Friday, June 18, 2010

Carbon Tax & the Global Warming Hoax

Climate Distortions Were Achieved. National Weather Agencies Are The Trojan Horses
Maurice Strong, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organization
By Dr. Tim Ball
Monday, December 13, 2010
Maurice Strong set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide a powerful vehicle for almost complete control of climate science. Each national weather office perpetuates the deception that human CO2 is causing climate change. He controlled the science through the IPCC and the political and propaganda portion under the umbrella of the Rio Conference (1992) and the ongoing Conference of the Parties (COP). By peopling the IPCC with representatives of national weather offices, he attained control of the politics within each nation and collective global control. They’re the Trojan Horses from which funding and research emanate to deceive the politicians and public into achieving his goal of destroying the industrialized nations.
Funnel For Funding
No surprise that control was through funding of research, which was almost all through government. Canada is a good example of how they bypassed normal efforts to prevent political interference. Most scientific research funding goes through the National Research Council (NRC) or the National Scientific and Engineering Council (NSERC) to reduce political interference. However, virtually all climate research funding went through
Environment Canada (EC). An article published on December 2, 2010 authored by Gordon McBean says, “This month, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences celebrated a birthday that could be among its last. After 10 years as Canada’s main funding agency for academic weather and climate science, the foundation will soon cease to exist if there’s no further support from the Canadian government.”
The author’s history reveals the hypocrisy of his letter. It’s a perfect example of how they controlled climate science through the WMO and the national agencies. McBean chaired the 1985 meeting in Villach, Austria at which the IPCC was created. Tom Wigley, former Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and his successor Phil Jones attended. Both were major participants in the corruption revealed by the ClimateGate leaked emails. McBean was Assistant Deputy Minister, the second highest-ranking bureaucrat at Environment Canada. His tenure in that office was relatively brief and appears deliberate. It’s apparently related to Maurice Strong’s personal friendship with Canadian Prime minister Paul Martin. After securing funding of $61 million for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), McBean took early retirement in 2000. A month later he was appointed as chair of CFCAS. He was also the lead author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), a report of pure speculation that became a major source of information for the 2007 IPCC Report.
US funding has mostly come from government (Figure 1). NOAA, NASA GISS, NCAR, DoE (including large amounts to the CRU) have all worked to distort the data record, promote IPCC Reports and downplay the errors.
Figure 1: US Funding Source:
A huge irony exists because the research was used to undermine western development and economies, while funding was justified with claims it would advance development and economies. “The study of global climate change is perceived as one of the key strengths of the UK’s environmental research base, and heralded as a growth-point in the context of a competitive, globalized sphere of research activity.” In most countries they claimed the centre of elite climate research already existed in government weather agencies so they were the logical ones to be in control of research and funding. “In the meteorological and climatological fields, that elite has centred principally around the UK Meteorological Office (UKMO) and the Royal Society.”
Bureaucratic scientists immediately confronted any politician that challenged the science. It was easy to produce global threatening requests for internal funding stamped with the authority of the IPCC Reports. Besides, politicians were eager to don the cloak of green.
Tunnel Vision
As a result, almost all funding went to one side of a theory. Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite.
This did enormous damage because it completely defeated the scientific method. Science works by
proposing a theory, which other scientists work to disprove. As Karl Popper explained, “One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” The IPCC consistently work to prove the theory, but as Popper notes, “It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations.” The search was easier because of the singular direction of funding.
This created a momentum so Foundations and other agencies added support to singular research. Tax incentives and legislature reinforced peripheral areas such as alternate energies so they all became supporters and purveyors of the false science.
Major arguments used to ‘prove’ the science were outside the falsities in the IPCC Reports and the Summaries for Policymakers (SPM). They existed because of the singular funding and directed research. The
vast majority of articles supported the IPCC claims and this was used in a circular argument as proof. Most articles listed as proof were actually about the impact or consequences coming from IPCC Working Groups II and III that accepted the false science of working Group I. Similar impact research was funded by national weather agencies.
Most sensational reports in mainstream media used these speculative articles in an exploitive type of pyramid scheme. Naomi Oreske produced a classic totally unprofessional single-sided article to claim a search identified 928 articles, none countering the climate science. It exploited the problem everyone encounters when an Internet search is limited by the keywords used.
Oreske’s work was another form of the consensus argument. Change the keywords and hundreds of articles appear, despite attempts by the CRU gang to stop publications.
Falsity In Numbers
The consensus argument appeared early using the IPCC, but the majority are bureaucrats from government weather offices, not scientists. As John McLean notes, “The evidence shows that the claim of “4000 scientific experts supported the IPCC’s claims” is dishonest in almost every word. There were not 4000 people, but just under 2900; they were not all scientists; and it
seems that they were not all experts. There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim, although that might not mean much given the vested interests and lack of impartiality of many authors and reviewers.”
Scientists funded through their governments were more than willing to support the consensus argument. But as Michael Crichton eloquently explains; “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.”
Maurice Strong built the Trojan Horses around material provided by national weather agencies. Too many scientists and bureaucrats were willing carpenters complicit in the construction and operation. Some of the cladding has been pulled off, but the skeleton remains. National weather agencies continue controlling the IPCC and all climate issues. They also continue to fail miserably with their forecasts. Despite millions spent on a new computer the UKMO predicted a mild winter and were quickly proved completely wrong. They were equally wrong in previous winter and summer forecasts with cheaper computers. They did the IPCC ‘trick’ by saying they don’t do long term forecasts, they are “outlooks”. Environment Canada has similar spectacular failures for which they invent 1984 type newspeak. A Globe and Mail headline last week announced, Environment Canada admits to ‘underforecasting’ snow by 1,000 per cent.
The Trojan horse’s all have broken legs; it is time to put them down.
Another Climate Change Scare Is On Thin Ice
Arctic Ice A Classic False Scare
By Dr. Tim Ball
Thursday, December 2, 2010
All the scares generated by the false climate science promoted by political agendas disappear from the mainstream media and are rarely heard of again. There’s no follow up in the mainstream media, no apologies for providing false or inadequate information.
Nasty old Mother Nature causes the demise by going about her normal business. As the old advertisement said, it’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature. The Northern Hemisphere winter is already proving once again that global warming is another undelivered government promise.
The sequence begins with identification of an issue. This occurs in several ways including reporters scanning science journals for articles to sensationalize; a scientist or Environmental group publicizing an issue. If the story catches, they’ll push it from various angles. If it loses traction, they bring in a different scientific angle or raise the level of potential damage.
Arctic Ice A Classic False Scare
Melting Arctic ice grabbed attention and became a major part of Gore’s propaganda movie An Inconvenient
Truth. Dying polar bears grabbed emotions and rising sea levels flooded fertile land inhabited by much of the world’s poor people. Context quickly appeared as historic reconstructions of Arctic temperatures and the natural annual variation of ice amounts showed everything within normal variability. Polar bear experts, like Mitch Taylor, debunked the endangered polar bear claims. What to do? Everyone is familiar with the dangers of thin ice so spread the claim the ice is thinning rapidly and as usual intimate it is unnatural.
We’ve only had satellite measures of ice cover since 1980. Launched in 1978 it took two years to establish reliable procedures and determine accuracy. Since then various computer models have used different methods to measure and display what is going on. There is still disagreement between them. One of the differences is how they determine old, young, and new ice. Another was the problem of ice with water lying on top. However, the satellite never measured ice thickness.
Fritz Koerner, a Canadian glaciologist who also drilled ice cores on Baffin and Ellesmere Island, produced an excellent early (1973) assessment of the situation. Fritz was the first person I heard report to an Ottawa conference, that his cores were showing CO2 levels changing after temperature change. In his paper Koerner notes, “The mean end-of-winter thickness of the ice is calculated to be 4.6 m in the Pacific Gyral and 3.9 m in the Trans Polar Drift Stream.” This difference is important because it reflects the influence of ocean circulation on ice thickness.
The threat of unnatural thinning introduced in the late 1990s was based on the original ice thickness measurements taken by USS Sargo, a submarine that traversed under the ice in 1960. It followed the surfacing at the North Pole in 1958 by the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear submarine.
These early interests and experiments were driven by military concerns triggered by the discovery that Soviet
submarines were getting into the north Atlantic by transiting under the Arctic ice by passing through the deepest channel out of the Arctic Basin, the East Greenland Channel, thus bypassing the submarine and air barrier set up between Iceland and Scotland. Ironically we now have access to the extensive Russian material, but nobody pays much attention, but that’s been the course of the climate debate all along. I reviewed a paper recently and there was no mention of Koerner or most of the Canadian Arctic ice studies.
In 1999 a second transit using US submarines measured ice thickness. As usual the New York Times was stoking the warming fires.
“The research involved measurements of sea ice thickness made by upward-looking sonar aboard naval submarines operating under the ice sheet. The first period of data began in 1958 with the first nuclear submarine, the United States’ Nautilus, and concluded with a cruise by H.M.S. Sovereign in 1976. The
second data set was collected by American vessels from 1993 to 1997. Dr. Rothrock and two colleagues, Y. Yu and G. A. Maykut of the University of Washington, compared data from the two periods at 29 points where the courses of submarines in the 1990’s intersected with the courses of those in the earlier period.”
This became the main source of the thinning scare. There were many problems with the research not included or subsequently reported by the Times. These include;
The submarines did not follow the same route so a few points is unrepresentative.
They used different measuring equipment; one was a sideways scanning system that determined the bottom of the ice from which they estimated thickness. The other was a vertical system with a different method of estimation.
The transits were made in different months and Arctic ice changes are naturally dramatic from month to month. For example, some 65,000 km of ice melts or forms daily.
Ice thickness is not just due to atmospheric temperatures but determined by water temperatures among other factors. One of these is the weight of the ice, which varies with snowfall that pushes the ice down into the ocean so it melts to limit ice thickness. The only way you get substantially thicker ice is when the slabs of ice collide and cause massive ridges. Koerner estimated 17% of the total ice was ridged or hummocky.
Winters in 1960 were naturally much colder and snowier than in 1990s. The cold period from 1940 to 1980 posed serious problems for the warming theorists.
Following the US transits the British Navy did some measures in 2004.
By then the impact of ocean currents and transport of warmer water into and under the ice was being officially acknowledged.
Figure 1 shows the pattern of circulation reversals that relates to the differences referenced in Koerner’s 1973 paper.
Figure 1: Arctic Ocean circulations with warm and cold phases.
Figure 2 shows the implications of these differences in sub ice water temperatures. Heat moves from warm to cold. Seawater is warmer than the ice, which for most of the year is warmer than the air. As a result heat passes through the ice to warm the atmosphere. There’s little chance of measuring the changes because we have virtually no measures of air temperatures over the ice in the Arctic Basin.
Figure 2: Generalized energy balance of the arctic.
Source: Hidore, O., Climatology p.276
None of what’s going on today is outside long term variations in ice cover and thickness. On November 20, 1817 the President of the Royal Society proposed a letter to the British Admiralty:
It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past inclosed (sic) the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years greatly abated.
Mr. Scoresby, a very intelligent young man who commands a whaling vessel from Whitby observed last year that 2000 square leagues of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared. The change in circulation was triggered by the eruption of Tambora in 1815.
In the heat of Cancun Mexico everyone is learning that the fallacies of climate science and especially attempts to exploit fear and lack of knowledge or understanding are on very thin ice because they are totally politically motivated.
Top Science Panel Caught in Another Global Warming Data Fraud
Duped by junk science promoted knowingly by an international gang of fraudsters
By John O'Sullivan
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Newly released science book revelation is set to heap further misery on UN global warming researchers. Will latest setback derail Cancun Climate conference?
Authors of a new book ’Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ claim they have debunked the widely established greenhouse gas theory climate change. In the first of what they say will be a series of sensational statements to promote the launch of their book, they attack a cornerstone belief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - what is known as the “carbon isotope argument.”
Mišo Alkalaj, is one of 24 expert authors of this two-volume publication, among them are qualified climatologists, prominent skeptic scientists and a world leading math professor. It is Alkalaj’s chapter in the second of the two books that exposes the fraud concerning the isotopes 13C/12C found in carbon dioxide (CO2).
If true, the disclosure may possibly derail last-ditch attempts at a binding international treaty to ‘halt man-made global warming.’ At minimum the story will be sure to trigger a fresh scandal for the beleaguered United Nations body.
Do Human Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Exhibit a Distinct Signature?
The low-key internal study focused on the behavior of 13C/12C isotopes within carbon dioxide (CO2)
molecules and examined how the isotopes decay over time. Its conclusions became the sole basis of claims that ‘newer’ airborne CO2 exhibits a different and thus distinct ‘human signature.’ The paper was employed by the IPCC to give a green light to researchers to claim they could quantify the amount of human versus natural proportions just from counting the number of isotopes within that ‘greenhouse gas.’
Alkalaj, who is head of Center for Communication Infrastructure at the “J. Stefan” Institute, Slovenia says because of the nature of organic plant decay, that emits CO2, such a mass spectrometry analysis is bogus. Therefore, it is argues, IPCC researchers are either grossly incompetent or corrupt because it is impossible to detect whether carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is of human or organic origin.
Skeptics Out to Derail Cancun Climate Conference?
Cynics are already claiming ‘Isotope-gate’ is more than just a promotional stunt to hype this book launch. They say its also deliberately timed to disrupt the latest major international climate conference in Cancun, Mexico (November 29th - December 10th).
The Cancun Climate conference (COP 16) is seen as a make or break attempt by world leaders to secure a binding international treaty to limit emissions of carbon dioxide after the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit last year. Copenhagen was undermined by the Climategate revelations and this latest attempt by skeptics may be a repeat.
The ‘Isotope-gate’ story is one of many planned promotional releases from the book and this publication is bound to cause embarrassment to delegates in Mexico if the revelations it contains become widely known.
Worryingly for Cancun (and the IPCC) this new book makes far bolder claims than have been made before by skeptics. Its authors say they have scientifically and mathematically disproved the greenhouse gas theory. The theory is the bedrock of all scientific claims that humans are responsible for climate change.
‘Slayers’ Book Reveals New Evidence of UN Climate Fraud
The 13C/12C argument being attacked by Mišo Alkalaj may be found in IPCC’s AR4—The Physical Science Basis Working Group. The IPCC clarifies its position on Page 139 of that chapter.
According to Mišo the fatal assumption made by the IPCC is that the atmospheric concentration of the 13C isotope (distinctive in prehistoric plants) are fixed. They also assume C3-type plants no longer exist so would need to be factored into the equations. Indeed, as Mišo points out such plants, “make up 95% of the mass of all current plant life.”
Therefore, decay of 95% of present-day plant material is constantly emitting the 13C-deficient carbon dioxide supposedly characteristic of coal combustion—and CO2 emitted by plant decay is an order of magnitude greater than all human-generated emissions.
‘Isotope-gate’ is Twin Brother of Himalayagate
But a more sinister twist to the story is not just that the researchers erred in mistakenly overlooking the flaws about the 13C isotope, but that they never referred the analysis to outsider verification.
As with the Himalayagate controversy, the Prentice paper was never reviewed beyond the secretive four walls of UN climate alarmism; it relied entirely on an internal uncorroborated source.
On this cynical practice Mišo observes, “Few readers will be bothered to follow the trail all the way and especially not the ‘policymakers.’ But the few that do frequently find out that the argument is circular (A quotes B and B quotes A), etc.”
Thus, there exists no proof of any such distinct ‘human signal’ anywhere in samples of atmospheric CO2 and the IPCC is discredited. Therefore, once again, the public has been shown compelling evidence of how it was duped by junk science promoted knowingly by an international gang of fraudsters.
More False Global Warming Alarmism: The Gulf Stream Is Going To Stop
Ms. May claims climate change is a greater threat than terrorism. Actually, eco-terrorism and the incorrect and exploitive use of data for political gain are a greater threat than climate change
By Dr. Tim Ball
Monday, September 13, 2010
Several recent panics were triggered by computer errors. The sudden drop in the stock market of 1000 points in a matter of minutes on May 6, 2010, is a good example.
Similar panics have occurred in weather and climate. For example, a recent report of a sudden collapse of the Gulf Stream drew attention. Fortunately, the computer error was quickly identified and the story squelched. Incentive to grab the story was provided by the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. But then alarmists are always ready to use and abuse a story without confirming the facts.
It’s not the first time projected changes in the Gulf Stream were touted as threatening. Here is Elizabeth May, former Executive Director of the Canadian branch of the Sierra Club writing in June 2006. “It suggested that it was plausible that the Gulf Stream could stall by 2010. This would be caused by rapidly melting polar ice changing the salinity of the ocean. The ice is fresh water and its release would push down on the more saline currents, slowing and potentially stopping the vast ocean conveyor belt of currents. If the Gulf Stream were to stall, the study anticipates widespread social and institutional collapse as droughts lead to collapses in food production, displaced environmental refugees press on other borders for resources, soil erosion increases and wind speeds across Texas pick up. The study concluded that the risks of climate change are more significant than the risk of terrorism.”
Figure 1: Map of major world ocean currents
Use of the term Gulf Stream is wrong, but it is a part of general usage. Figure 1 shows general global ocean currents. The circular pattern in each ocean basin is called a gyre and is created by global winds. Tropical winds blow from east to west and in the North Atlantic create the flow labeled “North Equatorial”. Mid-latitude winds blow from west to east and drive the pole-ward side of the gyre. Technically, the Gulf Stream is the portion of the gyre as it flows past the US east coast. Once it reaches Cape Cod it‘s driven by the westerly flow and becomes the North Atlantic Drift.
The entire flow is a massive river of water carrying large volumes of heat to high arctic waters so that the port of Murmansk at 69°N is ice-free year round. Meanders develop as the river crosses the Atlantic, as they do in any fluid or gas passing through a uniform medium.
The concept of glacial meltwater stopping the Gulf Stream is referred to as a thermohaline situation. Wind, different temperatures, and different water density, the latter caused by different amounts of salt content drive water movement. A freshwater intrusion would change the salt content. The original idea of freshwater changing the Gulf Stream pattern evolved from work, especially by Jim Teller of the University of Manitoba, on Glacial Lake Agassiz. This is believed to be the largest freshwater lake in Earth’s history. Figure 2 shows the lake relative to the Laurentide ice sheet.
Figure 2: Glacial Lake Agassiz relative to Laurentide ice 8200 Before Present (BP)
At this point the ice dam broke and the lake emptied rapidly into Hudson Bay and out to the Labrador Sea and the North Atlantic. They claim this is coincident with and therefore the cause of a cold event. There is no doubt Agassiz was large. Figure 3: shows the extent at various stages, which you can compare with Lake Superior. For further comparison, Lake Winnipeg in the centre of the diagram is the 13th largest lake by surface area in the world today.
Figure 3: Reconstructed extent of Lake Agassiz.
“The Gulf Stream will not stop flowing until the Earth stops rotating and the winds stop blowing.”
Major problems with the concept of the event 8200 years ago include; the rate at which it occurred; the much greater extent of sea ice the freshwater would create; but a big problem is the volume of water involved. They estimate 150,000 km3, but this wouldn’t have been released at the same time and is a small amount relative to the volumes of seawater in Hudson Bay, Hudson Straits and the North Atlantic. Oceanographer Carl Wunsch said, “The Gulf Stream will not stop flowing until the Earth stops rotating and the winds stop blowing.”
Elizabeth May is talking about melting of polar ice that would create an influx of freshwater. If it is Arctic Ocean ice it’s nonsense because 70 percent of the ice melts every summer and the Gulf Stream does not stop. If it is the Greenland icecap, a considerable amount of warming has to occur before any significant amounts of ice melts. Figure 4 shows the temperature pattern recorded in Greenland ice cores for the last 11,000 years. Over the almost the entire period of the Holocene Optimum from 9000 to 3000 years ago the Earth was warmer than today. The cooler spike at 8200 years is visible but at its lowest it was not much cooler than today. As a just published study notes, ”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago.
Figure 4: Temperatures for Greenland indicated by ice cores. Present on left.
There is no evidence of the Gulf Stream stopping during the previous warmer periods, yet melting of the Greenland ice cap was occurring.
Computer anomalies trigger unjustified panics and too often lead to alarmist statements. There’s a desperate desire to blame humans for any natural changes. To speculate beyond known facts or reason to keep the public in constant fear so they can be controlled. All this is another measure of the exploitation of natural sciences for political gain. H. L. Mencken provides the motive. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Ms. May claims climate change is a greater threat than terrorism. Actually, eco-terrorism and the incorrect and exploitive use of data for political gain are a greater threat than climate change.
Two Lies Make A Truth In Green and Liberal Views on Climate Science
In the dogmatically blind worlds of liberalism and environmentalism, the truth is irrelevant
By Dr. Tim Ball
Thursday, September 9, 2010
In the world of green and liberal politics, where they practice extreme environmentalism, nothing bears examination: two lies make a truth. We now learn that Bjorn Lomborg, who was never a climate skeptic, has magically disavowed that status. As the entire mockery of human induced global warming collapses, it is a convenient conversion.
The Guardian tells us that Bjorn Lomborg, ”The world’s most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and “a challenge humanity must confront”, in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.” The problem is it is completely false. His message on climate in his new book is exactly the same as it has been all along.
Yes, But Is It True?
A few years ago in the late 1980s, professor Aaron Wildavsky published the results of a class project for graduate public policy students at the State University of New York (SUNY). Each was required to pick an environmental topic and pose the question, “Yes, but is it true?” The results were so interesting and uniform in their findings that Wildavsky published them in a book with the same title. Students could find little or no evidence to support the claims being made about the subject.
It is still a good question to ask and one I urged teachers to get their students to ask. They can begin with the book that became the book of genesis for the environmental alarmism, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. They can continue through the Y2K fiasco to the CFCs destroying the ozone. There never was a shred of evidence that CFCs were in the ozone layer or causing change. Interestingly, a major proponent of the CFC destruction argument was Susan Solomon who became Co-Chair of Working Group I of the IPCC.
Along the way they can visit several issues that drifted out of the public and mainstream medias view. Ironically, what pushed them aside was another overplayed, misrepresented environmental disaster. Desertification was the claim deserts were expanding at alarming rates because of human activity and global warming. The Sahelian drought brought images to increase the concern. A report by Swedish scientists, who had the audacity to use satellite images, showed the Sahara was actually diminishing. They can research claims that the rainforest was falling at alarming rates, but it turned out that two factors were the major cause. The numbers used were estimates by accountants at the World Bank who had to provide a budget to fight the problem. Their estimate was some 80 percent above the actual amount. Then it was disclosed the World Bank offered countries like Brazil financial aid to increase agriculture if they provided tax incentives for forest clearance.
More recently there was the false argument that bleaching due to global warming was destroying coral reefs. This was one claim in Al Gore’s movie, The Inconvenient Truth identified as false by the UK Courts. They said there was no evidence to support the claim. The movie also falsely claimed Kilimanjaro snow was melting and ice retreating due to global warming. The nine errors identified by the court extends the list of alarmist nonsense, including sea level rise, polar bears drowning, and Gulf Stream displacement throwing Europe into an ice age.
Global warming and climate change are the biggest scam of all
Almost overriding all of these are the ridiculous population predictions, particularly in Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb. One quote is enough to show the insanity of the claims. “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.” Amazingly, despite the inaccuracies Ehrlich and his co-author John Holdren continue to have influence.
Global warming and climate change are the biggest scam of all. This continues despite disclosures about the falsity of the science, corruption of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the manipulations of the people at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Now we have another fiasco presented as an attempt to show the official science has legitimacy.
Lomborg Milks The Message
A book that raised hackles and experienced personal attacks from the environmentalists was Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist. UN IPCC chief, Rajendra Pachauri, compared him to Hitler. It is typical of Pachauri’s lack of understanding and undiplomatic reactions, but he wasn’t alone. Almost everyone, including most skeptics, misunderstood what Lomborg was saying, especially about climate. People on both sides of the climate issue were fooled by Lomborg’s use of “skeptic” in his title. Too many people designated climate skeptics by the warming alarmists and those questioning extreme environmentalism were desperate for a public relations victory.
Lomborg is a statistician and was challenging the misapplication and misuse of statistics. He knew little about climate as evidenced in his book. In fact, Lomborg’s book was little different than Wildavsky’s because he proved that nothing in science, and especially environmental science, bears examination. He added the attention grabbing point that better priorities could be made and money better spent if research and analysis were improved.
Lomborg’s new book argues that, “Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century,” The trouble is there is no climate change problem. This investment proposal by Lomborg is precisely the type of misdirection of funding because of bad science, which is the main theme of his more famous book.
In the dogmatically blind worlds of liberalism and environmentalism, the truth is irrelevant. Lomborg was never a climate skeptic as they originally hysterically claimed. Now he continues with his views, but they are conveniently and falsely misrepresented as rejecting climate skepticism. Two lies make a truth in the dogmatically dark world of liberalism and environmentalism. The only truth is Lomborg, the liberals, and the environmentalists still know nothing about climate science.
Climate Change and History; Uncertain Weather, Uncertain Times
Will significant increases in food costs be the final straw for the Obama administration?
By Dr. Tim Ball
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Very few history books considered the impact of weather, before it became a political issue. One was Barbara Tuchman’s 1978 book “A Distant Mirror; The Calamitous Fourteenth Century.” It used the life of nobleman Enguerrand VII de Courcy, whose life spanned the entire century, to compare the 14th century with late-20th century Europe. Weather wise it was a transitional century as the world cooled from the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) to the Little Ice Age (LIA).
As the average location of the Arctic air front moved inexorably toward the Equator the Jet Stream meandered further north and south so temperature and precipitation fluctuated widely from year to year. It also resulted in more blocking systems so that instead of weather patterns changing on a 4 to 6 week cycle in the middle latitudes they became prolonged to 12 weeks and longer.
This meant in many years it became difficult to tell summers from winters. Summers were cool and wet while winters were warm and wet. These conditions resulted in many changes and negative impacts on most flora and fauna, but not all.
Humans suffered as harvests failed, prices for basic grains grew and malnutrition and starvation increased significantly. Impact on wheat prices for four European nations is shown in Figure1. Price increase from 1200 on is not as dramatic as occurred with the onset of the LIA but is significant.
Figure 1: Wheat prices for England, France, the Netherlands and northern Italy
Prices in Dutch guilders per 100kg wheat.
Source: L.M.Libby in H.H. Lamb Climate,, Present Past and Future, 1977.
The combination of poor harvests made malnourished people vulnerable to disease. Warm wet winters allowed bacteria, insects, and rodents usually decimated by cold to survive, which brought more disease. It’s not surprising the Bubonic Plague swept across the world. Outbreaks occurred in China in the 1330s, but the most reported event hit Europe in 1347 and is estimated to have killed one-third of the population. General comments on population levels in Europe say, 1250–1350: stable at a high level, 1350–1420: steep decline. Life expectancy dropped significantly during the period.
The Seventeenth Century
Similar conditions in the 17th century drove prices up again and plague returned. Famous diarist Samuel Pepys wrote about the conditions. He wrote about the weather on several occasions. He and the rest of the people were especially concerned about the mild winters so the government recommended action. On January 15, 1662 he wrote, “And after we had eaten, he (Mr. Bechenshaw, a friend) asked me whether we have not committed a fault in eating today, telling me that it is a fastday, ordered by the parliament to pray for more seasonable weather it hitherto had been some summer weather, that is, both as to warm and every other thing, just as if it were the middle of May or June, which doth threaten a plague (as all men think) to follow, for so it was almost all last winter, and the whole year after hath been a very sickly time, to this day.” Pepys was on the ship that brought Charles II back to England and it was his order to parliament that created the day of fasting. However, previous parliaments had ordered similar actions.
The prayers paid off because on January 26th Pepys notes, “It having been a very fine clear frosty day. God send us more of them, for the warm weather all this winter makes us fear a sick summer.” The relief was relatively short–lived because the plague returned with a vengeance reaching London in 1665. Pepys’ concern mirrors an old English saying that, “A green winter makes a fat churchyard.”
Ironically, Pepys owed his career to climate change. Because of the cooler temperatures and higher precipitation of the LIA the salinity of the Baltic gradually decreased until the herring migrated out into the North Sea. The fishing was a mainstay of the economic union known as the Hanseatic League that gradually collapsed with only three cities attending the last meeting in 1669. Conflict between Dutch and English fishermen in the North Sea escalated to the First Anglo-Dutch War in 1652-4. Pepys was a first class administrator whose skills with order and efficiency made him essential to the development of the Admiralty and the British Navy. When he died in 1703 another diarist John Evelyn wrote, “This day died Mr. Sam Pepys, a very worthy, industrious, and curious person, none in England exceeding him in knowledge of the navy, in which he had passed thro’ all the most considerable offices, Clerk of the Acts and Secretary of the Admiralty, all which he performed with great integrity.”
World Food Production
We are slightly more immune to weather changes and their impact on crops, but it is not helped when governments go beyond having us pray for different conditions. An historic example of government policy causing harm occurred in 1816, known as “the year with no summer”, when weather caused extensive harvest failures. Figure 1 shows a dramatic peak of wheat prices in England for that year. The government had introduced the Corn Laws to protect English producers against low-priced imports. When harvests failed in 1816 prices went through the roof.
Wheat prices have risen significantly because of droughts in Russia and generally poor harvest conditions in many parts of the world. For example, the Canadian government approved $30 per acre “for prairie farmers dealing with excess moisture and flooding”.
How will governments react as grain prices continue to rise through the winter? Will significant increases in food costs be the final straw for the Obama administration? Will prayer help?
Allowing Obama and Congress to Pass the Carbon Tax on the Global Warming Hoax
Death Knell of America
By Jerry McConnell
Friday, June 18, 2010
Our blood-sucking liberal Democrat Congress, with the obvious urging of the Dictator-in-the-Wings B.H Obama, is showing their desperation at the prospects of annihilation at the polls this coming November.
These panicky worms have piled debt after debt after debt on our backs with their unbelievably arrogant and unintelligent forays into the Treasury of our country with their spend, spend, spend programs that may have been a tad acceptable had only one major drain been foisted on the ever-worried tax payer; but no, one was not enough, they kept wanting MORE, MORE, MORE with their nonsensical bail out programs, their insane (non) Stimulus programs, the back-breaking ObamaCare health program until they have us taxpayers on our knees BEGGING their indulgence to spare us even more heavy debt and tax burdens.
And now even after the country, including some of their former allies and supporters screaming ENOUGH, ENOUGH, these vicious anti-Americans that would drown us all in a sea of red ink just to be able to win in the upcoming elections through the sheer bludgeoning of us, want to pass the odious and corrupted global warming bill, renamed to make it sound more acceptable, to Cap and Trade; another farcical misnamed piece of dung designed mainly to do ONE thing – CAUSE MORE DEBT AND MUCH, MUCH HIGHER TAXES.
And why, you ask, would they do this thing right now when the country is devastated with a financial crisis of our southern coast due to the gigantic in volume and in financial losses as well, oil spill crisis. This is one of the Rahm Emanuel “never waste a crisis” crisis, that can distract the public’s eyes away from their dishonest manipulative mishandling of our tax money in the Treasury.
They, meaning Emanuel, Obama, Reid, Pelosi and many other downright criminally dishonest thieves, all liberal Democrats, want to in effect, steal you blind to finance the upcoming elections in November that is the only thing that can put the fear of God in them. They will do ANYTHING, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, honest or dishonest with emphasis on the second word of the pairs just shown to retain their power of majority in the worst, most inefficient and the absolutely most corrupt and dishonest Congress the country has ever experienced.
These despicable corrupted thieves led by the greatly endangered for reelection Senator Harry Reid, (D-NV) are driving all their muscle and wits to get this bunch of cohorts in crime, liberal Democrat accomplices to pass the so-called “Carbon Tax”; AKA, “Global Warming Hoax” before they adjourn for their summer vacation before the Fourth of July.
They want to ram it through before you realize what they’re up to and how VERY MUCH it will cost you in increased taxes. I am not kidding when I say that a gallon of gas will rise to the $6 to $8 dollar a gallon if this energy tax program that they are pushing under the guise that it will benefit our environment. That is pure B.S. in capital letters. This money that will come in from the exorbitant taxes on ALL energy items such as your electricity bill, your heating and cooling oil and electric bill and ALL your food items that go through the processing and distribution channels consuming high amounts of energy, will all skyrocket beyond the levels of sanity for the average person.
Do YOU want to see this country drop to its knees begging for food and other meager daily needs just to keep this bunch of lying, cheating and good for nothing liberals in charge of this country? Do you want to see armies of groups like ACORN performing police duties in your neighborhood at the direction of the liberals who are fighting desperately to stay in control?
That’s what you’re going to get if you let your Congressman or woman or your Senator pass this Cap and Trade Energy Carbon Tax bill. You have already seen the damage this corrupt Congress led by liberals can do in a short amount of time; can you handle any more. The tax bills for the damages already done haven’t yet begun to show as they have been deliberately deferred in order to pile more on before you get wise.
Trust me people, this new tax the liberals want to foist on us for the big lie that is known as GLOBAL WARMING, will be the beginning of the end for life as we have known it in America. Obama and his Bilderberg friends that desire total control over our country will blitz us into an eternal dark corner cannibalizing each other just to survive. THEY ARE DESPERATE TO GET IT DONE BEFORE JULY 4TH.
Not a very pretty picture is it? But it’s what will be coming if this Cap and Trade energy Carbon Tax is passed. WE DON’T NEED IT AND CAN’T AFFORD IT. You can bet your life on that.
Also See:
Global cooling: Global warming myth-makers must now switch to "climate change"
16 January 2010
Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill, Global Warming - Who Benefits?
07 July 2009
Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?
07 May 2007