Sunday, May 31, 2009
The "Special" is rife with inaccuracies, lies, overstatements and exaggeration.
Quick - Get Goldstein on the case.
Here's a few ridiculous statements:
"Global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise."
-- If this is the case, then why are temperatures falling? Gore says that increases in CO2 results in temperature increases. This has never happened and is not happening now.
"Just a few years ago, scientists believed that the ice cap over the north pole would not disappear before 2075. But here too, reality is leapfrogging past models: Many now believe it may disappear by 2015."
-- The Ice Cap was liquid in the 1950's and there is now more ice at the pole than at any time since accurate measurements were taken (1979)
"Sea levels, already rising faster over the past decade, are expected to rise a meter by 2100. That's not catastrophic, of course, but it will create challenges for NB's coastal communities and those bordering river deltas - including Fredericton, Moncton and Saint John."
Only the most extreme alarmists talk in terms of a metre - The IPCC (extremist in itself) predicts between 7" and a foot - about the same as in the last 100 years. And Fredericton (which has had an annual flood of the SJ river as long as I've been alive, Moncton - which is 10 miles inland and has a river with a tidal bore - a daily 5 foot high increase in river depth and Saint John, which has a similar tidal effect are among the population centres least likely to suffer from increased sea levels. And Fredericton (which is near the author's home, is not on a "river delta" it's about 6o miles or so from the Bay of Fundy (which has tides as high as 50 feet).
"China is also getting serious about climate change."
Indeed... They're opening a coal fired generator plant every week for the next 10 years.
Carl Duivenvoorden is a graduate of a two year program at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College, with a diploma in Farming Technology - hardly a credential that supports this article being published.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Actually, this is code for "George Bush still hasn't admitted that America invaded Iraq because his family and Ahmadinejad's family play croquet together and the Bushies got paid billions by the Iranis."
Actually, the reasons for invading Iraq were made clear to both Houses of Congress, both of which approved the event (including Hillary and Pelosi). It was to put into effect UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which called for Saddam to allow UN inspectors total freedom in looking for weapons of mass destruction.
I guess the old hearing hasn't worked so well since than Truman.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Link to News Story
The protestors are jokes. Calling Toronto Police criminals for not arresting the former President for war crimes.
Of course, GWB is guilty of nothing. He acted on a UN directive when the UN would not because it's filled with islamists and dictators. He acted exactly as Bill Clinton did in Bosnia. US actions in Iraq (including allegations of torture) were known by and approved by Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton among others. Bill Clinton committed the same "crime" in Bosnia. Obama is carrying forward almost all of Bushes foreign policy initiatives.
The anti-war protestors showed up by the dozen, the AWOL former US military cowards in the singles, a single antidisestablishmentarian was there, and of course, various and sundry Marxists and Communists some of whom are Toronto City Councillors.
It's good to see.
If only all these wastes of skin would always stay home the city and the world would be much better.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
If you didn't check it out you can here.
One point on which Moran was most loud was that the reason California Republican Dana Rohrabacher was opposing the Man is Evil story is because it is GOP strategy.
This has become the standard for debate on the issue (which the Man is Evil group doesn't allow). Liberal/Democratic media (WashPost, CNN, NY Times) outlets preach the Gore Gospel while Republican media (small in number) reveal the lies (WashTimes, WSJ, FoxNews, Rush).
To determine the reasons why this takes place, all one has to do is look at the polar differences that exist between the two political camps.
Democrats believe in Government's supremacy and ability to solve all problems. conservatives believe that government is a hindrance to human growth and development that can only come from individual initiative.
Democrats believe that mankind is fundamentally weak, selfish and nasty and need a good spanking while conservatives think that if mankind is unfettered more good will result than bad.
PJ O'Rourke explained some time ago that everyone wants to save the world while no one wants to help Mom do the dishes.
Democrats believe themselves cheerful and nice and love raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, and are largely humanist, without faith in a higher being. Democrats believe in fairy tales and Santa Claus. Conservatives believe in God and that he is mighty and serious and will show his wrath in the hereafter if we do wrong.
The thing is, as PJ O'Rourke put it, Santa doesn't really exist.
Monday, May 25, 2009
I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Here's a link to the entire video. Matthews, not surprisingly, does an astoundingly partisan and biased job of "moderating" while rep. Moran spews lie after lie taken from the Alarmist prayer book. All comments made by the Alarmists are puff - statements without any supporting facts. They resort to portraying climate realists as science hating Christian republicans who are acting for political reasons. It serves well as a case study of the Alarmist message. The great news is that partisanship such as this has made Realists ramp up their responses with highly credible facts in response.
Following is my "fisked" version of the video revealing the lies that we are continually bombarded with in an attempt at discrediting facts.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Facility touted as next big thing still shut
Shawn D. Lewis / The Detroit News
Troy -- It was supposed to be a shining example of the green movement -- a completely independent solar-powered house with no gas or electrical hookups.
Seven months ago, officials gathered for a ribbon-cutting ceremony to celebrate the $900,000 house owned by the city of Troy that was to be used as an educational tool and meeting spot.
But it never opened to the public. And it remains closed.
Frozen pipes during the winter caused $16,000 in damage to floors, and city officials aren't sure when the house at the Troy Community Center will open.
"It's not safe right now, and there's no estimated opening time because it depends on when we can get funding," said Carol Anderson, director of the city's Parks and Recreation Department.
That surprised the Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Department, which advertised tours of the house for its Tuesday Oakland County Green Summit.
"No, I didn't know anything about it," said Steve Huber, spokesman for county planning.
Bret Rasegnan, planning supervisor for the department, said the solar tours have been removed from the finalized agenda for the summit.
"It is disappointing that we can't tour, but the summit will still be of great value. I don't think it's reflective of the technology."
Lawrence Technological University, with help from DTE, mostly paid for the building. Its students built the 800-square-foot home, which was supposed to be livable year-round, free from the grid and churn out enough solar power to support a home-based business and electric vehicle.
So what caused the flood?
The city says it was a mechanical problem. University officials heard it differently.
Jeff Biegler, superintendent of parks for the city, said the flooding occurred from a glitch in the heater.
"The system was designed to kick a heater on to keep water from freezing," Biegler said. "The heater drew all reserve power out of the battery causing the system to back down and the pipes froze."
Joe Veryser, an associate dean of architecture at the university, said he heard otherwise.
"What I heard repeatedly was that somebody turned off the breaker during the winter and forgot to turn it back on, which caused the pipes to freeze and then break."
Original Story Here
Hat Tip to Ron from Kelowna at SDA
Thursday, May 14, 2009
It compares NASA Alarmist James Hansen's forecasts of temps in subsequent years made in 1988, to the actual temps.
If he ever invites you to invest with him on something, do the exact opposite.
So I took the test - it is totally transparent with all questions leading to one answer which is based upon incorrect assumptions drawn from faulty data (ie the whole alarmist spiel.
More nonsense from the Alarmist Propagandists.
Here are my answers:
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Link. You're right. If the sun went out, the Earth would freeze over very quickly. However, human technology (warm clothes, houses, and burning things for heat) would probably keep many of us alive long enough to starve to death.
The Sun warms the Earth's atmosphere by about 15 degrees C per day. That amount is offset by infrared radiation, which cools the planet by the same amount. If the sun were to turn off, the cooling would continue, and the atmosphere would drop to freezing in just a few days.
However, the warm water of the oceans represents a very large storage of heat. As the atmosphere cools, the oceans would give up this heat. My calculations suggest it would take about three months for the oceans to begin to freeze.
In the meantime, the air over the oceans would be much warmer than the air over the land (since the oceans are giving up heat, but the land isn't). This means it would be warmer if you lived on a coast, but the temperature difference will create violent superstorms there.
Humanity has a few months' worth of oil and gas in storage: assuming the horrible weather prevented oil transportation, we could probably keep warm for a few months before freezing to death. Our reserves of food vary wildly depending on the country, but we generally keep more food around than fuel (because you can only harvest grain for a short time every year). So we're more likely to freeze to death than starve. The United States, with its large reserves of oil and food, its effective transportation system, and its temperate climate (most houses have heating systems), would probably last longer than most. However, billions worldwide would probably die in the first couple of weeks.Good thing this will never happen!
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
by Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme
The relationship between so-called greenhouse gases and atmospheric temperature is not yet well understood. So far, climatologists have hardly participated in serious scientific discussion of the basic energetic mechanisms of the atmosphere. Some of them, however, appear to be starting to realise that their greenhouse paradigm is fundamentally flawed, and already preparing to withdraw their theories about the climatic effects of CO2 and other trace gases.
At present, the climatological profession is chiefly engaged in promoting the restriction of CO2 emissions as a means of limiting atmospheric warming. But at the same time, they admit that the greenhouse effect - i.e. the influence of so-called greenhouse gases on near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven (Grassl et al., see: http--www.dmg-ev.de-gesellschaft-aktivitaeten-pdf-treibhauseffekt.pdf ). In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global warming.
This is no surprise, because in fact there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility. The statement that so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2, contribute to near-surface atmospheric warming is in glaring contradiction to well-known physical laws relating to gas and vapour, as well as to general caloric theory.
The greenhouse theory proposed by the climatological fraternity runs as follows: Outgoing infra-red radiation from the earth’s surface is somehow re-radiated by molecules of CO2 (mainly) and also O3, NO2, CH4 in the atmosphere. This backradiation produces warming of the lower atmosphere. To convince the public of the greenhouse effect, composites of temperature measurements since the 19th century are exhibited that show a certain warming. Measurements of the CO2 content of the air also show a rise in recent decades (Note CO2). Climatologists then claim that the CO2 rise has caused the temperature rise (see: http://earth.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html).
A second source of misconceptions about the relation between temperature and the CO2 content of air arises from an erroneous explanation of conditions on the planet Venus. The Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface temperature is approximately 460oC (see also: http://www.uni-erlangen.de/docs/FAU/fakultaet/natIII/geol_appl/klima1.htm ). What climatologists overlook is that atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and that it is this colossal pressure that determines the temperature.
Strict application of physical laws admits no possibility that tiny proportions of gases like CO2 in our atmosphere cause backradiation that could heat up the surface and the atmosphere near it:
Complete Report here
Monday, May 11, 2009
University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, another lead author of past IPCC reports, said politics should be kept at a distance from these boards. He also said it is "very disturbing" that people who dispute global warming are making strategic decisions on scientific research.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Well, his Condo is at the St. Regis on 3rd between Mission and Minna.
I dug around a little bit and found an interactive tool that allows specific spots on the map to be evaluated for sea level effect due to Global Warming.
Want proof that Gore isn't too worried about his 20 foot sea level increase promise?
His building is in one of the areas he expects to be claimed by the sea.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
I know this is an oldie - but it's still a goodie that new readers should get to enjoy.
Now the New York Times has the updated communication plan, and as the Spinsters Eco-America reports, the Alarmists PR campaigners are admitting defeat:
The days of hunches and rough ideas on how to engage Americans on climate are slowly fading. We used to think that being climate agnostic was a state of ignorance. We now know it is a decision based on social norms and trust. And it’s not just mainstream Americans who are confused. From Bill Gates to Warren Buffett to Steve Jobs, many of America’s best and brightest leaders have other priorities. They are skeptical about the degree of the climate crisis and of proposed solutions. Many environmentalists, in turn, are skeptical about the necessity and even the potential of engaging them.The Times describes the way that the Spinsters are looking to move the cheese - change the lexicon to avoid the tired old scaremongering banshee screeches of Gore, Suzuki, Hansen, et al. Here's a synopsis (with a little embellishment from CBL):
|What they Used |
|What they want people |
to say instead
|What it Really Means|
|Global Warming||Climate Change||The cold weather is proving that Global Warming is bogus. Let's use a phrase that covers all possible weather outcomes. |
Abandon the dirty fuels of the past.
|Sheeple have come to the realization that CO2 is actually a benign and beneficial gas that has only a teeny affect on climate.|
|Carbon Dioxide||Our deteriorating atmosphere.|| |
Let's go back to the Pollution meme - it worked and we managed to close down hundreds of plants along the Great Lakes
|None||Shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency,||Our ideals like control over others, more money in our pockets, wealth transfer and group think|
|Cap and Trade||Cap and cash back||We get their money and they think they're doing something good. |
|Cap and Trade||Pollution reduction refund||We get their money and they think they're saving the world.|
Monday, May 04, 2009
And Arctic ice is thicker than it has ever been (since satellite measurement began in 1979).
Meanwhile, it looks like all the Polar Bear Alarmists are on the run and not so confident that all the big white woolly beasts all drowning:
There remain only an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 Polar bears [note: they forget to mention that this is the greatest population of PBs in history} distributed around the north pole, in territories belonging to the U.S. (Alaska), Canada, Russia, Denmark (Greenland), and Norway.I had been led to believe by Al Gore et al, that they were all drowning and starving already...
The Polar bear needs sea ice to hunt for seals, and hence to survive (Derocher et al, 2004; Stirling & Parkinson, 2006). Dramatic reductions in sea ice coverage (IPCC,2007) are projected across the whole Arctic in the near future.
Friday, May 01, 2009
But despite all the talk about cooperation and commitment, he's still not convinced that the world really has a plan. So he has come up with one himself. The result is a new book. It's called The Global Deal: Climate Change and The Creation of a New Era of Progress and Prosperity. And Nicholas Stern was in our Toronto studio this morning.I'll let him in on a little secret...
The World - if "the world" is defined as a collection of nation states with rulers that actually have to make decisions that affect their peoples' well-being and their likelihood to take out pitchforks if things go bad - don't have a plan and won't have a plan.
Because they simply have no desire to blow the progress they have made over the last many hundred years on someone's lame brained scheme.
His lame brained scheme as revealed in his new book (which is already discounted by 1/3 on Amazon) and reported on CBC this morning, saving you another 2/3 of the price of the book is this - the western developed countries mucst reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 80%.
Came across this report today that describes what an 80% reduction in CO2 looks like. It looks like 1862:
The Civil War was raging. Nine of ten Americans were farmers (versus 2% today). The industrial revolution was in its infancy. Malaria halted construction on the Washington, DC aqueduct. Typhus and cholera killed thousands more every year. Life expectancy was 40 – half of what affordable hydrocarbon, hydroelectric and nuclear power helped make it today.So no, Nick. Nobody's gonna do anything about it. They will let Al Gore make his billions and you your millions, but will do absolutely nothing. Cause they live in the real world, not in your wet dream.