From King Of The World To Chicken Of The Sea: James Cameron Backs Out Of Global Warming Public Debate

Before we get into the details, let’s look at some of Cameron’s more outspoken moments:

Director James Cameron Unleashed: Calls for gun fight with global warming skeptics: “I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads” Cameron: “If we don’t do something, we’re all going to die! What’s it going to take, a big f#cking disaster with all kinds of people dying?” March 1, 2010 – Grist Mag. Cameron: “Anybody that is a global-warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their ass I’m not sure they could hear me.” March 24, 2010

We heard him loud and clear, especially when he agreed to a public debate about Global Warming in Aspen, Colorado this past weekend. But, he decided to back out.

From Climate Depot:

Hollywood director James Cameron challenged three high profile global warming skeptics to a public debate at a global warming and energy conference. But Cameron backed out of the debate at the last minute after environmentalists “came out of the woodwork” to warn him not to engage in a debate with skeptics because it was not in his best interest. Cameron challenged Andrew Breitbart, Climate Depot’s Marc Morano and filmmaker Ann McElhinney of ‘Not Evil Just Wrong.’ The debate was already in the program for the Aspen American Renewable Energy Day (AREDAY) summit. The website program described the agreed to debate as “AREDAY Climate Change Debate: Reality or Fiction?” After setting up the public global warming debate, Cameron and his negotiator then changed formats multiple times and initially said it would be open to the media and then said he would only participate if it was private with no recording devices. The skeptics agreed to all the changes. According to AREDAY organizers, activist Joseph Romm of Climate Progress urged Cameron not to go ahead with the debate as well.

Why are all the Global Warming alarmists so afraid of public debate? Is it because of the scientific fraud that was made public by the East Anglia emails? Is it because the satellites used by NOAA for ground temperature measurements were found to be severely out of calibration?

Whatever the reason, it is clear that Global Warming alarmists like Al Gore and James Cameron do not want to have certain issues and pieces of information discussed in a public venue for fear of being exposed as frauds.

There is no good reason whatsoever to hide information from the public about this issue, yet the Global Warming alarmist crowd seems dead set on doing just that.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

From King Of The World To Chicken Of The Sea: Director James Cameron Challenges Climate Skeptics To Debate And Then Bails Out At Last Minute
Marc Morano
Climate Depot
August 23, 2010

“The level of non-disclosure of adverse data we saw was perhaps perfectly acceptable.”

The quote in the title came from Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit. It clearly shows how the AGW alarmist crowd is perfectly willing to unethically manipulte data and information to prove their cause.

No true scientist would ever accept any level of “non-disclosure” for anything. Non-disclosure is simply another way of saying “hiding the truth.”

From the American Thinker:

After Apollo 17 moonwalker Dr. Harrison Schmitt, gave a wonderful presentation on climate policy from a constitutional standpoint, Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre took the podium to discuss Climategate and the valuable role he played in uncovering the scandal. But after walking us through the Briffa and Mann reconstructions, Mike’s Nature Trick, the conspiratorial emails and other unscrupulous goings on at CRU, Steve stopped quite a bit short of passing judgment on the co-conspirators. In fact, referring to those who have obstructed the truth about the “hockey stick” and thereby climate sensitivity itself, Steve – who admitted he had no problem with governments dictating energy policy — suggested only that their “tricks” be disavowed and “such practices be avoided in the future.” During the Q&A segment that followed, Bass let us in on something McIntyre told him upon ending his presentation – that the rousing standing ovation from the audience Steve received before his talk began and decidedly less enthusiastic and predominately seated reaction afterwards didn’t go unnoticed. When questioned why Mann, Jones, and company shouldn’t be thrown in jail, Steve surprised and, no doubt, disappointed many in attendance. He approached CRU’s trickery as “academic misconduct,” stating that in academic circles the level of non-disclosure of adverse data we saw was perhaps perfectly acceptable.

No. What they’ve have done and are doing is completely reprehensible and will only serve to undermine the public’s trust of real science.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

ICCC 4 Opens With A Climategate Surprise
Marc Sheppard
American Thinker
May 18, 2010

The Great Hoax Of The 21st Century (Global Warming)

This comes from Patrick Buchanan over at Human Events Online. Given the revelations that British and Australian Media outlets have exposed concerning things like the Univeristy of East Anglia email scandal and the fact that IPCC insiders knew that their Himalayan glacier reports were false, Global Warming is shaping up to be the scientific hoax of the 21st Century.

Oh, and let’s not forget the actions of Dr. James Hansen:

Dr. James Hansen: Unethically Manipulating The Data (Global Warming Junk Science)

Dr. James Hansen Admits The True Goal Of Global Warming Alarmists: Socialist Redistribution Of Wealth

Dr. James Hansen Gets It Wrong Again

Buchanan briefly describes the biggest hoaxes of the 20th Century (i.e. Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man) before looking into the newest scientific hoax to date:

But if Piltdown Man and his American cousin Nebraska Man were the hoaxes of the 20th century, global warming is the great hoax of the 21st. In a matter of months, what have we learned: — In its 2007 report claiming that the Himalayan glaciers are melting, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on a 1999 news story in a popular science journal, based on one interview with a little-known Indian scientist who said this was pure “speculation,” not supported by any research. The IPCC also misreported the supposed date of the glaciers’ meltdown as 2035. The Indian had suggested 2350. — The IPCC report that global warming is going to kill 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields 50 percent has been found to be alarmist propaganda. — The IPCC 2007 report declared 55 percent of Holland to be below sea level, an exaggeration of over 100 percent. — While endless keening is heard over the Arctic ice cap, we hear almost nothing of the 2009 report of the British Antarctica Survey that the sea ice cap of Antarctica has been expanding by 100,000 square kilometers a decade for 30 years. That translates into 3,800 square miles of new Antarctic ice every year. — Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009 hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the warmers said this validated their theory. You can’t have it both ways. — The Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, which provides the scientific backup for the IPCC, apparently threw out the basic data on which it based claims of a rise in global temperatures for the century. And a hacker into its e-mail files found CRU “scientists” had squelched the publication of dissenting views.

Yep. This is what people on the left call “science.” To them, “science” is that which agrees with their political philosophy and encompasses nothing that goes counter to their political philosophy. Hence the massive fraud.

You can access the complete essay on-line here:

Hoax Of The Century
Pat Buchanan
Human Events Online
March 2, 2010

Democrat Senators: Cap And Trade Should Be Delayed Until Next Year

I wholeheartedly agree. Let’s postpone debate on Cap-And-Tax until the 2010 election year. It will be one of the next big fights after we’ve defeated Obamacare.

From Daniel Whitten and Simon Lomax of Bloomberg:

The U.S. Senate should abandon efforts to pass legislation curbing greenhouse-gas emissions this year and concentrate on a narrower bill to require use of renewable energy, four Democratic lawmakers say. “The problem of doing both of them together is that it becomes too big of a lift,” Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said in an interview last week. “I see the cap-and-trade being a real problem.”

Lincoln isn’t the only one. Anyone who has read the Cap-And-Tax bill knows that it will cause energy prices to “skyrocket” which is exactly what Obama said he wanted to see happen.

More:

Ben Nelson of Nebraska and North Dakota Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan joined Lincoln in suggesting that the climate measure be put off. “We should separate the energy bill from the climate bill,” Conrad told reporters this month. ‘It needs to be done as soon as we can get it done,” he said, referring to the energy legislation. Climate legislation would require 60 votes in the Senate. Most Republicans have said they oppose the cap-and-trade measure, and at least 15 of the Senate’s 60-member Democratic majority have said the House-passed version would hurt the economy and needs to be revamped to win their support.

You have to wonder if all the pressure we are putting on Congress over socialized medicine is starting to force some sanity on these people.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Climate Change Measure Should Be Set Aside, U.S. Senators Say
Daniel Whitten and Simon Lomax
Bloomberg.com
August 14, 2009

July Of Records, Cold Records, That Is

Once again, hat tip to Watts Up With That? for this one.

If you’ve been listening to Old Media weather reports then you’ve at least heard mention of Seattle and the record heat there. You’ve probably also heard nothing but silence about the many places that are experiencing record low temperatures for the month of July:

Coldest July Ever For Grand Rapids, Michigan
Grand Rapids Weather Examiner
August 1, 2009

Coldest July On Record For Huntington, West Virginia
WOWK-TV
August 1, 2009

Coolest July Ever For Fort Wayne, Indiana
Indiana’s NewsCenter
August 1, 2009

July Was Coldest On Record For International Falls, Minnesota
FOX 21 News
August 1, 2009

That Was The Coldest July In Dubuque, Iowa Ever
Dubuque Telegraph Herald
August 1, 2009

This is an example of how the AGW alarmist crowd cherry picks its information and data, rather than stepping back and looking at the entire picture. All they want you to know about is Seattle, but real scientists want everyone to see all of the data.

You can access the complete blog-entry on-line here:

Roundup Of Some Interesting July Weather Records
Watts Up With That?
August 2, 2009

As The Cap And Trade Energy Tax Heads To The Senate, We Must Look At Who Will Profit From It

One of the principles of ethics that should govern politicians and their dealings with the private sector is that politicians should not be voting on legislation that directly involves their own personal investments. Ideally, politicians shouldn’t be investing in the market at all since they can vote to influence the market in their favor. If they do have investments in the private sector, then they should recuse themsleves from voting on any legislation that would influence the profitability of those investments.

The Cap and Trace Energy Tax recently passed by the House of Representatives is a good case in point. Several lawmakers will enjoy direct financial benefits from the legislation should it become law. Among these are Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

How much money will Pelosi make if the measure (Obama-Waxman-Markey (OWM)) becomes law, as seems quite likely? Pelosi, of course, is not the only member of Congress to own significant shares of energy companies. Senators and representatives from all over the country do, not just the “oilies” from energy states like Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. But as House Speaker, Pelosi’s ownership of an unknown number of shares in the Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) valued at between $15,000 and $50,000, may deserve particular attention. … Pelosi will profit because OWM will boost the price of natural gas on the market. This is because natural gas burns with significantly less carbon emissions than other fossil fuels. For companies trying to get under OWM limits for greenhouse gases emissions, burning more natural gas instead of, say coal, will be a no-brainer. That will drive up demand for natural gas, which in turn will create upward price pressures.

Pelosi claims that her husband handles the stocks and that she has no knowledge of what stocks he is purchasing. This is an irrelevent cop-out. Mr. Pelosi knows very well what legislation his wife is working on and whether or not it is likely to be passed. He further knows what effect such legislation would have on the stocks he will be purchasing. That is the same thing as insider trading and that makes it every bit as unethical as it would be if Speaker Pelosi purchased the stocks herself.

Rather than fulfill her 2006 promise of ridding D.C. of the culture of corruption, Pelosi and her fellow Dems simply claimed the cess pool as their own, jumped in and began splashing around.

You can access this story on on-line here:

Pelosi Will Profit From Obama-Waxman-Markey Cap-And-Trade Energy Bill
Mark Tapscott
Washington Examiner
June 24, 2009

And who else stands to make bank from this legislation? Al Gore and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) for two. Markey holds between $51,000 and $115,000 in investments in Firsthand Technology Value Fund (solar-evergy manufacturers) and Al Gore has $6 million in the Venture Capital Group (CO₂ emmissions tracking software), both of which will make very nice profits under the cap-and-trade tax. Profits that will come from fleecing the American people through higher taxes.

Before this gets voted on in the Senate, we should seriously look into which members of Congress will make a profit off of it and how they voted or intend to vote.

Small Businesses Will Get Hammered Under The Cap And Trade Energy Tax

You know, the Dems try to paint themselves as friends of “the little guy,” but since their takeover of Congress in 2006 and the election of Barack Obama to the White House, it is clear that the Democrats are all about big government and controlling the people. There really is no counter-argument to that since is it simply a fact that cannot be denied.

The energy tax that was passed by the House Dems (and 8 back-stabbing Republicans) is a perfect example of how the Dems really want to control “the little guy” through big government intervention rather than do anything to help.

McArthur’s Bakery in St. Louis will be facing a very difficult time because of Pelosi’s energy tax. The owner, David McArthur explains why.

From Fox News:

David McArthur, vice president of the 52-year-old family operation, a Gateway City institution, is one of a growing number of business owners and taxpayers nationwide who are mobilizing against the so-called cap-and-trade bill, which would levy harsh fines on energy consumption … … McArthur told FOXNews.com that every aspect of his business relies on the forms of energy targeted by the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and that his congressman, Carnahan, was supporting “a direct tax increase on small business” by voting for it. “We make (our product) with electricity, we bake it with gas, we refrigerate and freeze it with electricity and we distribute it with gas and oil,” said McArthur, who said he worries that high prices could cost his company up to $15,000 a year in an industry with a very tight margin for profit.

Think about all the small businesses that rely on energy. Basically, all of them. If this energy tax passes the Senate, it will hit small businesses like 10 tons of bricks. Beauty salons that require electricity to run dryers and water heaters will begin to close. Delivery companies will have to raise their rates to account for the gasoline and diesel that their trucks use. Farming will become more expensive. In turn, food prices will go up as will the price of any commodity that needs to be transported from producer to market.

Very few small businesses will be able to withstand such an economic onslaught. Most will have to lay off workers in order to make ends meet. That will mean fewer people getting paychecks while prices will be going higher.

This cap and trade energy tax is a disaster waiting to happen and the Dems (and a few short-sighted Republicans) are completely blind to the danger. Instead, they have beholden themsleves to the junk science espoused by Al Gore.

What is even worse is that once again, the House of Representatives voted on a bill that members did not get a chance to read:

“He’s killing small business — he’s killing us,” McArthur said of Carnahan, who was one of a majority of Democrats who voted for the bill in a closely fought 219-212 vote. McArthur, who penned a scathing letter to Carnahan, is not alone in taking the message directly to his congressman. Dozens of small protests were organized at the end of June at federal buildings and outside the offices of national lawmakers who voted for the bill. Mike Wilson, who led a protest in Cincinnati of about 100 people on June 27 across from the offices of Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio, said he was appalled by the 1,500-page legislation, which was fast-tracked by House leaders for a vote Friday. A 310-page amendment was slapped onto the bill Friday morning. “It was, quite frankly, criminal passing a bill that you didn’t read,” said Wilson, founder of the anti-tax group Cincinnati Tea Party.

One thing is certain though. If this becomes law, the effects will be harsh and far-reaching. And the Dems will not be able to blame this on George W. Bush. Blame will rest solely and squarely on the shoulders of the current party in power.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Small Businesses Irate Over Climate Change Bill
Joseph Abrams
FoxNews.com
July 7, 2009

Global Warming Not Affecting Chicago?

The central thesis of global warming theory is that as concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ rise then so does global temperature. Unfortunately for Al Gore and the AGW alarmist crowd, global temperatures have remained steady or have been declining since 2003 despite the fact that CO₂ concentrations have been rising (thanks to the industrial efforts of China and India whom the leftists want to exempt from any type of carbon restrictions).

The city of Chicago is feeling the effects of this period of Global Cooling:

The cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O’Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.

If the Global Warming alarmists were correct, temperatures should have gone up, not down. That would be true for the temperature in the Great Lakes as well as in the atmosphere.

Global Warming theory has once again failed it own test.

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

So Far, June’s Chill Is One For The Records
Steve Kahn
WGN Weather Center
June 12, 2009

Global Warming? Not So Fast, Skeptics Say At Meeting

Here is more evidence that the big media outlets like the Washington Post and the alphabet networks do not cover the news in an objective and balanced way. On Tuesday, June 3, 2009, the 3rd Annual International Conference on Climate Change took place but not one single major news outlet covered it. Why? Because this conference was based on real science and would have shown evidence against the political agenda espoused by networks like CNN and NBC.

From Scott Harper of the Virginia-Pilot:

“We are seldom heard in the policy debate,” said Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. “If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you’re likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else.” Bast labeled as “popular delusion” the current conventional wisdom on the issue – that man-made emissions, notably carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating up the planet, causing sea levels to rise and is increasing the ferocity of storms and drought. As such, the conference represents a lingering – and still powerful – sentiment that global warming is not such a big deal after all. Instead, attendees argued, the slow and slight increase in air, water and atmospheric temperatures during much of the 20th century is part of a natural cycle of the Earth’s unpredictable, roller-coaster weather patterns.

How unpredicatable are the earth’s weather patterns? So much so that the global warming alarmist people have gotten their own predictions wrong. The earth has been in a cooling trend since 2003.

More:

Bast acknowledged that the conference was hurriedly organized, and moved from New York City to Washington, to counteract proposals from President Barack Obama for a “cap-and-trade” program aimed at fighting global warming by drastically limiting carbon emissions. Bast and others described the proposed programs as a complete waste of money, with potentially crippling consequences for the economy, and without any attainable goals. “How do you control the weather?” asked Bob Carter, an Australian scholar from James Cook University. “For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd.”

And this:

[S]cientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations sponsored group), especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts. One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground temperatures. When there are few clouds in the sky, temperatures typically are warmer, Spencer said, and when it is cloudy outside, conditions typically are cooler. Is it possible then, Spencer asked, that decreasing clouds in recent decades caused the warmings recorded on Earth? Spencer said he asked the IPCC about this and was surprised to learn that the organization had not researched this point and had assumed that cloud cover does not change over time but is fairly consistent. The two revelations sparked more wry laughter from the audience. “If a 1 percent change in cloudiness could trigger global warming, or global cooling, wouldn’t you think that’d be a pretty important thing to nail down?” Spencer asked. “They have never gone there.”

How interesting it would have been to see this covered on the Today Show or Good Morning America or some other news broadcast. But that would have meant doing damage to the leftist political agenda, even if it meant bringing some truth to an issue that many people seem to be completely ignorant of.

But, where global warming alramists are politicians (or scientists trying to win research grants) the skeptics are mostly scientists objectively looking at the data:

William “Skip” Stiles, a Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science. “I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them,” Stiles said. “But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC – we’re talking 25 years! – you have to think we’ve reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it.” Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts. “One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers,” Hershner said. He described the IPCC as “an extremely conservative group” that “constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly.”

Let’s get the politicians out of the debate and let the scientists discuss the full spectrum of data.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Global Warming? Not So Fast, Skeptics Say At Meeting
Scott Harper
Virginia Pilot
June 6, 2009

The Ehthanol Hoax: Still Going Strong

I posted last year about how ethanol was one big hoax. You can read that blog entry here:

Big Corn And Ethanol Hoax
84rules
March 13, 2008

And you can get information about the side effects here:

Ethanol: The Side Effects
84rules
April 29, 2008

Well, ethanol is still a big hoax and the Obama adminstration thinks that you and I are still dumb enough to fall for it. From the Wall Street Journal:

The biofuels industry already receives a 45 cent tax credit for every gallon of ethanol produced, or about $3 billion a year. Meanwhile, import tariffs of 54 cents a gallon and an ad valorem tariff of four to seven cents a gallon keep out sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and the Caribbean. The federal 10% blending requirement insures a market for ethanol whether consumers want it or not — a market Congress has mandated will double to 20.5 billion gallons in 2015.

What has happened here is that the Big Corn/Ethanol lobby has successfully conned Congress into giving them a monopoly over the ethanol industry and forced Americans to buy only from this monopoly. (Where are the trust-busters now?)

And then there are the side effects:

The Congressional Budget Office reported last month that Americans pay another surcharge for ethanol in higher food prices. CBO estimates that from April 2007 to April 2008 “the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices.” Ethanol raises food prices because millions of acres of farmland and three billion bushels of corn were diverted to ethanol from food production. Americans spend about $1.1 trillion a year on food, so in 2007 the ethanol subsidy cost families between $5.5 billion and $8.8 billion in higher grocery bills.

So, not only are you paying higher gas prices, but you are paying higher food prices as well.

But, many of you out there will say, “We’re helping the environment, though!” Not so. Ethanol is having negligible effects, and in many instances, negative effects.

A second study — by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality — explains that the reduction in CO2 emissions from burning ethanol are minimal and maybe negative. Making ethanol requires new land from clearing forest and grasslands that would otherwise sequester carbon emissions. “As with petroleum based fuels,” the report concludes: “GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions are associated with the conversion and combustion of bio-fuels and every year they are produced GHG emissions could be released through time if new acres are needed to produce corn or other crops for biofuels.” The EPA study also explores a series of alternative scenarios over 30 to 100 years. In some cases ethanol leads to a net reduction in carbon relative to using gasoline. But many other long-term scenarios observe a net increase in CO2 relative to burning fossil fuels. Ethanol produced in a “basic natural gas fired dry mill” will over a 30-year horizon produce “a 5% increase in GHG emissions compared to petroleum gasoline.” When ethanol is produced with coal burning mills, the process “significantly worsens the lifecycle GHG impact of ethanol” creating 34% more greenhouse gases than gasoline does over 30 years.

And the parting shot:

As public policy, ethanol is like the joke about the baseball prospect who is a poor hitter but a bad fielder. It doesn’t reduce CO2 but it does cost more. Imagine how many subsidies the Beltway would throw at ethanol if the fuel actually had any benefits.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Ethanol’s Grocery Bill
Review & Outlook
Wall Street Journal
June 2, 2009

Democrat Admits On Tape That ‘Cap and Trade’ Is Really A ‘Huge Tax’

Check out the video at the following link. If there was any question that the libs were using the global warming issue as a means for taking greater control over our lives and livelihoods, that question has now been answered:

Democrat Admits On Tape That “Cap & Trade Is A Huge Tax”
912 Project
April 25, 2009

Manipulating The Terminology To Confuse People About Climate Change

So, when “global warming” turns out to be “global cooling” what is a leftist activist to do? The main thing they try to do is to muddle the argument by changing the terminology they use to describe their agenda and the reasons for their agenda.

The is why the United Nation talks about “climate change” rather than “global warming.” When it became clear that the earth was in fact cooling down and the people of this planet were witnessing record snowfalls and record cold temperatures, the left-wing climate activists knew they had made a mistake with the “global warming” theory and needed a way to tidy things up so that they wouldn’t lose their cause nor the millions of dollars in donations they use to pay their own salaries.

From the New York Times:

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.” The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington. Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

That’s right. Instead of admitting that they’ve bought into a flawed and scientifically untenable theory, they try to confuse people with new terminology in the hopes that the new words will somehow make people believe in the cause again.

And here is how they are doing it:

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders. Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.

Not only are they doing research on how to make the issue more confusing, they do it in secret so that no one would have a chance to analyze what was really going on.

But why are they scrambling to do this? What changed so radically that they have to make this radical adjustment in their language?

Read on:

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists.

Despite shrill claims that the oil and coal lobbies are causing this, the truth is that Americans can look outside their windows and see what is really happening. They do not see a world getting warmer as the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) alarmists predicted. They see a world getting cooler and are trying to find the real answers as to why. That is what scares the left-wing environmentalists the most: that the truth might actually be revealed by legitimate scientists.

And how far has this gone?

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.” “Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study. Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

I hope you notice the following clause from EcoAmerica’s quote: “… while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology.”

They want to avoid the science behind the issue. The studies of climatology, meteorology and astrophysics are not to be allowed into the debate. Why would they want these aspects kept out of the discussion? Because it would allow people access to more information and more data, most of which shows that global warming, global cooling and climate change are natural phenomena rather than man-made.

Also note that they are briefing members of Congress to use the same words and terminology, just like trained parrots.

You can access an excellent webpage with loads of answers to questions about the global warming/cooling and/or climate change debate here:

The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’
JunkScience.org
August 2007

And you can access the New York Times article on-line here:

Seeking To Save The Planet, With A Thesaurus
John M. Broder
New York Times
May 1, 2009

Democrats Terrified Of Scientific Debate Over Global Warming Issues

Well, so much for “diversity” and trying to bring multiple points of view to the issues. And so much for any post-partisanship the Dems claimed would be their hallmark after the 2006 and 2008 elections. It is all straight-line partisanship now.

