Oops, Global Warming….”Not So Serious”?

Comments Off on Oops, Global Warming….”Not So Serious”?

So, Al, are you sending that Nobel check back??? Will be a shame that An Inconvenient Part II won’t be coming out now….From the Toronto Sun…

Green ‘drivel’

The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria

James Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist.

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

The implications were extraordinary.

Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.

Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

Among his observations to the Guardian:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

Climate Change, They’re Baaaccckkk…


Pardon me, but one look at this woman tells me everything…I’m sorry, I had to. I’ll leave it at that…

Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor

  • Global warming alarmist equates climate denial with racism

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, March 30, 2012

Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.

Norgaard equates skepticism of climate change alarmists – whose data is continually proven to be politicized, agenda driven and downright inaccurate – with racism, noting that overcoming such viewpoints poses a similar challenge “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.”

“Professor Norgaard considers that fuzzy-studies academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists who know some maths in an effort to change society and individuals for their own good. It’s not a new idea: trick-cyclists in Blighty and the US have lately called for a “science of communicating science” rather reminiscent of Isaac Asimov’s science-fictional “Psychohistory” discipline, able to predict and alter the behaviour of large populations,” reports the Register.

As Jurriaan Maessen documented yesterday, the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ confab at which Norgaard is appearing to push this insane drivel is nothing other than a strategy session for neo-eugenicists to hone their population control agenda.

A statement put out by the scientists behind the event calls for humans to be packed into denser cities (eco-gulags?) so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature. It’s a similar idea to the nightmare ‘Planned-Opolis’ proposal put out by the Forum for the Future organization last year, in which human activity will be tightly regulated by a dictatorial technocracy in the name of saving the planet.

  • The mindset of this gaggle of arrogant, scoffing elitists in their drive to micro-manage the human race, which they regard as a plague on the earth, is best encapsulated by the following quote from ‘Planet Under Pressure’ attendee and Yale University professor Karen Seto.

“We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together],” Seto told MSNBC.

The effort to re-brand legitimate scientific dissent as a mental disorder that requires pharmacological or psychological treatment is a frightening glimpse into the Brave New World society climate change alarmists see themselves as ruling over.

Due to the fact that skepticism towards man-made global warming is running at an all time high, and with good reason, rather than admit they have lost the debate, climate change alarmists are instead advocating that their ideological opponents simply be drugged or brainwashed into compliance.

Norgaard’s effort to equate climate skepticism with racism as a disorder that requires “treatment” also serves as a reminder of the story we covered earlier this month about the establishment’s efforts to push the pharmaceutical heart drug Propranolol as a “cure” for racist thoughts.

Oh No, What will “Call Me Senator, I’ve Earned It” Boxer Do?

1 Comment

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Photographer: Brendan Hoffman/Bloomberg

From Bloomberg…I love a good housecleaning!

Republicans will eliminate the House committee created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to highlight the threat of climate change, Representative James Sensenbrenner, the top Republican on the panel, said today.

In one of her first acts as speaker in 2007, Pelosi, a California Democrat, created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to draw attention to climate-change science and showcase how a cap on carbon dioxide needn’t be a threat to economic growth.

Republicans, who won control of the House in the Nov. 2 election, have opposed legislative efforts to regulate carbon emissions as a tax on energy. When the panel convened today, Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said that the hearing “will be the last of the select committee.”

Sensenbrenner had advocated extending the panel as a forum to scrutinize Obama administration actions. In an opinion column on Nov. 8 in the Washington newspaper Roll Call, he wrote that the committee was “more qualified than any other” to challenge Obama environmental initiatives that he said may threaten the economy. He acknowledged that other Republicans thought the panel should be eliminated to save money.

“We are going to get rid of waste and duplication in terms of how we run the Congress,” House Republican Leader John Boehner, who is slated to become speaker in January, told reporters today. “We believe the Science Committee is more than capable of handling this issue and in the process save several million dollars.”

‘Very Disappointing’

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, said it’s “very disappointing” that House Republicans will shut the committee and won’t make energy independence and climate change a priority in the next Congress.

“Disbanding the select committee does not diminish the urgent need to act on these very critical issues,” Hammill said in an e-mailed statement.

The election increased the ranks of Republican climate- change skeptics in both the House and Senate, according to ThinkProgress, an arm of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a Washington research group allied with Democrats.

Committee Chairman Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, criticized the attitude among many Republican lawmakers.

“While members of Congress may question the science of global warming, the rest of the world does not,” he said in his final statement as chairman.  (Where do they come up with this crap? Obviously, they don’t know what the rest of the world really thinks about them!}

The panel held 75 hearings, creating a record of evidence showing that humans are causing the planet to warm and that the United States is in danger of falling behind in the race for clean-energy technologies, Markey said. China plans to invest $738 billion on clean-energy technologies, he said.

“The politics may change but the problem isn’t going away,” Markey said.

It will probably rear it’s ugly head again, but it will be a long, long time Mr. Markey…

The Case AGAINST Air Conditioning…More Climate Change BS

Comments Off on The Case AGAINST Air Conditioning…More Climate Change BS

Hahaha, ready to give up your a/c? They’re not content to go out in your fields and take your gas emitting cattle…

By Stan Cox
Sunday, July 11, 2010; B03

Washington didn’t grind to a sweaty halt last week under triple-digit temperatures. People didn’t even slow down. Instead, the three-day, 100-plus-degree, record-shattering heat wave prompted Washingtonians to crank up their favorite humidity-reducing, electricity-bill-busting, fluorocarbon-filled appliance: the air conditioner.

This isn’t smart. In a country that’s among the world’s highest greenhouse-gas emitters, air conditioning is one of the worst power-guzzlers. The energy required to air-condition American homes and retail spaces has doubled since the early 1990s. Turning buildings into refrigerators burns fossil fuels, which emits greenhouse gases, which raises global temperatures, which creates a need for — you guessed it — more air-conditioning.

A.C.’s obvious public-health benefits during severe heat waves do not justify its lavish use in everyday life for months on end. Less than half a century ago, America thrived with only the spottiest use of air conditioning. It could again. While central air will always be needed in facilities such as hospitals, archives and cooling centers for those who are vulnerable to heat, what would an otherwise A.C.-free Washington look like?

At work

In a world without air conditioning, a warmer, more flexible, more relaxed workplace helps make summer a time to slow down again. Three-digit temperatures prompt siestas. Code-orange days mean offices are closed. Shorter summer business hours and month-long closings — common in pre-air-conditioned America — return.

Business suits are out, for both sexes. And with the right to open a window, office employees no longer have to carry sweaters or space heaters to work in the summer. After a long absence, ceiling fans, window fans and desk fans (and, for that matter, paperweights) take back the American office.

Best of all, Washington’s biggest business — government — is transformed. In 1978, 50 years after air conditioning was installed in Congress, New York Times columnist Russell Baker noted that, pre-A.C., Congress was forced to adjourn to avoid Washington’s torturous summers, and “the nation enjoyed a respite from the promulgation of more laws, the depredations of lobbyists, the hatching of new schemes for Federal expansion and, of course, the cost of maintaining a government running at full blast.”

Post-A.C., Congress again adjourns for the summer, giving “tea partiers” the smaller government they seek. During unseasonably warm spring and fall days, hearings are held under canopies on the Capitol lawn. What better way to foster open government and prompt politicians to focus on climate change?

At home

Homeowners from Ward 8 to the Palisades pry open double-hung windows that were painted shut decades ago. In the air-conditioned age, fear of crime was often cited by people reluctant to open their homes to night breezes. In Washington, as in most of the world’s warm cities, window grilles (not “bars,” please) are now standard.

In renovation and new construction alike, high ceilings, better cross-ventilation, whole-house fans, screened porches, basements and white “cool roofs” to reflect solar rays become de rigueur. Home utility bills plummet.

Families unplug as many heat-generating appliances as possible. Forget clothes dryers –post-A.C. neighborhoods are crisscrossed with clotheslines. The hot stove is abandoned for the grill, and dinner is eaten on the porch.

Around town

Saying goodbye to A.C. means saying hello to the world. With more people spending more time outdoors — particularly in the late afternoon and evening, when temperatures fall more quickly outside than they do inside — neighborhoods see a boom in spontaneous summertime socializing.

Rather than cowering alone in chilly home-entertainment rooms, neighbors get to know one another. Because there are more people outside, streets in high-crime areas become safer. As a result of all this, a strange thing happens: Deaths from heat decline. Elderly people no longer die alone inside sweltering apartments, too afraid to venture outside for help and too isolated to be noticed. Instead, people look out for one another during heat waves, checking in on their most vulnerable neighbors.

Children — and others — take to bikes and scooters, because of the cooling effect of air movement. Calls for more summer school and even year-round school cease. Our kids don’t need more time inside, everyone agrees; they need the shady playgrounds and water sprinklers that spring up in every neighborhood.

“Green roofs” of grass, ivy and even food crops sprout on the flat tops of government and commercial buildings around the city, including the White House. These layers of soil and vegetation (on top of a crucially leak-proof surface) insulate interiors from the pounding sun, while water from the plants’ leaves provides evaporative cooling. More trees than ever appear in both private and public spaces.

And the Mall is reborn as the National Grove.

Fixing Climate Change

Comments Off on Fixing Climate Change

Well, here it is in a nutshell…how to pass a tax in secret….

Climate Panel Urges ‘Distance’ From Reporters


Andy Revkin reports at Dot Earth that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, faulted in the past for a siege mentality, has urged its participating researchers to “keep a distance from the media” and send any press questions about their group work to supervisors.

The Goracle Gets a Degree

Comments Off on The Goracle Gets a Degree

Here he is again, in the news, touting his “Global Warming” to the degree that UT has honored this “Native Son”.  Al Gore wasn’t born here, he moved her, and passed through here.  Most Tennesseeans think he is what he is…a blowhard. Let me post this story from WBIR tv…then look at the end for some startling facts.  To see the separation, I will highlight them in RED….

Former Vice President Al Gore received an honorary degree from the University of Tennessee during the College of Arts and Sciences graduation ceremony Friday morning.

Gore told students in a 20-minute speech that addressing climate change is the “biggest item of unfinished business” on the American agenda.

Members of the Knoxville Tea Party, Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow and even an Irish film director and journalist planned to protest the event.

Slightly more than a dozen protesters gathered outside the ceremony Friday morning, a smaller crowd than rallied on Thursday night.

“We’ll be handing out fake diplomas and mock graduation programs to people in attendance that shows facts about what Al Gore promotes, said Evan Flores with Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow.

The three groups feel Gore’s work in climate change is inaccurate.

“Global warming is a fraud. He knows it’s a fraud,” Knoxville Tea Party member Antonio Hinton said.

“I think it’s odd that the University of Tennessee is giving a degree to someone who produced a documentary that the British High Court says has nine significant errors,” film director Phelim McAleer added.

The dean of UT’s College of Arts and Sciences said Gore definitely qualifies as an accomplished Tennessean.

“Mr. Gore is a native son, a senator, a vice president and a nobel laureate,” said Dr. Bruce Bursten with the College of Arts and Sciences.

Bursten also believes Gore sparked a national and international discussion about the world’s climate.

“The scientific process is one that scientist argue all the time about the validity and the interpretation of the data. I don’t think there is any fraud involved. There are different interpretations of what the data is telling us,” the dean added.

Gore will be the third person to receive such an honor from the University of Tennessee.

The school’s previous honorary doctorates were given to former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and singer Dolly Parton.

Simple arithmetic from 2007 IPCC report, the DOE, the EPA, etc. using global warming potential and percentage of component in air.
95% is from water vapor
5% is from 5 green house gasses (GHG)
Only 0.28% is from man-made GHG
Therefore 99.72% of GW is natural
Only 0.117% is from man-made CO2
Only 0.066% is from man-made Methane

(Reducing the 22% of US man-made GHG by 17% by 2020 as called for by HR 2454 would reduce GW by 22% of 17% of 0.28% or by 0.010472%, or about one part in ten thousand.)

If the Kyota treaty were fully implemented it might reduce global temperature by 0.09C by 2050. But the costs to the US are mindblowing, and will only line more of Gore’s green initatives.

Al Gore is NOT a native Tennessean. He was born in Garfield Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C. He was raised in the penthouse of the Fairfax Hotel on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C. He attend St. Albans School for Boys in Washington, D.C. Al Gore is a native of the District of Columbia.

Sen. Graham, Cap & Trade Dead, but…

Comments Off on Sen. Graham, Cap & Trade Dead, but…

Senators work on bipartisan climate bill

By Kevin Sieff in Washington

Three senior US lawmakers are piecing together a sweeping bipartisan energy and climate bill, which looks set to include sweeteners to galvanise support among Republicans and industry groups.

The proposed legislation, encouraged by President Barack Obama, dilutes a climate bill that stalled last year in the Senate. The senators have hosted meetings with industry groups over the past two weeks, revealing details about their plan that would cap carbon emissions while expanding offshore oil drilling and nuclear power generation.

Nearly six months have passed since the Senate’s most recent climate bill failed to win over conservatives and moderates, a political stalemate that cast a shadow on America’s presence at the Copenhagen climate summit. But some Democrats say the passage of healthcare reform has opened the door for climate change legislation, while acknowledging trade-offs will be needed to secure 60 Senate votes. “They know that to pass a comprehensive bill they will have to ease concerns of some special interests and mid-western senators whose states have manufacturing-oriented economies,” said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal think-tank.

Environmental groups are divided over the bill, with some decrying the push to pre-empt existing state and federal greenhouse gas regulations. But many moderate groups are withholding judgment until the bill is introduced, saying concessions to industry bodies will be necessary. According to people briefed by the senators, the bill aims to cut carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 17 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, largely by implementing separate caps on utilities and manufacturers. The federal government would sell separate pollution permits to each sector, using a “hard price collar” to limit greenhouse gas allowances to between $10 and $30 per ton, and committing to flood the market with credits if the price ceiling is exceeded.

The bill’s sponsors – John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, and Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican – said the new sectoral approach would begin imposing carbon caps on utilities in 2012 and manufacturers in 2016.

The bill includes a new petrol tax, which would be passed on to consumers, though this could be vulnerable in the efforts to reach a compromise. By mentioning investment in conventional energy, the senators have elicited favourable responses from industry leaders, including BP executives and lobbyists from the US Chamber of Commerce, who opposed the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed by the House of Representatives last spring. After meeting the senators, Bruce Josten, the chamber’s top lobbyist, said their efforts were “largely in sync” with industry targets.

Mr Graham, distinguishing his legislation from last year’s bill, told reporters this month “the cap-and-trade bills in the House and Senate are dead” and would be replaced.

He hopes his sector-by-sector approach to regulation, unlike Waxman-Markey’s economy-wide cap, will help him save face among conservatives. His role in the bill’s formulation was itself in doubt after he said the Democrats’ handling of healthcare reform “poisoned the well” for bipartisan co-operation.

The senators hope to send details of the bill to the Environmental Protection Agency this week. The bill is likely to be introduced by late April. Despite bipartisan sponsors, its passage is not guaranteed. Last week, 10 Democratic senators said they would not support unlimited offshore oil exploration. Meanwhile, some environmentalists said the bill would curb the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Older Entries