Sinking 'Climate Change'

By: Cal Thomas 
Examiner Columnist
June 3, 2010

Three modern myths have been sold to the American people: the promise of a transparent administration (President Obama); the promise of a more ethical Congress (Speaker Pelosi); and the myth of "global warming," or climate change.

The first two are daily proving suspect and now the third is sinking with greater force than melting icebergs -- if they were melting, which many believe they are not.

After spending years promoting "global warming," the media are beginning to turn in the face of growing evidence that they have been wrong. The London Times recently reported: "Britain's premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures."

It gets worse, or better, depending on your perspective. Newsweek magazine, which more than 30 years ago promoted global cooling and a new ice age -- and more recently has been drinking the global warming Kool-Aid -- headlined a story, "Uncertain Science: Bickering and Defensive, Climate Researchers Have Lost the Public's Trust." Newsweek does its best to cling to its increasingly discredited doctrine, but the growing body of contrary evidence only adds to the public's disbelief.

In Canada, the polar bear -- which has been used by global warming promoters to put a cuddly face on the issue -- is in danger of not being endangered any longer. CBC News reported that the polar bear's designation as a "species of special concern" has been suspended "while the government reviews the polar bear's status and decides whether to renew the classification or change it."

The New York Times recently lamented "global warmism's loss of credibility" in a story about hundreds of "environmental activists who met to ponder this question: "If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?"

The "consensus" never was a consensus. Most of us may not have gotten an "A" in science, but we can sense when we are being bamboozled.

The German online news magazine Focus recently carried a story, "Warm Times Will Soon Be Over!" Commenting on the "new NASA high temperature record," which may be set, the magazine blames it on El Nino.

Meteorologists, like Joe D'Aleo of the Weather Channel, are publicly distancing themselves from the false doctrine of global warming. D'Aleo says, "We'll have La Nina conditions before the summer is over, and it will intensify further through the fall and winter. Thus we'll have cooler temperatures for the next couple of years."

Remember the scare ignited in 2007 by supposed melting Arctic ice caps? The Star Canada says a new analysis shows that the apparent change was the result of "shifting winds," while an expedition last year to the North Pole discovered the ice "100 percent thicker than expected."

Much of this information -- and more -- is available at the useful Web site www.climatedepot.com.

It is a given that America needs new sources of energy. Environmentalists have inhibited efforts at exploration by supporting policies that have forced some domestic exploration too far offshore (thus increasing chances of an ecological disaster as is occurring in the Gulf of Mexico).

Instead of trying to sell us a dubious doctrine at an estimated cost of $100 billion a year worldwide (so far), environmentalists would have done themselves and the world more good had they chosen a different strategy, such as not sending oil money to countries that want to destroy us. This would have increased our patriotic spirit and had the additional benefit of not only diversifying our energy supply, but also depriving our enemies of money they use to underwrite terrorism.

Watch for the hard-core "global warming" cultists to continue clinging to their beliefs; but also watch increasing numbers of scientists and eventually politicians to abandon this once "certain" faith and to look for other ways to control our lives. In that pursuit, the left never quits.Rather than acknowledge their error, they will go on to make new mistakes, knowing they will never be held accountable.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sinking-_climate-change_-95418754.html#ixzz0sPkdKwrO

Call For Tighter Review Of IPCC Data

Natasha Bita 

From:The Australian 

June 28, 2010 12:00AM

THE Australian scientist who compiled a disputed UN report on climate change is pushing for a more rigorous review of data.

Professor Jean Palutikof, who spent five years at the British Met Office preparing the UN report, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, admitted yesterday the existing system was flawed because "quite a lot" of information had not been peer-reviewed by independent scientists before publication.

She said the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which underpins international decision-making by governments, "needs to remain very credible".

"It would be a shame if the IPCC became suspect," Professor Palutikof told The Australian yesterday.

The UN has asked the Academy of Sciences to review the IPCC's processes, after widespread criticism of its Fourth Assessment Report, which Professor Palutikof managed. Flaws included a statement that most Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, based on a report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Professor Palutikof said that the authors of the next IPCC report would need to be "very, very, very careful about writing things down every step of the way".

"For the Fifth Assessment, it will have to be different," she said. "There's a widely held view among the scientific community that much greater scrutiny as you go through the assessment will be required.

"The Fourth Assessment has been very carefully reviewed by people other than the authorities, subsequent to being completed. But it would be very nice if we didn't have to spend all of the time going back over stuff to check it."

Professor Palutikof said the Fourth Assessment report was being "picked over by people" because it had been based on "quite a lot" of information that had come from governmental, conservation group or UN reports, without having been peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals such as Science or Nature.

source:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/call-for-tighter-review-of-ipcc-data/story-e6frg6xf-1225884945036

Gingrich slams Obama on Gulf gusher and sounds off on climate

BY Amanda Little

30 JUN 2010 5:00 AM

In his new book To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, Gingrich pushes a strikingly different view, decrying "the doomsday theory of climate change," which he attributes to the "high-tax, big-bureaucracy, job-killing, and government-centralizing environmentalism of the Left."

A vehement critic of the Obama administration -- opposing its approach to the Gulf oil spill, energy and climate legislation, and much else -- Gingrich calls for a "green conservatism -- a new pathway to environmental stewardship." He characterizes this philosophy as "optimistic, positive ... entrepreneurial, market-based, and incentive-led." He calls the Tea Party movement "a good way to spread green conservatism."

Gingrich is busy these days promoting his book -- and himself.  He’s mulling a 2012 presidential bid, planning to make a decision on whether to run by spring of next year.  I spoke with Gingrich recently by phone about BP, global warming, green conservatism, and Rwandan gorillas.

Q. What is your position on climate change? How much of a threat do you think it poses?

A. It's an act of egotism for humans to think we're a primary source of climate change. Look at what happened recently with the Icelandic volcano. The natural systems are so much bigger than manmade systems. I am very dubious about claims that we know precisely what's going to happen. And I'm very suspicious of the use of those claims to create much larger governments with much greater bureaucratic controls over our life.

source:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-30-gingrich-slams-obama-on-bp-gulspill-and-sounds-off-on-climate/

The Blatant Propagandist Lies on 

‘Climate Change’ Insult to Irish Intelligence!

By Neil Foster, 30^th June 2010.

  Duncan Stewart – Climate Change Pimp

Last night I was compelled to watch the much advertised and hyped Duncan Stewart Scary Story Spoof ‘A Burning Question’. This was the worst hour of television I’ve forced myself to watch since Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Lie’ global warming mockumentary.

To say this was biased in favour of the global warming lobby would be an understatement akin to saying that Josef Stalin was a naughty little boy.

As one lie followed another, I found this extremely hard viewing. In a conflict of emotions between outrage and hysterical laughter at the absurdity of the propaganda being pushed, I found myself at the end utterly disgusted as the rant of Stewart, his lackey pseudo scientists and imbecilic journalists such as John Gibbons ex of The Irish Times made me totally disgusted by these people.

The slur of Deniers was used of course as it had been on RTE the previous Saturday in a lengthy interview on the Marian Finucan Show where Duncan Stewart, an architect, insulted acclaimed botanic scientist, David Bellamy, who with many peer reviewed scientific articles to his name spanning decades, is in fact a recognised expert in his field of science as opposed to an architect who has fallen out of a tree trying to film a documentary, who is as much a scientist as Al Gore, the aforementioned idiot John Gibbons or for that matter Mickey Mouse.

The radio interview in many ways was much worse although it does show the real motivation of Stewart and his cronies and was obvious for all to hear when he stated openly that the science was fact and for anyone to read books to the contrary was not just a Holocaust Denier but a misinformed if not disinformed person in his opinion because they were obviously reading the wrong books. He went on to say that nobody should be reading these books because they were fooling and confusing people on the dangers of climate change and even the existence of manmade global warming. So we’re now being told by our ‘experts’ that we shouldn’t be reading books they don’t agree with. Sounds like totalitarianism to me.

We were warned of the impending move towards ‘zero energy’ homes without any explanation as to how this was to be achieved. One slip up in the TV program however was the admission that we had to stop using energy and that if we did ‘everything would stop’.

EXACTLY!

What is clear to anyone with the intelligence to think for themselves and listen to what was said in both programs is that these lunatics are panicking! The promotion of the utterly discredited IPCC by Stewart and his cronies and the fact that they are still using their 4^th Assessment Report as factual scientific data is laughable. Stewart, in a moment of utter idiocy, proclaimed that independent reviews of the ‘climategate’ emails leak last November revealed that no wrongdoing had occurred and that the IPCC had been fully vindicated and were the still the premier source of ‘factual scientific study’ to back the claim that man is responsible, through CO2 emmisions, including breathing folks, for destroying the planet.

More idiotic remarks included the imminent catastrophe of the ‘projected’ 6 degree rise in global temperatures, using bogus data entered into computer modelling programs, despite no evidence to back this up in any way. Sea levels are of course to rise dramatically. Maybe Duncan should have reminded his slave master Gore before he bought his beach house in New York State.

And what about Gore’s mansions that use 20 times more power than the average American? Oh I forgot, that’s ok because Gore pays for ‘carbon credits’ which he buys from his own carbon trading corporation, Generation Investment Management’ and he’s already a ‘carbon’ billionaire due to the scam he’s been pushing for two decades.

The likes of Stewart and Gibbons or the other ‘gods of climate change’ they worship like Michael Mann of ‘hockey stick’ infamy or James Hansen of NASA who was also caught faking data to give higher temperatures, should understand that when their Communist masters have attained their goal that they will then be dispensable. A bullet in the back of the head is the usual Soviet way. I for one won’t shed a tear for these maniacs pushing the eugenicist agenda they care so much about. When that day comes I’m sure they’ll still believe the utter nonsense they’ve been promoting all of their pathetic adult lives.

More disturbing I suppose is that the radio interview and the TV documentary were both broadcast on the state television channel RTE which the taxpayer funds. It should also be noted that the government minister responsible for communications Eamon Ryan, is a Green Party member of parliament and has a vested interest in this type of propaganda being pushed to a gullible public. I personally object to paying for propaganda, regardless of whose side it comes down on by a media network who are supposed to give a fair and balanced view on any subject to the public it is supposed to serve.

It is not supposed to be the mouthpiece of fanatical fringe groups who just happen to be in power at this time even although only 2% of the electorate in Ireland voted for them and who’s ‘leader’ John Gormley was indoctrinated, sorry educated, at the East German Freiberg University, when it was still controlled by the Soviet Union. How does an Irishman who went to a St. Munchin’s College in Limerick find himself in the Soviet Union in a university famous for producing National Socialists (Nazis) and Communists? It was even run by Martin Heidegger amongst others, who was a famous admirer of Adolf Hitler!

I think it would be in the public interest to know what Mr. Gormley studied in Freiberg but it appears he doesn’t want to talk about that as he doesn’t include any qualifications on the Green Party website although he does admit he went to Freiberg. Incidentally, this was the same town where fluoride was successfully prosecuted on a number of occasions. I wonder if Mr. Gormley would care to explain how he has no idea of the damage to human health of the effects of fluoride? Perhaps not.

In another outburst of total imbecility from Stewart he criticised the media for apparently championing the ‘sceptical’ side of the nonexistent ‘debate’ on climate change. Apparently the media are reporting that it’s all a scam. I wish he’d pointed me towards a few articles in the Irish media holding that editorial position because for the life of me I haven’t read, heard or seen one mainstream media outlet who hasn’t gone full throttle into the climate change scaremonger’s camp.

If you read this Duncan, please leave a comment with a few links to these media magnates who are on my side. In return I’ll send you thousands who believe the lies and pseudo science you and the cretins who you hang around with are promoting. The FACT is Duncan that you’ve made it so obvious by the tone of this propaganda piece that you and your ilk are desperate because people are finally waking up to the scam of manmade global warming.  But hey, what do I know, I’m a ‘denier!’

Regrdless, I’d love to hear from you!

Source:http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=5486

Meet the green who doubts ‘The Science’

The author of Chill explains why he’s sceptical about manmade global warming — and why greens are so intolerant.
Peter Taylor 9 June 2010

The science around climate change is not as settled as it’s presented as being. I used to think it was, until about 2003 – and then, feeling that the remedies being proposed for climate change would be more damaging to the environment than climate change itself, I took it upon myself to look at the science.

In my book on biodiversity, Beyond Conservation, I had mentioned in one of the chapters that perhaps the man-made global warming theory was not all it was being cracked up to be. The changes we are seeing now, I wrote, suggested that some other processes were at work. I then took time out, visited the science libraries, and checked the original science upon which today’s models are based.

I was shocked by what I found. Firstly, there’s no real consensus among the scientists in the UN working groups, especially around oceanography and atmospheric physics. The atmospheric physics of carbon dioxide for example is presented as being pretty straightforward: it is a greenhouse gas, therefore it warms up the planet. But even that isn’t settled. There’s a huge amount of scientific disagreement on how much extra heating in the atmosphere you will get from carbon dioxide. It is even broadly accepted that carbon dioxide on its own is not a problem. So, you can double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and get half to one degree warming, which is within the natural variability range over a period of 50 years from now at the current rate of emissions.

The role of water vapour in planetary warming is also open to questioning. While it is presented as being a heat amplifier, in fact because it can turn into cloud it could actually regulate temperature instead. As it turned out, at the very beginning of the UN discussions, Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, and a leading expert appointed to the committee because of his meteorological expertise, was saying precisely that: the amplification effect asserted cannot be relied upon to increase warming because the vapour could turn into cloud. This needed to be proved before basing assumptions on it. But Lindzen was overruled. Despite still being a key part of the IPPC process, he is now vilified by the press and by the environmental movement. So even on the most basic science of the atmospherics, there is doubt.

Or take oceanography. Most of the heat of the planet is not contained in the atmosphere; it is in the oceans. And what happens in the oceans is absolutely vital to the dynamics of heat moving around the planet. So while of course it is possible to warm up the planet to an additional extent as a result of human activity, if the planet then lets more heat out than it would normally do, then it will balance out. That is to say, you have only to produce less cloud over the oceans and the oceans will release heat to space. Like CO2 itself, the atmosphere doesn’t actually hold heat – it simply delays its transmission to space.

The real dynamic of the planet is to do with clouds, yet this area of science – oceanography and cloud cover – is incredibly uncertain. When I first looked at the basic science, the findings were surprising. Over the global warming period – which I limit to the past 50 or so years – the globe didn’t warm at all between 1950 and 1980, even though carbon dioxide emissions were going through the roof due to the postwar expansion of industry; global temperatures stayed pretty much flat.

The real global warming took off in the 1980s and 90s, through to about 2005. (In the last 10 years it’s actually plateaued.) That period of 25 years, from around 1980 to 2005, coincided with changes in the ocean and cloud cover – that is, there was less cloud and more sunlight getting through to the ocean. And this can be seen in the satellite data on the kind of energy that’s coming through (short-wave energy, which is the only energy that heats water – infra-red energy coming from CO2 cannot heat water). So when you look at the real-world data, the warming of that entire period seems to be due to additional sunlight reaching the oceans.

In 2007, I put out a report on this, in the hope of getting feedback before I published my book, Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory. Since then, top scientists at NASA have agreed that this period of warming over the past 25 years is entirely due to the short-wave radiation from sunlight, with the ocean transferring that heat to the land.

So the crucial question is: has the cloud thinning been due to carbon dioxide? Or is it part of a cycle? If you ask some of the top people at NASA – that is, the people who interpret all the satellite data – they will say it’s 50-50. So you could say the greenhouse effect has warmed the oceans and the warmer oceans have thinned the clouds. But that is still just a hypothesis, it is not a proven scientific fact. That means you could assert with equal validity that thinning clouds have warmed the oceans, which has led to global warming – meaning the effect of carbon dioxide is minimal.

There is a fairly easy way of deciding between the two viewpoints: you look at the history of climate to find out whether there has been warming and cooling in the past, before carbon dioxide became such an issue. And of course there have been cycles of warming and cooling, with the longest of the cycles lasting about a thousand years and the shortest cycle – El Nino – about four-to-eight years.

So, right now, we are at the peak of a thousand-year cycle. We also had a peak for all the other cycles between 1995 and 2005. Given that these cycles have peaked, temperature-wise, before, one can look at what happened back then. A thousand years ago, for instance, the Vikings were growing crops on Greenland, which assumes that the summer ice would have been more limited than it is now. The Arctic melted down a thousand years ago, just as it did 2,000 years ago. What’s astonishing is that you can see all of that in the ice-core record in Greenland. And in each cycle of a thousand years, the peak is getting lower. So overall the planet is actually cooling, from a peak about 8,000 years ago.

Now the only way in which you can get cycles of warming and cooling on such a scale is through the oceans. And the only way that can happen is in relation to cloud cover. So the crucial question then is, how do the oceans vary their cloud cover? What creates these cycles? There is a major scientific controversy over how the sun’s magnetic field influences the different types of energy that reach the planet, and how they, in turn, influence cloud cover. There are several different scientific teams working on it, including one from the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN). What this shows is that it is still an unresolved question. Nobody knows what the mechanisms are.

So why is the UN saying what it is saying? Well, if you actually look at the wording of what this so-called consensus of scientists has produced, then you will see that they believe that ‘global warming is not due to known natural causes acting alone’. This is clever wording. It means that the door is open to an unknown mechanism driving the warming. So although it is well known that the warming is naturally driven, the mechanism is not.

Why would the UN suppress all of this debate happening within its working groups? The problem is that the secretariat within the UN tasked with processing this debate is already committed – financially – to focusing upon carbon dioxide as the climate-change driver. It is very hard for them to backtrack.

It is only recently that the scientific world has bought into this consensus. In 2001, America, Russia and China did not accept the UN’s analysis. But by 2004, America had signed up to it. And this was all down to a certain team in the US which produced an analysis that ironed out the past cycles of warming and cooling. Although it has since been discredited, this report had a tremendous effect in bringing scientific institutions around to the idea of man-made global warming.

So behind the appearance of consensus and settled science, there is now this tremendous battle going on. The dissenting scientists are described by certain journalists and environmentalists as ‘denialists’ and ‘sceptics’ funded by the oil industry. This is simply not the case. There are top-level atmospheric physicists, oceanographers and solar scientists who do not agree that the case is proven for global warming. Nobody is seriously saying that carbon dioxide has no effect whatsoever, but the defenders of the faith, as it were, set up a straw man. ‘These people’, they say, ‘think carbon dioxide has no effect’. Only a lunatic fringe thinks that.

The critical scientists are simply saying that carbon dioxide’s effect is small, at most 20 per cent. This means that even a 50 per cent reduction by 2050 in manmade greenhouse gas emissions would only reduce the driving force of climate change by 10 per cent. That’s because the natural driving force will determine the climate. As I argue in Chill, if you look at all the past cycles, the temperature declines after a peak. And this decline will bring with it wholly different problems – ones which, so far, we are woefully underprepared for.

What’s really disconcerting for me is that I am a longstanding environmentalist. As part of environmental groups I’ve helped to prevent nuclear waste from being dumped in the ocean, I’ve helped change emergency planning for nuclear reactors, and I’ve also helped develop biodiversity strategy. I’m as green as you can get. But what I am faced with now is environmental groups and major NGOs – Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF, even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – which have allied themselves with the state. They talk about so-called denialists allying themselves with ‘Big Oil’, but they have fallen into the arms of big government. They’ve allied with disreputable prime ministers; they’ve allied with chief policy advisers who have never got anything right in their lives; they’ve allied themselves with scientific institutions that have never led on any of these environmental issues.

If you write something, as I have done with Chill, which is a rational, critical appraisal of the whole situation, you would at least expect to have some dialogue. But there has been nothing. I haven’t had a single invitation to speak to any of these groups. Even universities have been reticent. I have been invited to speak at Leeds University, which has quite a strong climate community, and the Energy Institute. But the environmental community has been absolutely silent towards me. I would challenge them to bring all of their experts to the table and hammer it out.

We’re seeing the dangerous development here of a very intolerant political ideology. It is a very strange political and scientific situation, in which vast sums of money are underwriting a bureaucracy of climate accountants and auditors, and in which academic funding is easier to obtain if you put man-made climate change at the top of your research proposal. I have never seen anything like it in the 40 years of my scientific and environmental career.

Peter Taylor was talking to Tim Black.

Peter Taylor is author of Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory.


http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/debates/copenhagen_article/8979

'WE ARE CHANGE' IRELAND 


DEMAND ANSWERS FROM ECO-FASCISTS


In 2005, John Gormley, head of the Green Party proposed a bill to the Irish Government. Supposedly,“the purpose of this Bill is to repeal the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act 1960. There is now a scientific consensus that fluoride works topically and does not need to be ingested to protect teeth. All the evidence shows that too much fluoride in the body gives rise to fluorosis, which is on the increase and to other health effects.”
Five years later, most of which John Gorm-less has been in power, and nothing has been done. Gormley and the rest of our pathetic “government” have sold their values down the river. They are poisoning our water with Sodium Flouride and nobdy’s doing a damn thing about it. On top of that, this month, they’ve brought in Water Charges and Carbon Taxes, not on the distributor, but on the consumer. They have us paying extra charges on our home heating fuel, in an engineered recession.

On the 21st of this month, Gormley is opening the Green Economy Expo in Croke Park, a conference about Ireland’s contribution to “the green economy”, and speaking about Climate Change and Green Energy Projects. This whole conference is based on the premise that man-made CO2 levels are responsible for the Climate Change we are experiencing. However, at this stage, we allknow otherwise and we intend to make sure they know the same. All the real facts on these issues are in full public view, and regardless of what the media say, there is no consensus in the scientific community on any of them. The scientists who promote the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming and Flouridation are bought and paid for by the same interests that control the media and world governments.


Members of We are Change, The Sovereign Independent and Freeman Ireland are going to attend this event, spread ourselves amongst the crowd and bombard these fascists with a few of our own “Green” questions on Climate Change, Flouride, Chemtrails and other issues!  Everyone is invited to come along, tickets, unfortunately are €5, but we are filming so it should be worth it!
Contact Alan [at] wearechange.ie to be added to the discussion thread. Let’s get organised!
Beach party at the hippie hole in Howth the day after for anyone interested!

http://www.wearechange.ie/?p=391

2 June – “Stop Climate Chaos” anti-protest

When: Wednesday 2 June , 11am to 7pm
Where: Buswells Hotel, 26 Molesworth Street, Dublin 2 – Across from the Dáil.
Description:
An organisation called Stop Climate Chaos (http://stopclimatechaos.ie) is planning to lobby near the Dail to INCREASE the legislation towards climate change.
This is how these guys are trying to reel people in:
“Climate change hasn’t gone away and this year the Irish Government will make crucial decisions about how it will tackle climate change, now and into the future. Our Government has committed to a passing a Climate Change Bill by the end of 2010, including binding targets for reducing our carbon emissions.
As the Government negotiates the text of this Bill, we must send them a clear message that we expect the bill to be strong, with real enforceable targets that ensure Ireland plays its part in delivering climate justice and a fair and safe future for all.”
These carbon footprint concerned folks are either oblivious to the real results concerning anthropogenic global warming, or they just don’t care. Either way, they’re spreading the wrong message, and their intentions are certainly directed at increasing the power of the governments freedom-killing legislations.
We Are Change shall therefore be hijacking this event. With our knowledge, and a very eagre megaphone (she’s been neglected for long enough at this stage and wants some action), we can promote a message which supercedes theirs, exposing the truth about this criminally abused subject, and quite possibly wake up some of their following in the process.
Open Event – Anyone May Attend And Invite Others To Attend

http://www.wearechange.ie/?page_id=196