Back  then, people took the streetcar  or a bus, and kids   rode their
bikes to  school or walked instead of turning  their moms  into a
24-hour taxi service. We had  one  electrical outlet in a room, not an
entire   bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And  we didn’t
need a  computerized gadget to  receive a signal beamed  from
satellites 2,000  miles  out in space in order to  find the  nearest
pizza joint.

But isn’t it   sad  the current generation laments how wasteful we old
folks were just because we didn’t have the green  thing back  then?

Please forward  this  on to another selfish  old person who needs a
lesson in conservation from a  smartass young  person.
Remember:  Don’t  make old people mad.

We don’t  like being  old in the first place, so  it doesn’t take much
to piss us off.

Eco-Nuts’ Next Target: Anesthetic Gases

First they came for your DDT…  malaria killed millions and is still killing.  Then they banned fluorocarbons… the hole in the ozone closed and global warming increased.  Next they came after freon… it’s replacement is 4000 times more harmful to the environment. Co2 is on their list… no exhaling for you and no inhaling for plant life. Now it appears they are about to screw with your anesthesia:

When your doctor turns on the gas during surgery you go to sleep. You may be having pleasant dreams, but you are also contributing to global warming, according to a study released Friday by the University of Copenhagen.

Each year, surgery related gases affect the climate as much as one million cars, reports the study done in conjunction with NASA and the University of Michigan medical school.

Ole John Nielsen, a professor of atmospheric chemistry at the University of Copenhagen carried out the study which examined three gases, isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane, used regularly in human medicine. Nielsen says all three are worse than C02.

Nielsen said the mildest of the two are isoflurane and sevoflurane. He said the study finds desflurane the most harmful and will cause 1,620 times as much global warming as an equal amount of C02. Isoflurane and sevoflurane have global warming potentials of 210 and 510 respectively.

“This ought to make anesthesiologists sit up and take notice. If all three compounds have equal therapeutic worth, there is every reason to choose the one with the lowest global warming potential”, Nielsen said.

“The amount of gas needed for a single surgical procedure is not high, but each year surgery related anaesthetics affects the climate as much as would one million cars,” says the study published in the December issue of the British Journal of Anesthesia.

The gases were studied at the Ford atmospheric laboratories near Detroit.

NASA’s Mads Andersen collaborated with Nielsen and came up with the idea for the study while his wife was giving birth.

“The anesthesiologist told me, that the gas used is what we chemists know as a halogenated compound. That’s the same family . . . as the Freon that was famously eating the ozone layer back in the ’80s,” Andersen said.

Freon has been banned around the world since 1992.

The Gazette

H/T Tom Nelson

They have done so well so far…Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!

Forest Service Moonbat, Andy Stahl, Wants Fire Retardant Banned

I’m guessing this moron is a book-learned, ponytailed, east coast liberal that has never lived outside of the city.

We Don't Have Small Fires Out Here

More than 81,000 gallons of retardant were dropped on two of the biggest fires in the north state in the past two weeks.

That kind of firefighting strategy is coming under closer scrutiny, though, as a federal judge has ordered the U.S. Forest Service to take a closer look at the environmental effects of dropping fire retardant on wildland fires.

“The government has to begin to reassess how, where and when this is done,” said Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE), which sued the Forest Service over its use of chemical fire retardant.

“Retardant is toxic,” Stahl said.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Donald Malloy of Missoula, Mont., ruled that the Forest Service needs to complete an environmental-impact statement on the use of retardant by the end of 2011, The Associated Press reported.

The case dates back to a lawsuit filed by FSEEE in 2003, challenging the use of retardant without an environmental impact report, AP reported. The case was dismissed in 2008 after the Forest Service completed an environmental assessment.

But FSEEE filed again in 2008, claiming the environmental document was inadequate, AP said.

Jennifer Jones, a Forest Service spokeswoman, said her agency hasn’t determined whether it will appeal the judge’s ruling or complete another environmental review. Jones said she doesn’t know how much retardant is used in the Shasta-Trinity or Lassen national forests. Nationwide, an average of 20 million gallons of retardant is dropped on fires annually by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and state agencies, she said.

The Forest Service’s policy is to not drop retardant within 300 feet of any body of water, Jones said. Daniel Berlant, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said Cal Fire’s retardant policy is similar to the Forest Service’s.

Berlant said that in 2009 Cal Fire dropped 5.3 million gallons of retardant statewide.

Stahl said his organization has notified Cal Fire that it intends to sue the agency, claiming the retardant kills threatened and endangered species.

Berlant said his agency has not received that notice. He said Cal Fire has studied the environmental effects of using retardant and issued what is called under the California Environmental Quality Act a “negative declaration,” which means using retardant won’t have a significant environmental impact.

Even though only 14 of the 128,000 retardant drops during the past eight years caused the death of protected fish or plants, Malloy said the assessment was still needed, AP reported.

Stahl said he didn’t know of any cases where retardant drops killed protected species in the Shasta-Trinity or Lassen national forests. But hundreds of endangered steelhead were killed when retardant was dropped in a creek while firefighters were battling the Jesusita Fire in Santa Barbara County this summer, Stahl said.

Jones said that using retardant to fight fires protects endangered species from having their habitat destroyed by wildfire.

Water is a better alternative than retardant, Stahl said, noting that retardant is rarely used east of the Mississippi River.

Of the 110.2 million gallons of retardant used nationwide from 2004 to 2008, about 2 million gallons — just less than 2 percent — were dropped east of the Mississippi, Jones said.

Retardant is used more in the West because fires often occur in more remote places, where there are fewer roads, Jones said.

Retardant is about 85 percent water, 10 percent fertilizer and 5 percent other ingredients, Jones said.

“Because retardant contains fertilizer it is more effective than water,” Jones said. “When the water evaporates, the retardant still slows the fire.”

But many plants in the West thrive in tough conditions where there are few nutrients. Introducing high levels of fertilizer allows invasive species to grow and push out the native plants, Stahl said.

Source

Retardant is toxic says Stahl. Hey asshole, so is fire. Retardant and air attack is the only thing that keeps the western US from burning to the ground, and this jackass worries about killing a few fish or plants to save humans.

Stahl also says, “Water is a better alternative than retardant, Stahl said, noting that retardant is rarely used east of the Mississippi River”. And just how many forest fires start east of the Mississippi? Fucking retard.

The Green Police

Want a glimpse into your future with the liberals running the country?

Latest Global Warming Cult Member Fits Right In

Via Moonbattery.

%d bloggers like this: