Gosh, we thought everything was “settled.” After all, Big Al said so. But when it comes to global warmists’ strategies for how to pull off this global warming swindle, er, we mean “solution,” it seems there are squabbles developing within the family.

As the Washington Post reports today:

“Is this really the time to talk about the threat of climate change?

“Now, some groups have actually muted their alarms about wildfires, shrinking glaciers, and rising seas. Not because they’ve stopped caring about them — but because they’re trying to win over people who might care more about a climate bill’s non-environmental side benefits, like ‘green’ jobs and reduced oil imports.

“Smaller environmental groups, however, say this is the wrong moment to ease up on the scare, since that might send the signal that a weaker bill is acceptable.”

Well, isn’t it refreshing to see free and open debate on something as important as which is the best way to con the public into going along with Draconian regulations, horrendous taxes and emission reductions that will roll our economy back to the horse-and-buggy days, literally?

We like the way this is developing, actually. It began with desk-pounding demands by frothing zealots that we choke off that horrid CO2 before it roasts us! We only have - what was it? 10 years? - but now less than a month, according to some.

Then some of the zealots pealed off and began a more subtle approach, even trying to claim the losses in economic productivity would be offset by gains in green jobs, whatever they are. (Anyone got one of those? Anyone got one that isn’t subsidized by someone else’s taxes?)

And then global warming morphed into “climate change,” we believe for the obvious reason it wasn’t warming any more.

Now this. A squabble within the family. Can’t we all just get along?

Gee, just wait ’til the squabbling factions get a load of Pappa Al’s latest backtracking. No telling what new strategy will emerge in light of that. Maybe they should just resort to honesty and admit they want us to look like 1912 America. But then they’d have to turn in their iPods.

RELATED POSTS:

You probably won’t read this in the mainstream press, enamored as it is with the scare-story of global warming devastation. But one of the nation’s foremost meteorologists from MIT says the global warming debate is over, all right.

But the conclusion isn’t the one popularized by those cashing in on presumed catastrophe or the one held by those who want to roll back civilization to pre-industrial prosperity. In fact, D. Richard T. Lindzen says, the proponents of anthropogenic global warming have lost the argument.

It’s not just Lindzen who says so. The science says so. Humans don’t affect climate in any meaningful way, he says.

Lindzen says if others had done their research as he has done, they would deny AGW as well. But it’s popular to parrot the presumption of global warming and its presumed resultanting catastrophe.

Dr. Lindzen related an experience with a leader from the eco-alarmist movement who said that global warming was “accelerating.” When he asked her for scientific proof of accelerating warming, she was unable to provide it.

“To think of [global warming] as accelerating is bizarre,” Lindzen said. The media make a lot out of shrinking polar ice caps, but Lindzen says there’s no such problem. Rather, ice caps grow and shrink annually based on annual climate alone-regardless of long-term climate changes.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg, as it were…

Read the rest of this entry »

This is another of those global warming oops moments. You know, when the props holding up this phony catastrophe get kicked out and its credibility start falling. Again.

It seems Habibullo Abdussamatov, the top guy at the space research unit of St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, has published a paper that concludes it is the sun’s irradiance that’s the primary factor responsible for earth’s climate variations, not carbon dioxide.

Oops.

Well, maybe the Supreme Court will rule sunlight to be a pollutant and Congress will pass a law capping sun rays. I mean, we’ve gotta curb this global warming, don’t we?

RELATED POSTS:

It probably was inevitable. After all, Al Gore won a peace prize for this nonsense. The headline from ANI news pretty much captures it:

“Global warming causes rise of gigantic mucus-like sea blobs”

I need a vacation. So I’m going to take one. See ya all in a couple weeks. (Go Dodgers!)

What would happen if the whole underlying theory of global warming evaporated? Well, as we’ve been saying for years now, the supposed cause-and-effect relationship between greenhouse gases and alleged global warming just ain’t necessarily so.

Otherwise, we wouldn’t see temperatures rise then warming occur for hundreds of years. It’s supposed to work the other way around. It’s hard to cause what’s already happened. If anything, the temperature rising might explain the increase in CO2. But enough of us.

Here we have U.S. News & World Report (another of those flaky deniers - just kidding) reporting about a guy, yes, yet another guy, with credentials making our case:

“A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for Earth and don’t cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.

“I’m trying to kill the whole thing,” he says. “We are tilting at windmills.” He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.

“Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What’s more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.

Read the rest of this entry »

The furor about alleged global warming is declining even faster than global temperatures, which have been headed south for more than a decade.

“The great global warming scare is over - it is well past its peak, very much a spent force, sputtering in fits and starts to a whimpering end,” writes Lawrence Solomon. He adds that most Americans don’t blame humans for climate change and consider whatever warming may have occurred as natural.

In ranking peoples’ concerns, global warming came in dead last: “Fewer than 1 percent chose global warming as scare-worthy.”

“By the end of this year the whole charade of climate alarmism will be in tatters,” agrees Will Alexander, emeritus professor of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria, South Africa.

“The whole climate change issue is rapidly disintegrating. There is no possibility of a meaningful agreement being reached at Copenhagen for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012. The developing nations have made it clear that combating poverty and increasing the welfare of their citizens are higher priorities.”

Then there’s CATO’s Patrick J. Michaels who notes: “Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.” And he thinks he knows why.

AFP, the foreign news service, adds an exclamation point: “A top aide to US President Barack Obama said there was virtually no chance Congress would have a climate and energy bill ready for him to sign before negotiations on a global climate treaty begin in December in Copenhagen.”

“Not a single scientist,” says Stanley Goldenberg, NOAA meterorologist, “at the National Hurricane Center, the Hurricane Research Division, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center . . . believes that hurricanes -  numbers, activity - that there’s any measurable impact from any so-called global warming.”

“A 2C rise in global temperatures will not necessarily result in the calamity predicted…” said China’s most senior climatologist.

As Solomon puts it: “…why should they believe anything that comes from the global warming camp? Not only has the globe not warmed over the last decade but the Arctic ice is returning, the Antarctic isn’t shrinking, polar bear populations aren’t diminishing, hurricanes aren’t becoming more extreme. The only thing that’s scary about the science is the frequency with which doomsayer data is hidden from public scrutiny, manipulated to mislead, or simply made up.”

But is it too late to avoid the damage - not from warming - but from warmists:

Read the rest of this entry »

As time marches on, global warming alarmism becomes more shrill, evidence against it more overwhelming and those hanging their political futures on it retreat faster and faster.

Consider these recent turns:

“For those of you who don’t know, the surface temperature of the globe, as a whole, has not warmed-up by anyone’s calculation since at least the turn of the century (January 2001) and depending on your dataset and statistical technique of choice, perhaps as far back as January 1997. And all of this non-warming occurred over a period of time during which the global emissions of CO2 increased faster than ever before (thanks primarily to China). In fact, anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing is about 5 percent greater now than a decade ago (about 16 parts per million).” - Chip Knappenberger, 20 years of experience as a climate researcher, including with the Virginia State Climatology Office

“Barack Obama has talked down the importance of sealing a global deal on climate change before the end of the year, world leaders said yesterday. Obama’s comments contradict the United Nations and others, who have billed the meeting as a crucial moment for the world to avoid catastrophic global warming. Obama’s comments could jeopardise efforts to get the most comprehensive agreement possible, said observers.” - Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian 25, September 2009

“By taking a snapshot in time, and by ignoring the history and the ecology of the Arctic, global warming alarmists can make a grim case for a disappearing Arctic, and even fool themselves. In May of this year, a six-country effort involving 20 scientists an aircraft outfitted with precision equipment to Canada’s Arctic in an expedition designed to prove that the Arctic ice was thinning. The expedition found the opposite…” - Lawrence Solomon, The Financial Post

RELATED POSTS:

If you read only headlines, you might think China and the U.S. have agreed to declare global warming peace in our time, ala Neville Chamberlain in another era and another issue.

After all, one nearly local newspaper reported this optimistic headline: “U.S., China seek to reignite global talks on climate change”

But what’s does what happened at the U.N. really mean in the faux fight to rid us of a non-threatening threat? A few observations, courtesy this round-up by Benny Peiser:

None of the alarmists and their supercomputer climate models ever
predicted even a 30-year respite in their apocalyptic scenarios. Neither
did they predict the sun, that thermonuclear furnace in the sky that has
more influence on earth’s climate than any number of Ford Explorers,
would suddenly go quiet for an indefinite period. Latif and others
conclude that, at the very least, we have time to think about it and
analyze and learn. We don’t have to fight global warming by inflicting
global poverty. More things on Earth affect climate than are dreamed up
in computer models.
–Investor’s Business Daily, 22 September 2009

Copenhagen was essentially sidelined yesterday at another event, UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s Climate Change Summit in New York.
There, along with Chinese leader Hu Jintao, U.S. President Barack Obama
more or less shuffled climate control policy off into the great
dreamscape of unattainable plans and long range objectives. Like
equality for all and peace in our time, the world will have to wait for
sweeping and binding climate policy.
–Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, 22 September 2009

The UN Climate Change Summit in New York managed to produce a concrete
result. It has nothing to do with CO2 reduction targets, however, but
with a simple political insight: Forget Copenhagen! The chances that the
Copenhagen summit will deliver more than just a non-binding framework
agreement decreased further on Tuesday. They now tend towards zero.
Therefore, it would be best to postpone the climate conference until the
United States is ready to agree to clear progress in negotiations.
Otherwise, there is a real danger that a compromise formula in
Copenhagen would make any progress impossible for years to come because
the big climate sinners could hide behind the agreement.
–Editorial, Financial Times Deutschland, 22 September 2009

Read the rest of this entry »

We read where you can pay someone at the airport to ease your conscience for catching a greenhouse gas-spewing jetliner.

It works like this: kiosks with touch screens determine how many pounds of carbon dioxide your trip will produce. Then the device calculates the sum an environmentally conscious traveler should contribute to “help reduce greenhouse gases.” Then the machine sucks the appropriate amount of your money out of your credit card and you can fly conscience cleansed to your destination.

The cash will be used to plant a tree or some such thing. Of course, who’s to say? Wouldn’t a savvy tree planter cash in on this scheme? If he were going to plant the tree anyway, why not get you to cough up a few bucks with the misleading assurance that without your money the tree never would have been planted? Who’s gonna police this scam?

This brings to mind countless other potential scams, er, environmentally friendly programs. How about you send me money anytime you drive your car and I promise to offset the carbon footprint you’re leaving all over the freeway?

I could, well, I could water the plants in my backyard. It’s not quite planting a tree, but it’s nourishing greenery, which will grow and absorb some of that CO2 you’re generating.

Of course, there’s the downside. That drought thing. Maybe simultaneously I could promise not to water my backyard plants if well-intentioned water conservations send me money. That way I can get paid to water and not to water.

Since I’d get paid either way, how about I do neither and jetliner travelers and water conservationists both send me money? Maybe I can get Al Gore to invest. He seems to have a knack for making a buck at stuff like this.

Today’s Global Warming Factoid of the Day comes courtesy Patrick J. Michaels. Another nutty crank? Not exactly. His credentials include:

• Distinguished Senior Fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University.
• Past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
• Program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society.
• Published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature and Science.

Mr. Michaels observes that the urgently needed (to save us from global warming) cap and trade legislation in Congress is being shunted aside because of the inconvenient facts of: “the earth’s reluctance to warm in the last decade along with new projections saying that we could go another ten years without much warming.”

Oops. We thought this warming danger was inevitable and imminent.

Says Mr. Michaels: “The lack of warming is an embarrassment to any elected official who has been hiding behind ‘the science is settled’ fig leaf in order to promote cap-and-trade. While every scientist will tell you that indeed the surface temperature of the planet is warmer than it was a century ago (that’s the ’settled’ part of global warming science), very few scientists anticipated as long a period without warming as we are in. In other words, the real science of future warming is completely unsettled.”

RELATED POSTS: