Bias Can Be What You Leave Out Of A Story As Well As Choosing The Stories You Report

Global warming is one of the sacred cows of the political left. Part of this is due to the fact that climate change can be used as a weapon against capitalism, free markets, and successful democratic nations.

In February of last year, I posted an article that included the following quote:

…Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

So that explains why the political left is so in love with the idea of global warming. Now let’s look at the omissions in a recent Associated Press article about global warming as reported in The Daily Caller.

The article reports:

An Associated Press reporter sent some questions to Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. about what role global warming played in this year’s slew of billion-dollar natural disasters.

Pielke, an expert on natural disaster costs, apparently didn’t give AP reporter Seth Borenstein the answers he was looking for, because his ensuing article didn’t have any quotes from the University of Colorado professor.

The following questions and answers were omitted from the AP article:

Please follow the link to The Daily Caller and read the entire article. It illustrates how the media tries to shape the debate rather than simply reporting facts. As I have stated before, the best website on the internet for climate information is wattsupwiththat.com.

 

When Your Predictions Are Wrong, Just Change The Time Frame

Yesterday The Independent Journal Review posted an article about the global warming predictions that were supposed to be happening about now that are nowhere in sight.

The article reports:

The cult’s leader — Al Gore — said in 2009 that there was a 75 percent chance that the entire arctic polar ice cap would melt by 2014.

It’s still there.

The year before the North Pole was supposed to be gone, noted climate scientist Hans von Storch went against cult orthodoxy in an interview with Spiegel Online in 2013 and had some interesting things to say about the climate prediction models so revered by the alarmists.

After noting that “climate change seems to be taking a break,” von Storch had this to say about the models:

“If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

I’m not a scientist, but it seems to me that if your predictions supposedly using the scientific method continually do not happen, there might be something wrong with your models or your calculations.

The article reports what the scientists are doing to modify their failed predictions:

Climate alarmist James Hansen’s prediction of Manhattan being underwater by 2018 seems to not be happening, so he’s moving his own goal posts and saying “50 to 150 years” now.

That’s the beauty of being one of the “we believe in science” people: there’s never any penalty for being wrong. Every prediction that doesn’t come true isn’t a cause for reflection about perhaps adjusting the conclusion; it’s merely an opportunity to pull a new prediction out of thin air.

Perhaps they are finally getting embarrassed, though. Tossing all of the predictions a century down the road at least saves them from having to be around when those are proved wrong.

The global warming movement has never been about science or the environment.

The following is from an article I posted in March 2016:

Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

The earth’s climate is cyclical.  Scientists have found fossils in Greenland of animals from much more temperate climates. The Middle Ages experienced a period of global warming that had nothing to do with SUV’s.  The bottom line is that man is rather insignificant in the grand scheme of the earth’s climate. I believe that we have a responsibility to keep the earth as clean as possible, but we also have a responsibility to develop the earth’s resources to allow all people on the planet to experience freedom and the ability to earn enough to have food and shelter. Redistribution of wealth is not the solution to poverty–freedom is–and that is exactly what the global warming crowd is trying to limit.

I would like to note at this point that at least one generation of school children has been raised on this fake science as if it were fact. Combined with the fact that our children are no longer being taught critical thinking skills, this may be a major problem for the future of our country.

Where Bogus Climate Information Comes From

Please click on this link–  http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

This is the link that will show you the places where those people who want to convince you that the earth is getting warmer have placed their temperature measuring devices. I am not a scientist by any means, but I question the wisdom of measuring temperature right next to the air conditioning vent of a large building. There is also a sensor placed within ten feet or aircraft (which I assume are occasionally started up and moved). Follow the link and enjoy the show.

Why Leaving The Paris Climate Treaty Is A Good Idea

On Tuesday, Townhall posted an article listing the reasons America should not be part of the Paris Climate Treaty. While we are hearing the hysterics from the political left, I would like to remind everyone that the reason the Paris Climate Treaty was called an ‘accord’ in America is that the politicians in Washington did not want to vote for it. Former President Obama knew that as a treaty it could not get through Congress. On some level, all Washington politicians understood the damage the treaty would do to the American economy, and there was always the danger that the voters would hold those politicians who voted for the treaty accountable. So all of the current hysteria is somewhat unconvincing.

The article reports the reasons that being part of the agreement was a really bad idea:

1) Warming over the last 50 years or so has averaged only about half of what computerized climate models can explain. Yet, those models are the basis for the Paris Agreement.

2) It is not obvious that recent warming is entirely the fault of our CO2 emissions. It is very possible that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were just as warm as today. Natural climate change exists. If we didn’t cause it, we can’t fix it.

3) Even if future warming increases to match the models, and all nations abide by the Paris commitments, we will avert only 0.3 deg. F warming by the year 2100. That’s less than 0.04 deg. F per decade, which is unmeasurable by current global temperature monitoring networks (satellites, surface thermometers, and weather balloons).

4) The cost of this unmeasurable impact on future global temperatures is variously estimated to be around $1 Trillion per year, primarily spent by the U.S. and a few other countries which drive global prosperity. As usual, the poor will be the hardest hit. That money could have been spent on clean water and providing electricity to the 1+ billion humans who still don’t have electricity.

5) China and India, which are burning coal like there is no tomorrow, don’t really have to do anything under the Agreement until 2030. It’s mainly up to the U.S. to cut our emissions, and send our wealth to poor countries where dictators will continue to enrich themselves.

6) Increasing CO2 levels have benefits, such as increased crop productivity and ‘global greening’. Life on Earth requires CO2, and over the last 60 years we have been monitoring its levels in the atmosphere, Mother Nature has been gobbling up 50% of what we emit to create even more life.

There are also other reasons to reject the treaty.

In February of this year, I posted an article that included the following:

Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

It’s not about the climate–it’s about greed. The treaty does not require any action by China, one of the world’s worst polluters, or India, who runs a close second. It allows third world tyrants to gain access to the coffers of the United States. Those coffers, incidentally, will be sparse due to the restrictions placed on the American economy.

One of the major keys to the economic success of a nation is private property rights. I posted an article about this in 2010. The Paris Climate Treaty is an example of countries whose leaders do not allow private property rights attempting to gain prosperity at the expense of countries who are prosperous and allow private property rights. This treaty was a move toward global governance and worldwide communism. In viewing the uproar over President Trump’s actions, we need to remember that the biggest obstacle to the globalists around the world are the financial success of America and the freedom of Americans. This treaty would have undermined both of those.

Much Ado About Nothing

President Trump has doomed the earth to extinction! We have all heard some variation of that chicken-little headline because President Trump has directed the EPA to roll back former President Obama’s hugely expensive Clean Power Plan.

Well, yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the impact of President Trump’s directive.

The chart below is from the article:

The article explains exactly what the chart illustrates:

Take a look at the Clean Power Plan — Obama’s most ambitious climate change effort. Despite the costs of this regulatory monstrosity, the Clean Power Plan would have no discernible impact in global carbon dioxide emissions over the next three decades.

That’s not the conclusion of climate change “deniers.” That’s what the Obama administration’s own Department of Energy said in a report issued in May 2016.

As part of its International Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration provided long-term forecasts of energy-related CO2 emissions, comparing global emissions with the Clean Power Plan, and without it.

What it shows is that with the Clean Power Plan, global carbon emissions would still climb 32% in 2012 and 2040, only slightly below what the increase will be without it.

So why did we cripple our domestic energy production and put thousands of people out of work? Rush Limbaugh has commented many times that the environmental movement is the new home for the socialists and communists of the world. As countries with basic freedoms have become more prosperous, countries that do not have basic property rights have become poorer. Those poorer countries would very much like to find a way to extort money from the richer countries. That is exactly what a worldwide carbon tax would do. How do you implement a worldwide carbon tax? You convince people that wealthy nations are ruining the earth and need to pay a price for it, and you give the money to the tyrants of the world.

Please understand, I am not in favor of pollution. However, I am in favor of balancing the economy and the environment.

The article further points out:

As we noted in this space recently, without any government mandates, energy-related CO2 emissions in the U.S. fell 12.4% from 2007 to 2015. Overall carbon intensity — a measure of how much CO2 it takes to produce a dollar of GDP — declined an average 1.5% a year since 2005.

These gains are due both to the fracking breakthrough, which unleashed massive supplies of lower-carbon natural gas, and the unending pressure the free market puts on businesses to be more efficient.

This same market-driven decarbonizing trend has been happening around the world.

Between 1990 and 2012, the carbon intensity of developed nations dropped by 33%, and by 25% in developing countries. By 2040, the carbon intensity of developed nations will be cut in half, the report projects, and will drop by almost 40% in developed countries, the Energy Department report shows.

Yet overall energy-related CO2 emissions will still climb by 51% in developing countries, and 8% among industrialized nations, from 2012 to 2040 — even with the Paris agreement.

Why? “Increases in output per capita coupled with population growth overwhelm improvements in energy intensity and carbon intensity,” the report explains.

In other words, barring some miracle scientific breakthrough, the only reliable way to cut global carbon emissions would be to depopulate the planet or kill economic growth.

The global warming panic is nothing more than a stealth attack on our economy and freedom. As I have stated before, the best site on the Internet for good, scientific information on climate change is wattsupwiththat.com. I strongly recommend that you visit the site when you wonder about the scientific accuracy of whatever current panic attack the environmentalists are having.

Remember The Constitution

The following is from the U.S. Senate website explaining the U.S. Constitution:

Article II

Section 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The Constitution gives the Senate a share in foreign policy by requiring Senate consent, by a two-thirds vote, to any treaty before it may go into effect. The president may enter into “executive agreements” with other nations without the Senate’s consent, but if these involve more than minor matters they may prove controversial.

The president must also submit judicial and major executive branch nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent. The Constitution makes no provision for the removal of executive officers, which has remained largely at the discretion of the president.

The boldface type was added by me.

The Washington Times is reporting today:

Deliberately sidestepping Congress, President Obama formally entered the U.S. into an international climate-change agreement Saturday with China and dozens of other nations to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

In a ceremony in Hangzhou, China, Mr. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping deposited each country’s official “instrument of acceptance” with U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon to join the agreement.

“Some day we may see this as the moment when we decided to save our planet,” Mr. Obama said. “History will judge today’s efforts as pivotal.”

Separately, Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi agreed on a side deal aimed at curbing other pollutants in the U.S. and China. They committed to “freeze” the production of hydrofluorocarbons, the chemicals often used in air conditioning and refrigeration, and cut aviation emissions by an unspecified date, possibly as early as 2021.

The U.N. climate-change pact cannot take effect until 55 nations representing 55 percent of worldwide carbon emissions formally ratify the agreement. The U.S. and China, the world’s two largest emitters, represent about 38 percent of total global emissions.

Man-made climate change is a hoax. There is no agreement by scientists on this matter. The reason many scientists support the concept is that supporting the idea of man-made climate change results in grant money. If you claim a crisis, you get money. One of the best sites on the Internet for good climate change information is wattsupwiththat.com. I strongly recommend that anytime you read an article in the mainstream media about climate change you check that site.

Meanwhile, the President is openly violating the U.S. Constitution. Is the Senate going to push back? If the Senate Republicans do not protect the Constitution (as they have sworn to do so in their oath of office), they deserve to be voted out of office. The Democrats cannot be expected to protest because they put politics first. I would be totally surprised if more than five Senators protest. This lack of action on the part of the Senate is the reason for the success of Donald Trump as a candidate. Many (if not most) Americans are tired of politicians who do not uphold their oath of office.

Let’s see if any Senators protest this move.

Is American Sovereignty Important?

America is now more than two hundred years old. The U.S. Constitution that we began with is still in place. We are still a sovereign nation. Most of us take our freedom and national sovereignty for granted, but what are some of the forces working against our freedom and against our sovereignty and what are we doing to stop them?

Well, one U.S. House of Representatives member has come up with a good place to start. Alabama’s Representative Mike Rogers on March 2, 2015, introduced H.R. 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015 into the House of Representatives. The bill has about a 1 percent of being passed, but at least it was introduced. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The bill would end the United States’ membership in the United Nations. Why would we want to do that? Because the United Nations as of late has become a sounding board for tin horn dictators who want to take money from free countries who have earned it and give the money to other tyrants who have not. Part of their objective is to undermine the sovereignty of free western countries and set up a worldwide government that will control everyone and be run be a few elites who will establish the rules but not have to live by them. I just happen to have a few examples of what the United Nations has done in recent years that should be cause for alarm.

Some comments from the Washington Times about the UN Arms Trade Treaty:

The criteria that arms should not be used to “prolong” or “aggravate” instability is troubling. China could use such a provision to label U.S. arms sales to Taiwan as a violation of international law. In 1941, such a treaty would have made illegal the U.S. lend-lease program to aid Britain before Pearl Harbor.

The implication is absurd: If giving arms to an ally fighting a tyrant prolongs the conflict, the only “legal” option for the ally is to surrender.

Another problem is the draft’s invocation of “international human rights law.” Unfortunately, liberal activists often claim that strict gun control is a “human right.” This reference, then, could be interpreted in ways that infringe on Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.

Why should we care what some U.N. treaty says? Just ignore it, you say, because our Constitution trumps everything. Well, not if the U.S. signs and the Senate ratifies it. At that point, the treaty carries the weight of U.S. domestic law.

Forbes Magazine posted the following about The Law of the Sea Treaty:

Then there’s the currently proposed, Obama-endorsed, Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which would subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If ratified by Congress, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights. As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries.

The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free. And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.

Both of the above articles are from 2012. This is not a new thing.

According to the website appinsys.com:

On November 14, 2010 the NZZ Online had an interview with Ottmar Edenhofer (Edenhofer is joint chair of IPCC Working Group 3 and deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology).

Mr. Edenhofer stated:

  • …“Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore … But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Last night I went to see the movie “Climate Hustle.” There was a lot in the movie that I was already aware of, but it was nice to see it organized and in one place. I don’t know if and when the movie will be shown again, but it is worth seeing.

Representative Rogers H.R. 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015  may never get out of committee. That in itself illustrates the need for change in Washington. If we don’t change our representatives in Washington, we may lose our sovereignty as a country and our lifestyle.

The First Amendment Is In Danger

The First Amendment protects the right of free speech. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Evidently some of our state attorneys general are not aware of this law.

On Friday, The Blaze reported:

It only took a week before the warnings from free speech advocates to come to fruition about the 17 state attorneys general launching investigations into climate change skeptics, as the probe has expanded beyond an energy company to a think tank.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank in Washington, moved to quash a subpoena from the U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker.

The Virgin Islands subpoenaed 10 years worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s research on climate change and energy policy. This included private donor information. The demand is for information from 1997 to 2007.

“CEI will vigorously fight to quash this subpoena,” CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman said in a statement. “It is an affront to our First Amendment rights of free speech and association for Attorney General Walker to bring such intimidating demands against a nonprofit group.”

The subpoena itself is part of several states’ investigations into whether Exxon-Mobil violated any laws in showing skepticism about climate change. Several other states, led by New York state Attorney General Erich Schneiderman, are using the racketeering statutes – commonly used to go after organized crime – to investigate companies government officials say might have misled the public about global warming.

States are investigating whether Exxon-Mobil violated laws by showing skepticism about climate change. What? Showing skepticism about something is now a crime?

On Monday, The Daily Signal reported:

Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”

The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent.

The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory.

In the Middle Ages, I believe that those who stated that the earth was round were treated the way that climate change skeptics are being treated by these attorneys general.

The Daily Signal further reports:

The officials on hand during the announcement talked only about targeting large companies. But Anthony Sadar, a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail,” fears it could expand to individuals.

“RICO, to my knowledge, is meant to target organized crime, drug traffickers and illegal gambling, not energy companies,” Sadar told TheBlaze. “If it can be used to make big industries cave, then they could go after others that view long-range global climate projections with some skepticism.”

Attorney and author Chris Horner, a senior fellow at CEI, agrees.

“It is clear that, with most opposition already chilled and most support for opponents already scared off, the itch this effort is trying to scratch is the desire to coerce a massive fund to underwrite the global warming industry,” Horner told TheBlaze.

“That explains the call for civil RICO. Still, if they manage to get an investigation rolling into political speech as racketeering, nothing inherently limits it from turning into a criminal pursuit; any state or federal department of justice official who joined in in such a scheme would have already abandoned any normal restraining impulses,” Horner said. “Similarly, there is nothing inherently limiting these investigations to corporations or groups.”

It is my fondest hope that the companies investigated will sue the state attorneys general involved in this into the next galaxy. This is a total affront to free speech. It also sounds very much like a totalitarian government bringing in the thought police. This is a total misuse of the RICO statutes. There needs to be a huge pushback against the states that are involved in this.

When watching this situation, we need to remember that climate change could very quickly become a billion dollar industry. To some extent it already has. Government subsidies finance alternative energy companies, and the United Nations wants to redistribute the wealth of prosperous countries in the name of past sins that may have impacted the climate. Oddly enough, the wealth would move from free countries to countries where the  money would go to tyrants leading the country and not to the poorer people who might actually need it.

For anyone new to reading this blog, one of the most informative sites on the internet for valid information on climate change is wattsupwiththat. I strongly recommend checking that site periodically to see the next stunt attempted by those who will profit greatly if they can convince the rest of us that we cause climate change.

From A Friend On Facebook

PolarBearsThe picture above was taken from an article posted at The Federalist Papers.

The article states:

The Journal of Ecology and Evolution published the study conducted by researchers from Canada’s Lakehead University, which concludes that, while evidence shows that there is “reason for concern”, polar bears are not suffering the “climate crisis” that environmental activists would have you believe.

Our perspectives on climate warming and Arctic sea ice decline are developed from an empirical examination of the open-source data on various indicators of these phenomena. We see reason for concern, but find no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis. We suggest that the qualitative projections for dramatic reductions in population numbers and range are overly pessimistic given the response of polar bears, climate, and sea ice to the present.

We show that much of the scientific evidence indicating that some polar bear subpopulations are declining due to climate change-mediated sea ice reductions is likely flawed by poor mark–recapture (M-R) sampling and that the complex analysis models employed to overcome these capture issues apparently fail to provide accurate estimates of the demographic parameters used to determine subpopulation status.

The science of man-made climate change is not a science–it is a religion designed to set up the United Nations as the controller of the world. The goal is to redistribute the wealth of free, wealthy countries to tyrannies that are not economically successful so that tyrants can build magnificent palaces while their people starve. The earth’s climate has been changing since long before we got here, and it will continue to change in the future. I believe that we are obligated to keep the earth as clean as possible and to control pollution. We are also obligated to set up economic systems that allow people to prosper. Those screaming ‘global warming or climate change’ have no intention of actually helping the poor. Their plans are to use the climate as an excuse for wealth distribution.

Don’t Look For This In The Mainstream Media

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article yesterday about climate change scientists and the alarmism that seems to follow people who talk about climate change.

That article states:

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Mad as they are, Edenhofer’s comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

Please note that Cristiana Figueres, when talking about the Convention on Climate Change, was not talking about climate–she was talking about economic development. Naomi Klein has written a book, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”

The article notes:

“What if global warming isn’t only a crisis?” Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. “What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”

In her mind, the world has to “change, or be changed” because an “economic system” — meaning free-market capitalism — has caused environmental “wreckage.”

The problem with the thinking that free-market capitalism is the cause of poverty is that it ignores some very obvious things and also ignores history. Because of the Charters they carried with them when they settled America, both the Pilgrims and the Jamestown settlers were committed to a communal economy. The land was held and farmed in common–there was not individual ownership and farming of land. That lasted until the first harvest, when the leaders realized that no one was working very hard and, particularly in New England, there was not enough food. When the Pilgrims instituted land ownership and individual farming where farmers sold and bartered crops, the harvest increased noticeably. Free-market capitalism understands some very basic facts about human nature–people work harder when they are rewarded for their work and if people receive benefits for not working hard, they don’t work hard. If people receive benefits for not working at all, they tend not to work.

Global warming or climate change is nothing more than a scheme to redistribute wealth and to bring the governments of the world under the control of the United Nations. Since the United Nations has lost its way and no longer supports freedom, I am not convinced that is a good idea.

When Facts Get In The Way

Top Right News posted a story today about the wonderfully warm weather we are having this Christmas. I never thought weather would get political, but that’s where we are now.

The article includes the following quote:

Science advocate Bill Nye explained on Tuesday that many parts of the United States were expected to see record temperatures over the Christmas holiday because of weather patterns associated with climate change.

But Nye chastised meteorologists for refusing to utter the words “climate change” to their viewers. “We have a situation where no one in regular television will say the phrase ‘climate change,’” Nye declared, calling out MSNBC meteorologists by name. “Nobody will mention this phrase. But the world’s getting warmer!”

Facts are inconvenient things. The article also includes the following quote from Real Science:

Christmas Eve 1955 was much warmer. Three fourths of the country was over 60 degrees, and Ashland Kansas,  Geary Oklahoma and Encinal Texas were all over 90 degrees. Fort Lauderdale was 85 degrees. All of the stations below were over 60 degrees on Christmas Eve, 1955.

Last winter, the East Coast had record cold. That was ignored because it was “less than 1% of the Earth.”  But this week, the Eastern US defines the global climate.

In Irving Berlin’s 1954 musical “White Christmas” – the story line was 70 degrees in Vermont on Christmas eve and no snow. That was why they were “Dreaming of a White Christmas”

The article at Top Right News notes that in 1955 the greenhouse gases were 80 percent lower than in 2015. So what caused the warm temperatures then?

Facts are inconvenient things.

I Can’t Believe He Said That

I watched some of the Democratic Party presidential debate last night. I will confess that I did not last very long. I did, however, hang around long enough to hear the following statement as reported in The Daily Caller:

Sen. Bernie Sanders stood by his claim that while he wants to rid the world of ISIS, climate change remains the “greatest threat to national security.”

Sanders said this to CBS debate moderator John Dickerson who had just asked the candidates their thoughts on the recent terror attacks in Paris.

“Do you still believe that?” Dickerson asked.

“Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism and if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see countries all over the world,” Sanders said.

Admittedly,  limited resources can cause international conflicts. However, if the free market system is allowed to function freely, innovation can overcome shortages. For instance, Iceland has a rather limited growing season. As you drive through the country, you see greenhouses everywhere. The greenhouses are heated by the geothermal energy that is so abundant in Iceland. That is an example of overcoming a climate-related problem. Since many scientists now believe that global cooling is more likely than global warming, this may be valuable information in the future. America does not have vast amounts of geothermal energy, but given a free market without interference, I suspect we could find a way to feed people despite global cooling.

At any rate, climate change is inevitable. It has been a part of the history of the earth since there was a history of the earth. As some of the scandals in the climate data have come to light, it has been revealed that the earth suffered a period of global warming during the Middle Ages. Carbon emissions were not an issue during that time, but people in Greenland were farming.

At any rate, climate change is not an immediate threat, and there is some real question as to how much we could impact it if it were. I strongly suggest that we focus on ISIS. They are a proven danger that demands an answer.

If Your Premise Is Secure, You Don’t Mind Debate

People who are sure of what they believe usually handle opposing opinions well. People who are unsure of their facts tend to want to silence opposition. That is something to remember as you listen to some of the people claiming that climate change is going to kill us all in two years (or five years, or ten years, or whatever the latest claim is). As you listen to the hysteria, remember that in 1985, the cover of TIME magazine warned us about the coming Ice Age.

Well, one fear mongering climate change proponent has a new idea–bar global warming skeptics from high public office. So much for free speech and the right of the people to choose their candidates.

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article yesterday about John Kerry’s speech at the  Climate and Clean Energy Investment Forum.

The article quotes John Kerry’s speech:

“But when I hear a United States senator say, ‘I’m not a scientist so I can’t make a judgment,’ or a candidate for president for that matter, I’m absolutely astounded. I mean, it’s incomprehensible that a grownup who has been to high school and college in the United States of America disqualifies themselves because they’re not a scientist when they’ve learned that the Earth rotates on its axis, but they’re not a scientist; where they’ve learned that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and it does so 24 hours a day; and you can run the list of things that we know science tells us happens, and we accept it every single day.

“And to suggest that when more than 6,000-plus peer-reviewed studies of the world’s best scientists all lay out that this is happening and mankind is contributing to it, it seems to me that they disqualify themselves fundamentally from high public office with those kinds of statements.”

The authors of the article’s response:

As is often said at children’s parks all over the country, two can play this game. So we propose here that no climate change alarmist or uncritical believer in the man-made global warming story should hold high, medium or even low public office. It makes sense. Almost all of those who meet these descriptions are either: 1) political opportunists who are simply saying the right things to a voting bloc or some other group whose support they’re courting, or 2) the sort of folks who haven’t given the issue enough thought, in most cases because they don’t want to.

Spare us the nonsense about “6,000-plus peer reviewed studies” and the new perennial favorite “97% of scientists say man is warming the planet.” The first is either a poorly done study or con job, and the second is … either a poorly done study or con job .

Actually, we don’t mind if those who believe in man-made global warming hold office, as long as they came by their views honestly. What we do mind is believers using office to hector us all incessantly about our prosperous lifestyles, and enact policies that won’t change Earth’s temperature one bit but sure will overwhelm developed economies. The rest of us shouldn’t have to pay the price of their opinions.

For the best scientific information on the truth in climate change, I recommend wattsupwiththat.com.

The Truth On Climate Change Is Slowly Coming Out

Global warming is the latest gimmick by some establishment politicians (on both sides of the aisle) to gain more control over the way Americans live. Somehow all of the suggested solutions will cripple healthy economies, limit personal freedom in America, and give money to dictators in banana republics. The major polluters–China and India–remain unaffected by any suggested solutions. Those of us who are skeptical have been called everything from morons to the modern day flat earth society. Again I would like to mention that the best scientific website on climate is wattsupwiththat. Meanwhile, some of the scientists forced to skew their results to promote the idea of global warming are beginning to speak out.

A website called JoNova has posted an article about the skewing of science to support the political theory of global warming.

The article states:

David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds. Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.

But jobs are on the line, so only retired workers can really speak, and no one can name names.

We can corroborate David Dilley’s remarks. Indeed, he is probably just one of many skeptics hidden in the ranks of NOAA.  Way back in 2007, David Evans got an email from a different insider within NOAA, around the time he started talking publicly about the missing hotspot. The insider said, remarkably: “As a Meteorologist working for [snip, name of division] it has been clear to me, as well as every single other scientist I know at NOAA, that man can not be the primary cause of global warming and that the predictions of “gloom and doom” due to rising temperatures is ridiculous”.

…Dilley was invited to speak about natural cycles (at the University of Maine), but just before the event mysterious “staff shortages” meant his speech was canceled. Oddly, a different speech suddenly appeared in it’s place.

Considering the cost of college tuition these days, shouldn’t students be allowed to hear both sides of an argument?

The Most Accurate Weather Predictor

Oddly enough, the group of people who have most accurately predicted weather in recent years are the writers of the Farmer’s Almanac. There is a reason many American farmers rely on their advice on when to plant and when to harvest–they are generally right.

On Monday The Daily Caller posted an article about the successful prediction record of The Farmer’s Almanac vs. the global warming people.

The article reports:

Who cares what a folksy book of hocus pocus for farmers says about the weather? We know better. Al Gore, Barack Obama, and the supposed consensus of 97 percent of climate scientists all say global warming, climate change, is real. They base their reasoning on “solar cycles, climatology, and meteorology” which happens to be what the Old Farmer’s Almanac uses for its forecast too.

So who’s right? Last year the Almanac predicted, “Snowfall will be above normal in most of the Northeast.” Turns out Boston set a new record for the snowiest season. Eight years ago, “Al Gore predicted that the North Pole could be completely liquidated by 2014 due to the impending threat of global warming.” Instead the Arctic ice cap is growing.

It seems global warming only exists in the world of computer models. And how accurate are these predictions? When tropical storm Sandy became a hurricane, the forecast track was all over the map, literally. Most models had her heading to Bermuda and only a few tracks leading to the New York metro area. This was only five days before she made landfall in New Jersey.

It is ironic that the people who have been so often wrong are the ones guiding U.S. energy, economic, and foreign policy. It is also ironic that none of the computer models that have predicted global warming have proven to be accurate. The global warming debate has consistently been an area where politics has trumped science. That is unfortunate for all of us.

Just as a reminder in case you are new to this site, the best website on the Internet for information on global warming is wattsupwiththat.com. On occasion the site can be a bit overly technical, but it is a great source of information on climate change.

Following The Money On Climate Change

On July 30, The Insurance Journal posted an article about the climate change industry. Yes, you read that right. Climate change has become an industry.

This is a chart taken from the article:

Source: Climate Change Business Journal

The article reports:

On Monday the final version of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Power Plan, national air pollution regulation aimed at curbing carbon emissions from power plants, is scheduled to be released.

Ferrier believes the plan may eventually prove to be a driver of further growth in the industry. That is if the plan withstands any legal challenges from states, industries and entities opposed to it.

“I think the EPA’s Clean Power Plan has a lot more teeth to it than many other attempts of the past,” Ferrier said. “I think we’ll see more (growth) out of that.”

Following this more climate change policy could come out of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December, also called COP21 or CMP11.

“I think we’ll see the U.S. and China possibly make more comprehensive commitments rather than at past meetings, where they let the European leadership of the group make commitments while they sat on the sidelines,” Ferrier said.

Policy, or the anticipation of new policy, has been one of the biggest drivers of the industry, the report shows.

I suppose we need to give the Obama Administration credit for growing the economy at least in one area. The fact that his policies are causing Americans to lower their standard of living and taking away our freedoms and national sovereignty does not seem to bother the President.

It’s Getting Harder To Know Who To Believe

Yes, I know that should be ‘whom’ to believe, but who sounds better. Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line today about another scientific fraud. For those of you who still believe that you are responsible for global warming, please see any post at wattsupwiththat to find out how climate scientists have been fudging their data. For those of you concerned about statistical information concerning support for gay marriage, stay tuned.

The article at Power Line states:

New York magazine has a terrific piece up this weekend that tells the whole story of how the Green-LaCour Science magazine article on changing support for gay marriage by way of a canvas was exposed as a fraud—by another graduate student. It’s a long piece, but worth an extra-grande latte and a good slow read. In addition to the details of the fraud itself—which involved LaCour fabricating emails with a non-existent senior executive at the survey company he said he used—there are some clear subtexts of this article that reveal endemic problems within the world of academic political science.

The article at Power Line is complex and takes time to read. It is worth it to take the time to read the entire article, but if you are impatient, this is the conclusion:

Even if the data had been gathered legitimately, there is simply no way to assure data quality in a survey exercise of this sort, and by its very design it likely pre-determined the outcome. Even if legitimate, this study was close to useless for the serious business of settling our moral disagreements about gay marriage. That ought to be as much of a scandal to academic political science as fake data. For all of its statistical sophistication, this study was entirely superficial.

By the way, for further reading, here is the devastating review (PDF file) of the LaCour-Green paper that Broockman and two co-authors produced.

Again, the things that we are told are scientific facts are not always as they are explained to us. It is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish science from politics.

 

This Is What The Egyptian Media Thinks Of President Obama

This was posted on YouTube on May 20th, after President Obama gave a speech at the Coast Guard Academy stating that climate change was the biggest threat to America. The video shows some Egyptian news commentators reacting to President Obama’s speech:

Remember President Obama’s campaign promise to restore the image of America in the eyes of the world?

It Is Time The Government Defunded This Agency–They Lie

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line today about the scientific practices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Evidently, when data does not illustrate what they want it to, they simply alter the data.

Now Mike Brakey, an engineering physicist and heat transfer specialist, has caught NOAA revising historic temperature data for Maine–as always, to make the past look cooler and the present warmer by comparison:

Over the last months I have discovered that between 2013 and 2015 some government bureaucrats have rewritten Maine climate history… (and New England’s and of the U.S.). This statement is not based on my opinion, but on facts drawn from NOAA 2013 climate data vs. NOAA 2015 climate data after they re-wrote it.

We need only compare the data. They cooked their own books.

The article includes a chart illustrating that fact. Please follow the link above the view the chart.

The article also includes the following graph:

Brakey_2

We are paying taxpayer money to be lied to in order to promote a political agenda. It is time to take their money away.

Sometimes The Earth Just Doesn’t Cooperate With The Scientists

The Daily Caller posted an article today about some recent occurrences involving Arctic ice.

The article reports:

For years, scientists have been warning the Arctic was in a “death spiral” and could soon be ice-free during the summertime and shrink to unprecedented levels due to man-made global warming. Such ice loss could be “irreversible,” some scientists claimed.

But new research from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography says that predictions of an ice-free Arctic are based on “oversimplified” theories. Scripps researchers, who were co-funded by the Navy, found that the Arctic sea ice may be “substantially more stable than has been suggested in previous idealized modeling studies.”

I should probably point out at this point that I am not in favor of dirty water, dirty air, or any other sort of pollution. I just have serious doubts as to whether the earth is warming or whether man actually has anything to do with any climate change that is occurring.

There were many predictions saying that Arctic Ice would be gone by 2030–the levels of ice had decreased in 2007, 2008, and 2009, and some scientists were saying that the ice would not come back. However, that is not what has happened.

The article concludes:

NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) and European satellite data show that multi-year sea ice made a big comeback in 2013 and 2014 — increasing from 2.25 to 3.17 million square kilometers during that time and making up 43 percent of the north pole’s ice pack.

In fact, Arctic sea ice extent as a whole seems to be stabilizing despite this year’s record low maximum in February. NSIDC data shows Arctic sea ice extent is currently within the normal range based on the 1981 to 2010 average extent.

“Global sea ice is at a record high, another key indicator that something is working in the opposite direction of what was predicted,” Dr. Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, told the U.K. Express in January.

“Most people think the poles are melting… they’re not,” he said. “This is a huge inconvenience that reality is now catching up with climate alarmists, who were predicting that the poles would be melting fairly soon.”

Global warming is not a proven fact. Until it is, it would be foolish for industrialized nations to cripple their economies to accommodate faulty science. Again, we need to cut down on pollution simply because it is a bad thing, but we do not have to go overboard to create a result that is questionable at best.

 

Using The Government To Punish Those Who Don’t Agree With You

One of the side effects of having a petulant person in the White House is that anytime someone contradicts the wishes of the White House there is retribution of some sort. This has now extended to the matter of Climate Change.

On Thursday, The Weather Channel posted an article entitled, “FEMA Won’t Help States That Don’t Plan For Climate Change.” Thank about that for a moment. The federal government should be willing to help all states in case of emergency. Climate Change is not settled science, and no natural catastrophe has ever been linked to climate change. In fact, as climate change believers howl about increased damage from hurricanes, the amount of hurricanes since 2005 have gone down significantly. Also, the true numbers (rightwinggranny.com) show that the earth has not warmed for more than a decade.

The article at The Weather Channel reports:

States publish reports every five years or so detailing their vulnerability to natural disasters, such as floods, storms and wildfires, and how they plan to protect themselves and recover after them. Such plans are needed in order to qualify for a share of nearly $1 billion in Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants provided every year by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

But those plans rarely consider climate change impacts in detail — an omission that could see states become ineligible for the grants after new guidelines take effect early next year. Under FEMA’s updated guidelines, published last week, state disaster plans will only be approved if they adequately describe how the likelihood and intensity of natural hazards could be affected by growing levels of greenhouse gas pollution.

“The risk assessment must provide a summary of the probability of future hazard events,” the new guidelines state. “Probability must include considerations of changing future conditions, including the effects of long-term changes in weather patterns and climate.”

This is more of the government attempting to control the debate. Why does the government support global warming? If the earth is warming at a catastrophic rate, the government will have to take action (thus gaining more control over its citizens). It is interesting that study grants are more like to be given to groups that support global warming than groups that do not.

From a comment left at wattsupwiththat:

Sir Harry Flashman says;

If you can tell me where to line up for my AGW money I’d really appreciate cause I could use a few extra bucks right now.

Well you could try applying for a grant from The Rockefeller Brothers Fund:

From 2003 to present;

Bill McKibben’s;
Step it Up ($200,000)
1Sky.org ($2,100,000)
350.org ($875,000)

Total RBF grants to Mckibben = $3,175,000

Al Gore’s – Alliance for Climate Protection = $250,000
David Suzuki Foundation = $185,000

The Sierra Club = $1,665,000
Friends of the Earth = $777,500
Friends of the Earth International = $290,000
The Pacific Institute (President; Peter Gleick) = $670,000
Greenpeace Fund = $550,000
Center for Climate Strategies = $5,171,600
The Union of Concerned Scientists = $75,000
Media Matters for America = $375,000
Environmental Defense Fund = $550,000
Natural Resources Defense Council = $1,660,000
National Wildlife Federation = $1,025,000

Sceptic ‘think tanks’;
The Heartland Institute
The Cato Institute
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

= $0.00

That pretty much tells the story.

There Seems To Be Some Disagreement About This

When the world stopped getting warmer, global warming became climate change. Those saying that man was causing climate change did not seem to understand that the climate routinely changed before man invented the wheel. Scientists have found evidence of agriculture under the ice of Greenland. Under current conditions, that is unthinkable.

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line today about the latest climate numbers on 2014.

This graph was part of the article:

This chart shows Northern Hemisphere temperature changes over the last 10,000 years, based on ice core data. Dr. Ball explains: “The red line, added to the original diagram, imposes the approximate 20th century temperatures (right side) against those of the last 10,000 years.”

clip_image0211

The article also contains a chart illustrating how the temperature numbers are ‘adjusted’ to make sure they achieve the desired results.

The article concludes:

So next time one of your liberal friends tells you that 2014 was the hottest year on record, and therefore we must turn what is left of our economy over to the Obama administration, you can tell him that actually, 2014 was one of the 3% coldest years of the last 10,000.

The real name for what some scientists are calling climate change is weather.

Was 2014 Really The Hottest Year On Record?

We all remember seeing cartoons showing people holding signs saying, “The End Is Near.” The captions varied, but generally speaking the implication was that the end really wasn’t near. That is where we find ourselves with recent headlines stating that 2014 was the hottest year in the history of the earth.

The following chart appears on the website green-agenda.com:

The following chart is from Power Line:

figure-42

As you can see, the climate models show the earth getting warmer, but the actual temperatures show that the temperature of the earth has been cooling for the past ten years or so. Some scientists say that the earth has not warmed for eighteen years.

Climate Depot reports:

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano issued this statement: “There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill and the satellite was set up to be “more accurate” than the surface records. See: Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’

Any temperature claim of “hottest  year” based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous “hottest years”. This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the “hottest year” is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. “Hottest year” claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’. See: The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

Monckton jan 2014

As you can see, the end isn’t really near, but given today’s political climate, the easiest way to receive grant money is to claim that there is a crisis either currently occurring or about to occur. The climate is cyclical–there are natural cycles. Unfortunately, the study of normal cycles does not guarantee grant money.

Just for the record, the green-agenda website also reports:

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north.
LINK

“The climate at this time was very warm, much warmer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name “Greenland” was given to the country, not just as wishful thinking, but because it was a climatic fact at that time. The mild climatic period was fairly short-lived in geologic terms – by about 1200 AD, the ever-increasing cold was making life extremely difficult, and some years no supply ships were able to reach Greenland through the ice-choked seas. During this period, Norway had assumed responsibility for supplying the Norse settlers in Greenland, but as the climate worsened it became a very difficult task.
LINK

I really do think global warming might not be a bad thing.

Dr. Roy Spencer’s Top 10 Climate Discoveries of 2014

This comes from drroyspencer.com, the website of Dr. Roy Spencer:

Top 10 lists are popular this time of year, so I gave in to the peer pressure. Here’s my Top 10 list of totally true climate stories of 2014. Kind of like that movie “Fargo”, which was not “based on a true story”, but was a totally “true story”.

10. Weather did not even occur before Henry Ford automated the production of the automobile. No, really, look it up.

9. Climate modelers discovered that the Earth is not warming nearly as fast as their models predicted. A multi-billion dollar effort is now underway to make the climate system warm even faster.

8. The Koch Brothers were discovered to be extraterrestrials out to destroy the Earth. If you haven’t heard that yet…you are one of the stupid people who were deemed to be not trustworthy enough with the information.

7. Global sea ice reached a near record maximum, due to a bust-gut effort by Exxon-Mobil which has been making ice cubes in China and shipping them to the poles.

6. Global warming causes cooling. This had always been expected, but it was finally proved by two French literature graduates who Googled it.

5. It’s Bush’s fault.

4. A viable replacement for fossil fuels was finally discovered: Solar Freakin’ Roadways. (If solar panels tilted toward the sun and kept clean are a good idea, then putting them on the ground and running over them with 10-ton trucks is even better!)

3. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists surveyed agreed that if the global warming issue (and their government funding) went away, their careers would end.

2. The 420th U.N. climate meeting in Lima, Peru, was finally made carbon-neutral with jet travel fueled by methane gathered from unicorn herds, and carbon offsets purchased from Al Gore which will go toward planting of 5.3 billion trees which never die.

1. Carbon dioxide (necessary for life on Earth) was discovered to be different from carbon monoxide (a poisonous gas). The full implications of this finding are still being investigated, but are not expected to interfere with continuing plans to increase energy prices and keep Third World people from becoming First World.

Happy New Year!

About That Global Warming Thing

A picture is worth 1,000 words. This picture is from the U.K. Telegraph. They posted it on Saturday.

In my opinion, the best website for honest information on global warming, climate change, etc. is wattsupwiththat.com. It is scientific, but generally things are explained in a way that those of us who are not scientifically minded can understand them.

Climate change has happened on the earth since the earth began. Man is not in control of the earth’s climate. There is a very strong possibility that TIME Magazine was right when it reported in the 1980’s that we were entering another Ice Age. The only thing we can be sure of is that over time, the earth’s climate changes. We have not yet put together successful scientific models to tell us when and how the climate is changing. We simply do not know as much as some people like to think we know.