It all went out the window when the Dems chose ideology over science and refused to allowed an Anthroprogenic Global Warming (AGW) skeptic to testify before Congress concurrent with Al Gore. The UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton had been invited to testify before Congress at the same time as former VP Al Gore, but when the Dems learned that Lord Monckton was an AGW skeptic and was prepared to offer evidence that Al Gore and other Global Warming alramists were wrong in their analysis of climate change, they refused to allow him to testify.

What are the Dems afraid of? That a true scientific debate would make Al Gore look like a fool? If they are so convinced that Al Gore is right, wouldn’t they welcome such a public debate to further prove it? Why hide from such a forum?

From Climate Depot:

Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon. “The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.” According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance.

Why would Al Gore be afraid of going head-to-head with anybody? Maybe because he has been found to be mistaken about a great many things:

35 Inconvenient Truths; The Errors In Al Gore’s Movie
Christopher Monckton
October 18, 2007

For example: Al Gore’s hysterical claim after Hurricane Katrina that global warming would make subsequent hurricane seasons even worse. The truth is that each hurricane season since 2005 has been much less intense.

Or another example: Gore hysterically claims that severe tornadoes are becoming more frequent. But, information gathered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) since 1950 shows a downward trend of severe tornadoes, not upward and Gore claims:

Apparently, the Dems don’t have the stomach to actually look through all the evidence and only want to allow such information that would further their own political agenda rather than actually provide good, complete information to the people. And they also don’t have the stomach to see Al Gore ripped to pieces for pushing junk science instead of real science.

It is embarrassing that the Dems refused to allow this debate. It clearly shows exactly how scared they are that the truth about climate change will actually come out and expose AGW as a huge hoax.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Refuse To Allow Skeptic To Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
Marc Morano
Climate Depot
April 23, 2009

NASA Acknowledges ‘Deep Solar Minimum’

It is true that most Americans no longer believe in Anthroprogenic (Man-made) Global Warming. Why? Mostly because of the harsh winter that we just endured and the unusually cool spring we are looking at right now. If greenhouse gas emissions are supposed to make temperatures go up, then why are temperatures going down? That is what people are asking.

But these observations may be showing us just the beginning of things to come. Most legitimate scientists (i.e. those scientists who are not on someone’s political payroll) are coming to the conclusion that climate change, whether it be warming or cooling, is driven by our sun. NASA has recently lent it’s support to that position by acknowledging the possibility of a “deep solar minimum.”

What that means is that our sun has slipped into a period of decreased activity and decreased solar energy output.

From Science@NASA:

The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower. 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year’s 90 days (87%). It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

And to show what that means graphically:

Sunspot counts are clearly at a minimum and that means decreased solar energy output as evidenced by the solar irradiance measurement:

NASA scientists admit that they do not know what will happen next. But it is clear that the sunspot cycle and the solar irradience cycle are more closely tied to global temperature change than any greenhouse gas emissions are. We know this because thanks to the efforts of China and India, greenhouse gas emissions have increased over the years, but global temperature has gone down, not up.

Other effects:

A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth. A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other significant side-effects: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.” Satellites in low Earth orbit experience less atmospheric drag, extending their operational lifetimes. Unfortunately, space junk also remains longer in Earth orbit, increasing hazards to spacecraft and satellites.

Also, if those sunspots don’t return and solar energy output does not increase, we will be in for some very cold times ahead.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Deep Solar Minimum
Dr. Tony Phillips
Science@NASA
April 1, 2009

U.N. ‘Climate Change’ Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions To Form New World Economy

The United Nations, that lovely bastion of anti-Americanism, wants to control the world’s economies by invoking the hoax of human-induced climate change.

The very first paragraph of the Fox News story covering this says it all and should send chills up your spine:

A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

The document is 16 pages long and it involves sending millions of American jobs offshore to other nations, all in the name of environmentalism.

And here is what is even worse:

The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an “effective framework” for dealing with global warming.

Didn’t Barack Obama chastise American companies for out-sourcing jobs overseas and threaten to punitively tax anyone who did out-source their jobs? Yes, he did.

And now, Obama wants to send more American jobs overseas by signing on to this ridiculously anti-American U.N. treaty. I say anti-American because the United States will be the one nation that is hit the hardest in terms of economic losses. I also beleieve that the people at the U.N. who wrote this treaty are aiming precisely for such results.

The news article goes on:

The note adds only that industrial relocation “would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment.” But at the same time it “would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries.”

This is what Obama supports? U.S. companies cannot out-source employement as a revenue saving measure, but he will allow the U.N. to force American jobs to “relocate” to other nations?

Can Obama possibly be a bigger hypocrite on this issue?

Here is more evidence of the anti-American slant that this treaty holds:

A “climate change levy on aviation” for example, is described as having undetermined “negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce,” as well as “tourism services.” But no mention is made in the note of the impact on the aerospace industry, an industry that had revenues in 2008 of $208 billion in the U.S. alone, or the losses the levy would impose on airlines for ordinary passenger transportation. (Global commercial airline revenues in 2008 were about $530 billion, and were already forecast to drop to an estimated $467 billion this year.)

The language of this document was no accident. It is clearly aimed directly at the economic throat of the United States and Barack Obama has already signed on as a supporter. Maybe Obama didn’t read this proposal, just like he didn’t read the Dodd Amendment of the stimulus package.

Anthroprogenic Global Warming is a hoax. But it is a hoax that the United Nations believes in and apparently Barack Obama does as well.

This new treaty would destroy the already fragile U.S. economy, destroy millions of American jobs and surrender our national sovereignity to the United Nations. I wonder if Obama is already aware of this.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

U.N. ‘Climate Change’ Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions To Form New World Economy
George Russell
Fox News
March 27, 2009

Global Warming On Hold? Discovery Channel Thinks So!

Every now and then, you can find a nugget of truth buried in the hype about global warming. Discovery has printed such a nugget in an article that asks why global warming predictions have not come true:

Earth’s climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat. “This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn’t have one.”

Oh, this current cooling trend does have a cause, if the people at the Discovery Channel would only look in the right place to find it:

Vanishing Sun Spots A Prelude To Global Cooling?
Michael Asher
International Climate Science Coalition
February 9, 2008

2008 Ends Spotless And With 266 Spotless Days, The #2 Least Active Year Since 1900, Portends Cooling
Joseph D’Aleo CCM, AMS Fellow via WattsUpWithThat Blog
December 31, 2008

But the Discovery article ignores all of this and instead tries to stir more climate fears by making a completely unsupported prediction that warming will return in about 30 years and be coming on stronger than ever.

Maybe someone should try telling that to our sun.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Global Warming On Hold?
Michael Reilly
Discovery News
March 2, 2009

Scientists Continue To Debunk “Consensus” in 2008: Global Warming Skeptics On The Rise

You know, when you ignore a very important issue simply because you do not agree with the politics of those driving it, that issue will come back to bite you in the rear-end.

Such is the case with those who embrace the idea that there is “concensus” among scientists that Global Warming is going to kill all of mankind and leave us drowning in a world that resembles a ridiculously bad Kevin Costner movie. They will ignore the issue that science is discovering new evidence that climate change is natural. You will see very little of the AGW debate broadcast over the main networks or CNN for the simple fact that the data is turning against Al Gore and all of his disciples and a leftist-leaning media does not want such information getting out. As such, the issue is starting to come back and bite them in the rear.

There is no concensus and the science isn’t even close to being settled. But right now, the majority of legitimate scientists (i.e. those scientists who are not on someone’s political payroll) are leaning towards the idea tha climate change is natural and we humans cannot do anything about it nor should we even try.

From Media Newswire:

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.” On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

Athropogenic Global Warming theory has met quite a few failures in its predictions. So many, in fact, that it can no longer be consider a valid theory as it has a failure rate of well over 50%.

More:

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC.’]

The tables are turning as the world learns more about the truth of climate change. Pretty soon, people like Al Gore and those who blindly follow him are going to look more and more foolish, if it’s even possible for them to look more foolish at this point.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Scientists Continue To Debunk “Consensus” In 2008
Media Newswire
January 15, 2009

Global Warming Reality Check: The Predictions Are Not Coming True

More and more evidence mounts that the idea of man-made global warming is nothing more than hype for the sake of hype. Not only that, but there are political implications here where governments (particularly those controlled by leftist socialists) are using the fear-mongering angle of the issue as an excuse for grabbing more power.

Writing for the Houston Chronicle, Robert L. Bradley shines some light on the issue and looks at the temperature trends of the past 100 years, the prediciations that pseudo-scientists have made concerning global warming and how those predictions fared against reality.

From his column:

The new century has cooled the case for climate alarmism. Global warming has stalled — not accelerated as expected. Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have increased, but temperatures have been flat for the last eight years and have slightly fallen since 1998’s El Nino-driven temperature spike. If the cool-off continues until 2015, as could be the case according to a study published in Nature magazine, we will have had a see-saw of global warming (1900-45), global cooling (1945-75), global warming (1975-98), and flatness (1998-2015). Where does all of this leave us coming out of the Little Ice Age that ended in the mid-18th century — and after a century of greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere? Today’s temperature is about 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer, and in a naturally warmer climate cycle. Compare this to Al Gore’s scary talk about an 11-degree man-made temperature rise this century under business as usual.

I remember the predictions from the 1980’s that said Canada and Russia would be the world’s leading food producers by now and the mid-West of the North American continent would be a desert. Instead, we are having record cold temperatures, record snow falls and Artic sea-ice now extends out further than it did in 1979.

More:

Of course the climate is changing — always has and always will — and there may very well be a distinct human influence on climate. Carbon dioxide is a warming agent, as are the other greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere from human activities. But the good news is that so far the observed climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is much less than what some climate models predict. … The recent temperature reversal comes on top of falsified climate mini-scares. One headline-grabber was that ocean circulation patterns disrupted by global warming would freeze over North America and Western Europe. “False alarm,” Science magazine would later declare to little fanfare. Hurricane Katrina was featured in Al Gore’s book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth, as if man, not nature, were to blame. But subsequent research has painted a very mixed picture about hurricanes in a warmer world. Most research predicts fewer tropical storms will develop, and changed wind patterns might cancel out the effect of warmer waters on hurricane strength. There is more agreement that extra-tropical storms are lessened from warming because of a diminished temperature gradient between the poles.

That’s right. Cold air from the arctic below and warm air from the tropics above. When they meet, they cause storms. The greater the temperature difference between the two, the more violent the storms. The National Oceanic & Atomospheric Administration (NOAA) actually tracked the number of tornadoes in the American mid-West during the past fifty years and found that when the temperature differential was greater (i.e. a cooler arctic region), more tornadoes formed. This runs counter to the global warming theory that warmer weather leads to more storms. The scientific data suggests that a warmer climate means fewer and less severe storms.

Bradley goes on:

Gore’s scenario about a 20-foot sea-level rise in man’s future has also not sat well with science. The modest sea-level rise of recent decades — continuing a trend of the past centuries for reasons that are not well understood — is expected to continue. While Greenland is losing ice, Antarctica is gaining ice. Melting Arctic sea ice, meanwhile, does not affect sea level — nor does the growth of sea ice in the southern ocean — for the same reason that melting ice cubes do not cause a drink to spill. The sea-level debate concerns inches, not feet, for future decades and even centuries.

Rememeber the claims that barrier islands such as the Outer Banks of North Carolina would be underwater by now? Well, the barrier islands are still there.

Evidence continues to mount that global warming alrmists have pulled a huge multi-billion dollar hoax. That money could have been better spent elsewhere.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Climate-Change Alarmism Runs Into A Reality Check
Robert L. Bradley
Houston Chronicle
January 8, 2009

Both The Remote Sensing Systems Of Santa Rosa And University Of Alabama (Huntsville) Dataset Show Temperature Going Down

See the two above graphs? They both show that the earth has been in a cyclical cooling trend for the past several years. Although no one can accurately predict what the trends will be for the years to come, both of the data representations show that all of the hype about the world coming to an end because of man-made “greenhouse” gases is nothing more than … well … a bunch of hype.

Greenhouse gas theory holds that as greenhouse gas emissions increase, global temperatures go up. Since 2000, greenhouse gas emissions have indeed gone up thanks to China and India, but as the data shows, temperatures have gone down. The theory has failed its own major test.

Also note the UAH graph has detail explanations with regards to certain outlier events (the eruption of Mount Pinatubo and the cycling of El Nino) in addition to a fourth-order polynomial fit to show what the trends are. No global warming alarmist would ever mention such natural causes nor such contrary evidence in any of their arguments.

Dr. James Hansen: Unethically Manipulating The Data (Global Warming Junk Science)

It seems that Dr. James Hansen can’t keep his name out of the headlines, especially when he is caught engaging in the junk science that AGW alarmists cling to despite evidence to the contrary.

Now, Dr. Hansen is trying to re-write geophysical history by re-writing the temperature data from the time period of 1910 to 2008.

Dr. Gregory Young, neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote an entry into the American Thinker explaining the scientific fraud that Dr. Hansen tried to get away with. From his article:

In yet another egregious display of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) arrogance, he changed the temperature data from 1910-2008 to reflect what is clearly a cooling trend to reflect a warming trend.

Note the following graph:

The blue lines are the raw data and the red lines are Dr. Hansen’s compensation. Apparently, Dr. Hansen is not okay with letting the data just be the data. He has to insert his own bias into it.

More:

Indeed this past year (2008) is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released this month by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre in Great Britain. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.

This flies completely in the face of global warming theory which clearly states that as so-called greenhouse gases increase, the temperature must increase as well. But, greenhouse gas emissions have increased and the temperatures have decreased. Global warming theory has failed a major test here.

Dr. Young also re-print an excerpt from Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles:

“Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover…. To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence.”

It is high time we start paying attention to real scientists like Dr. Gregory Young and Dr. David Deming and send pseudo-researchers like Dr. James Hansen packing.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Global Warm-Mongering: More Silk From A Pig’s Ear
Dr. Gregory Young
The American Thinker
January 6, 2009