Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data Paul Joseph Watson Thursday, August 20, 2009
Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.
In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.
The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.
Sackur accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” based on “exaggeration and alarmism,” pointing out that it was “preposterous” to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle that has survived much warmer periods in history, would completely melt when it had stood firm for hundreds of thousands of years.
“There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear,” said Sackur.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. That may have been a mistake,” Leipold was eventually forced to admit.
However, Leipold made no apologies for Greenpeace’s tactic of “emotionalizing issues” as a means of trying to get the public to accept its stance on global warming.
He also argued that economic growth in the United States and around the world should be suppressed and that overpopulation and high standards of living should be combated because of the perceived damage they were doing to the environment, eugenicist rhetoric which will be familiar to our readers and anyone who has watched Alex Jones’ Endgame documentary.
As the Watts Up With That blog highlights, “Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.”
Similar claims that the north pole will be “ice free” crop up almost every summer yet are routinely disproved.
Indeed, it was discovered that during August 2007 to August 2008, Arctic ice had in fact grown by around 30 per cent, an area equivalent to the size of Germany.
A new peer reviewed study has also discovered, “Total annual precipitation in Greenland ice sheet for 1958-2007 to be up to 24% and surface mass balance up to 63% higher than previously thought.”
As we reported last year, climate scientists allied with the UN IPCC were also caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, in another shocking example of mass public deception.
In November 2008, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that the previous month had been the hottest October on record. It later emerged that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.
Watch a clip from the Sackur- Leipold interview below.
Friday December 18, 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Global Warming Science? Nope, Global Warming Scam. How do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather isn’t cooperating? Here are a few tricks of the trade. by Steven W. Mosher
December 18, 2009 (pop.org) - How do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather isn’t cooperating? Here are a few tricks of the trade that the scammers are using to explain away the recent cooling trend, as revealed by the hacked e-mails of the world’s leading advocates of man-made Global Warming.
As you read these disturbing e-mails, bear in mind that Obama administration officials remain determined--scandal or no scandal, fraud or no fraud--to compromise the future prosperity and security of our country by their CO2 cap-and-tax schemes.
Trick No. 1: You Destroy Conflicting Data:
Phil Jones, who directs the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, was emphatic in his 21 February 2005 e-mail to American Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann and two others: “I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”
Here Jones appears to violate a basic rule of scientific research, namely, that you make your raw data available on request so that others can verify--or disprove--your hypothesis. Why would the CRU director not be happy to turn over his evidence of climate change, unless . . . his original temperature data didn’t show any convincing rise in temperature at all and it had been conveniently “lost” in consequence?
And it is not his temperature data anyway. The whole CRU was in fact set up in the early 1980s (with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy!) to produce the world's first comprehensive record of surface temperature. Phil Jones and Tom Wigley were sent data gathered over the course of decades by thousands of temperature recording stations located in dozens of countries. This “Jones and Wigley" record, as it is called, served until 2007 as the primary reference standard for the UN climate panel.
After years of stonewalling, Jones now admits that he “merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones. . . . Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.” (See Phil Jones to Graham F Haughton, 27 October 2009)
In other words, this valuable data set, compiled at great expense . . . was discarded. It doesn’t require an advanced degree in the hard sciences (which I have, by the way) to understand that you never, ever, under any circumstances destroy raw data. (The claim that “data storage” was lacking is nonsense.)
Did the raw temperature data contain an inconvenient truth? Can anyone spell c-o-v-e-r u-p?
Trick No. 2: You Cherry Pick Your Data to Show a Recent Rise in Temperatures:
Mike Mann is the author of the now famous “hockey stick” graph, which asserts that global temperatures remaining virtually fixed for centuries, then shot up in the last few decades. The “hockey stick” was Exhibit Number One in the UN’s 2001 climate report, which went on to claim that this dramatic increase in temperature was the result of human activity. (See Graph 1)
The graph was questioned even by the Global Warmers themselves, one of whom wrote that “Mann is an outlier though not egregiously so.” (Curt Covey to Christopher Monckton, 5 February 2007).
Mann refused to release either his data or his algorithm for years, but the Climategate e-mails reveal an even more disturbing instance of cherry-picking data.
The story is too complicated to tell in detail (the whole sordid tale can be found here,) but it involves another famous “hockey stick” graph, this one based on tree rings from Yamal, Russia. This was crafted by another CRU Global Warmer, Keith Briffa. It went on to be used in a dozen other temperature reconstructions, all of which the UN climate panel said validated Mann’s original graph. But Briffa, like Mann and his own boss, Phil Jones, for ten years refused to release the data on which he based his graph.
When Briffa’s hand was finally forced a few weeks ago, it turned out that he had used only a tiny, biased fraction of the raw data available. When skeptic Steve McIntyre calculated a revised chronology based on more complete data, the sharp temperature increase at the end of the twentieth century simply vanished. The twentieth century now showed no significant trend. The blade of the Yamal hockey stick was gone.
Phil Jones later claimed in an e-mail to Graham F. Haughton on 27 October 2009 that “The claims of [Steve McIntyre] are exaggerated.”
Left unanswered is the question of why his Institute seems to specialize in cherry-picking data to bolster the case for “Global Warming,” while keeping the original data--which weakens the case--under wraps?
Trick No. 3: You “Adjust” Away Inconvenient Trends That Threaten to Derail Your Hypothesis:
The warming trend of the early Twentieth Century, which ran from 1910 to 1940, is a major embarrassment for the Global Warmers. They can’t simply ignore this “bend” in the hockey stick, because it is too well-known and too well-documented. But neither can they blame it on people and their infernal combustion engines, since atmospheric CO2 scarcely increased over this time period.
Instead, they go to great lengths to try and “adjust it away,” as Tom Wigley explains to Phil Jones:
Dear Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs [Sea Surface Temperatures] to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. . . . The land also shows the 1940s blip . . . So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC [degrees Centigrade], then this would be significant for the global mean--but we’d still have to explain the land blip. . . . I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and I think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip. . . . My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. . . . It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with ‘why the blip.’
In case you didn’t get all that, let me translate what Wigley is saying into plain English:
“I am fudging the data to take out as much of the ocean warming as I can. I can’
Vis-a-vis the Channel Tunnel, (Did ya spot the petit Francais there ?); I am surprised. Have used the service many many times, sometimes twice a week, and have always found it superb.
I've ridden the train with coworkers in France and yes it is a fine service (besides the lines to buy a ticket). But the problem with trains or any centralized transportation system is that they are susceptible to being shutdown for a problem. Examples are what you see today - bad weather, labor strikes, a terrorist threat or actaul attack, or even a single mechanical problem. Decentralized transportation systems are much more resilient and reliable for society.
In case you didn’t get all that, let me translate what Wigley is saying into plain English:
“I am fudging the data to take out as much of the ocean warming as I can. I can’t take out all of it, because then we would have no explanation for the land warming, which would raise suspicions. But even with my fudge factor, we still don’t have a convincing explanation for why the ocean warmed during this period.”
Why the blip, indeed.
By the way, the Climategate deniers who dissed the e-mails as “ten years old” should note that the date on this one is 27 September 2009.
Trick No. 4: You Cherry Pick the Model to “Prove” Global Warming is Real.
This 14 October 2009 e-mail from insider Tom Wigley to Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann speaks for itself:
“The figure you sent [from Gavin Schmidt] is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM (Parallel Climate Model) look as thought they match observations--but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity--compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by [the UN climate panel].”
The response, from Schmidt himself, makes it clear that he was working backward from the recent cooling trend to salvage the Global Warming models. “The kinds of things we are hearing, “no model showed a cooling”, the “data is outside the range of the models,” need to be addressed directly,” Schmidt explained.
His “very deceptive” figure was an effort to make the real world data showing static or cooling temperatures appear not to contradict the model predicting Global Warming. You get the idea.
You won’t hear them talk like this in public, of course, where they close ranks in defense of their increasingly discredited theory.
Trick No. 5: You Spend a Lot of time Promoting Your Views with the Media--and Publicly Attacking Your Skeptics.
When the BBC finally--after a decade of no global warming--began to tentatively question whether temperatures were rising after all, the Global Warmers circulated frantic e-mails entitled the “BBC U-turn on climate.”
The reaction of Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann was to go after the reporter:
xtremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. It’s particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office (British Meteorological Office). . . . it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here? (Michael Mann to Phil Jones, Tom Wigley and others, 13 October 2009)
Trick No. 5: “The Science is Settled. The Science is Settled.”
Realizing that their models are open to question, the Global Warmers have tried frantically to shut off debate by chanting in unison: “The science is settled. The science is settled.” Critics are mocked and derided.
When one scientist suggested that skeptics like Fred Singer and Lord Christopher Monckton be taken seriously, “Hockey Stick” Mann exploded: “I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans.”
What set him off was Lord Monckton’s comment, forwarded in an e-mail, that the UN climate reports were unreliable:
I understand that the IPCC's [the UN climate panel’s] 2007 draft does not contain an apology for the defective "hockey-stick" graph, which the US National Academy of Sciences has described as having "a validation skill not significantly different from zero."
In plain English, this means the graph was rubbish. It is difficult to have confidence in a body which, after its principal conclusion is demonstrated in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature and in numerous independent reports as having been useless, fails to make the appropriate withdrawal and apology. Worse, the UN continues to use the defective graph. This failure of basic academic honesty on the IPCC's part was the main reason why I began my investigation of the supposed climate-change "consensus".
Contrary to what you may have heard, the science of “man-made Global Warming” was never settled. Now that these e-mails have exposed the duplicity of that theory’s chief backers, perhaps we can begin trying to understand what, if anything, is really happening with the earth’s climate.
For, as Kevin Trenberth admitted to Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann on 14 October 2009: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
The e-mails do prove one thing, however. They make abundantly clear that much of what was presented as objective “scientific research” by the Global Warmers was nothing more than cleverly disguised advocacy for the radical environmentalist, radical anti-people belief that man is slowly destroying his planet.
At the end of the day, it may turn out that the only thing “man-made” about Global Warming is the hysteria and hot air that has been generated by theory’s heated backers. That is certainly anthropogenic.
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute.
Eurostar Extends Suspension of Rail-Link Service Technical Failure on U.K.-France Trains Stranded 60,000 Travelers Over Weekend After conducting tests for much of the day Sunday, Eurostar officials said the cause of the breakdown was that cold, dry air from the freezing weather in northern France mixed with the warm, humid air of the tunnel and caused condensation that prompted the engines to shut down.
The chaos could damage Eurostar's reputation as the easiest way to travel between London and Paris and Brussels.
Tulip Siddiq, a 27-year-old researcher in London, chose to take the train over a plane to visit her brother in Belgium for the weekend. As of Sunday night, she was still waiting to leave.
"I was trying to be good and get the Eurostar [for my carbon footprint]," Ms. Siddiq said. "Flights tend to be delayed and a hassle ... And then it turns out it was Eurostar that was canceled."
Last week Eurostar train managers threatened to strike during the weekend over meal allowances before calling off the strike. Eurostar had said the strike wouldn't affect service.
So if the weather don't get you the Unions will. No Thanks to Mass Transit. After nearly a million actual miles on Alaska Airlines, I hate the hassle of flying. Cannot imagine messing with a train for travel.
Well done, vcheng. If only "journalists" in the old line media in the US would do their jobs and get all the facts before the public would we be able to slay this dragon once and for all. At the very least the miscreants in our government should be deluged with these facts. I'm copying and forwarding same to my reps.
Why do British leaders embrace Orwellian "police" and surveillance ideals so strongly? They shouldn't have any say in these kind of talks at all, they simply do not have a valid right to influence anyone, anywhere.
I think the Copenhagen summit would be somewhat of a blessing to those of US that fear the idea of a One World Government. It points out just how diverse the thinking is across the globe. 192 countries and the most they could get to agree on anything was 30. I think the Czech leader has the most common sense of any of them. Leaders such as Sarkozy and Merkel that should be pulling the rug out from under the Climate Change Charlatans are now part of the Religious Cult. And to call it anything else is not being realistic. The UK's Brown pretty much epitomizes the demise of that country. They have taxes on taxes and cannot provide the services they have claimed to be so important. We should be looking long and hard at the UK before passing any kind of similar HC or Cap n Trade.
How many reasons do we need to think about? Well, let's start with this list of 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago
12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds
13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.
14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions
15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”
16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.
17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.
18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control
19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.
20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates
21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades
23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries
24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder
25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research
How many reasons do we need to think about? Well, let's start with this list of 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:
26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles
27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population
29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago
30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles
31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming
32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures
33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere
34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere
35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything
36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes
37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”
38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC
39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally
40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms
41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful
42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical
43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests
44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years
45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations
47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.
48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change
49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.
50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.
How many reasons do we need to think about? Well, let's start with this list of 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:
51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.
52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”
53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.
54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot
55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.
56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.
57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”
58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.
59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.
60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.
61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.
63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.
64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.
65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.
66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.
67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.
68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.
69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.
70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”
71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.
72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.
73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.
74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.
75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay
How many reasons do we need to think about? Well, let's start with this list of 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:
76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.
77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.
78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.
79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).
80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.
81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.
82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.
83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.
85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.
86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.
87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.
88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.
90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.
91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.
92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.
94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.
95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.
96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.
97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.
98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and
The following points were truncated and are reproduced below:
75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”
I would submit that the above 100 statements do provide some food for thought and some nice material for intelligent discussion for those so inclined.
Yes, it is nice to see OWG having some opposition. Hopefully it will develop on more than one front. And Brown, Sarkozy, and Merkel prove that the EU is truly an experiment in one world government on a small scale. They are all traitors to their nations. We can all hope it fails, or Europe is dead.
Kind of serves the globalists right...in their omnivorous quest for profit and power, they have created a monster who will not cooperate with them.
Never depend on British data. I am sure it was once believable, but that was long before I was born.
I agree with you that our mainstream media are beyond pathetic in terms of any critical reporting on just about any issue of importance. However, there are sources available that one can attribute greater credibility to after cross-checking.
Why do British leaders embrace Orwellian "police" and surveillance ideals so strongly? They shouldn't have any say in these kind of talks at all, they simply do not have a valid right to influence anyone, anywhere.
I think our current government have two books as their guidelines; "1984" and "Animal Farm". Quite a few of the top comrades come from Marxist backgrounds but the good folk of USSGB, (Union of Soviet States of Great Britain), have voted these muppets into power three times. However, UK voters are very poor at turning out to vote, so we end up with minority governments............like this one.
And just like most of the delegates at Scamenhagen, they will preach one thing but live a lifestyle which reflects these supposed convictions in no way.
Orwell is laughing from the grave right now.
I wonder if there will ever be a straw that breaks the camels back...
Many cities are broke as well as states. The only reason the Federal government is not broke is they have the printing press going full blast with funny money spewing out. The reason Scamenhagen was such a big bust is all those countries went with their hand out and got a Lump of coal.
The so-called BASIC countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – backed the accord in a meeting with the US on Friday night, and it was also supported by nearly all other nations at the talks, including all of the biggest emitters.
But on Tuesday the Brazilian government labelled the accord “disappointing” and complained that the financial assistance it contained from rich to poor countries was insufficient.
South Africa also raised objections: Buyelwa Sonjica, the environment minister, called the failure to produce a legally binding agreement “unacceptable”. She said her government had considered leaving the meeting.
“We are not defending this, as I have indicated, for us it is not acceptable, it is definitely not acceptable,” she said.
There was even harsher criticism from Andreas Carlgren, environment minister of Sweden, current holder of the rotating European Union presidency, who proclaimed the Copenhagen accord “a disaster” and “a great failure”.
Let's hear three big CHEERS for the Failure in HopenChangen, RAH, RAH, RAH
I find it amusing that the globalists are using the GW boogeyman to further consolidate profits and power, but the monsters they have created with previous profit attempts are running a blockade on their new desires.
If buying an organic apple instead of one caked in pesticides eases your conscience, there's a good chance that your next ethical decision might not be a good one.
According to the results of a University of Toronto study, participants who assigned more social value to 'green' shopping were more likely to cheat and steal in subsequent tests than those with less stringent shopping habits.
The study, to be published in the new year in the journal Psychological Science, is the latest in a growing field of research called "moral licensing."
It's a relatively new concept that posits humans might store up a reserve of good karma only to squander it later. It's a little like Tiger Woods spending thousands of hours of golf practice and earning hundreds of millions of dollars on the PGA tour, only to fritter it all away with a few nights of extramarital indiscretion.
Co-authors Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, professors at the university's Rotman School of Business, said they considered themselves to be "green" consumers, which is partly why they took up the research.
The pair set up tests for a sample of university students which asked them to purchase a basket of goods at either a hypothetical organic shop or a typical grocery store.
Those who bought more green items were found in separate tests to be significantly less likely than their conventional counterparts to share money with an anonymous recipient and more likely to cheat on and lie about the results of a simple quiz.
This explains why Climate Scientists found it easy to lie about the data to push their agenda. Environmentalists are more likely to be liars and cheats.
Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend :P
PARIS (AFP) – Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.
The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.
Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.
To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.
Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.
Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.
The USA would have to remove 132 million SUVs to equal the pollution caused by the 61 million dogs in the country. Maybe we can sell them to China and pay off some of our debt. The EPA needs to get on this first of the New Year, and BAN DOGS as gross polluters.
And pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.
With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.
Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life.
And cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease.
Pet owners respond:
Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.
I can relate to her. My SUVs give me so much pleasure, they cannot possibly be polluting. :shades:
I wonder if this was mentioned at the HopenChangen Summit?
PLEASE, no more of this pet talk, even if it is tongue in cheek. The next thing you know Al Gore will have a new book out exhorting his cult followers to target our pets because they are wrecking the planet.
These nuts are so stupid that they will believe anything they hear and have no idea that you can statistically "prove" almost anything if you are dishonest enough and have something to gain.
Every day the whole Carbon footprint issue becomes more bazaar. Anthropogenic Climate Change is all political with a little science thrown in to confuse the people. Yet they get 100s of 1000s to believe their BS rhetoric. If they are going to charge farmers a carbon tax of $175 per year for each Cow, it stands to reason that horses, dogs and cats are next. AGW has been a money making scheme since it was first hatched. Those that are pushing it know that it is something that is difficult to prove one way or the other. So they get normally intelligent people thinking "better safe than sorry".
How many documented provable deaths have been caused by MM/GW? Yet we have proof of folks dying because of the cold.
European weather deaths pass 100
Freezing weather brings death and disruption in Germany, Italy and across eastern Europe
More than 100 people have been killed in the cold snap across Europe, with temperatures plummeting and snowfall causing chaos from Moscow to Milan.
In Poland, where temperatures have dropped to as low as -20C in some areas, police appealed for tip-offs about people spotted lying around outside. At least 42 people, most of them homeless, died over the weekend.
In Ukraine 27 people have frozen to death since the thermometer dropped last week. Authorities in Romania said 11 people had succumbed to the chill, and in the Czech Republic the toll was 12. In Germany, where temperatures have fallen to -33C in certain parts, at least seven people are known to have lost their lives in the freezing weather.
For millions of others across the continent, the cold snap has brought severe disruption, with flight cancellations and traffic jams thwarting pre-Christmas travel plans.
I play golf quite a bit and my club is 15 miles from my home. That means a 30 mile round trip. I have been averaging around 90 rounds of golf per year for the last few years, so that means 90, 30 mile round trips each year.
Now that sounds like a lot of driving, and since I drive a Lexus LS 430, you would think I could save a lot of money each year by buying a small hybrid, either to totally replace the Lexus or just as a third car.
According to my car's trip computer I have averaged 22 mpg over the lifetime of my current car. Let's say I could average 40 mpg with the Prius.
With gas costing $2.60 a gal I would save a total of $144. per year by giving up my safe, comfortable V8 and changing to a Prius. At that rate it would only take a little over 12 years to totally recoup....the sales tax on the Prius.
Of course I am completely discounting the dollar value of the smugness factor here.
I play golf quite a bit and my club is 15 miles from my home. That means a 30 mile round trip.
I've got a solution! Why don't you just put your club in the bag with the woods and putters, in the trunk of your car.
A main concern of course would be if the government, being justified in the name of controlling "pollution" - CO2, decides that it will regulate how much pollution you can create. So in other words you need to get the government's permission to do things that pollute. While the government couldn't tell you you can't go play golf, they might be able to tell you, you can't drive your car to get to the golf-course! And until we get electrical generating plants that don't use fossil fuels, I'd guess the EPA will have authority to regulate the use of EV's.
Technically the EPA has now been empowered by the Judiciary Branch, such that the EPA can "regulate" those sorts of things, because of the "pollution" and hazard to everyone. Nice huh? Let's see how long it takes before someone in the Obama administration gives the EPA direction to start testing-the-waters, and setting precedents by taking small steps, into more control of our lives.
Isn't the EPA under the administration branch. If so how do they make laws? It would seem they would have to have Congress pass a law with the Prez signing it. But the way the Constitution has been screwed with over the last year, anything is possible.
My understanding (meaning I'm pretty sure but don't have the facts in front of me), is that the EPA is part of the Executive Branch.
What Congress has recently said is, the EPA has already been granted by law that they can regulate to protect citizens, if they believe or determine a substance to be a hazard to the public. So in order to regulate CO2, all they need is to have some science support a hazard, and then for the EPA to make a subjective decision that this is a significant risk to the public or environment. The "some science" is there to make any claim look legitimate. Maybe the study is from some professor and his grad students who are receiving grants from some government agency, or by a private corporation which stands to benefit by some negative facts being found by this "neutral scientific group".
There's nothing like having an agenda, working for an agency that is empowered, having the money to hire your own scientists to uncover any negative facts (or better yet "strong beliefs"), and then get the researchers to look like a neutral party who are supporting your position. Similar to: Tobacco companies doing this for years; and cops doing this when they want to frame someone.
The more you hear about Climategate, the more I see, hear, and smell a duck.
Global Warming probably saved me today because we only had about 11 inches of snow overnight...without GW it could have been 20 !
I have lived in the KC area for 30 years now and we have never had a full fledged blizzard before...until now. 13 degrees, wind out of the north at 30 mph, 11 inches of snow with possibly more on the way.
Long range forecast (next 7 days) lows around 0, highs in the 20's or lower, and another storm next week.
Oh sure, a holiday card featuring a couple of old belching automobiles.
I did my part - flew to TX and put 1500 miles on a rental car (had to use up my carbon allotment for the year, don't you know).
I'm not sure what's worse to look at in the oil patch down here - the 1,000s of stripper well pumps or the 1,00s of windmills on all the mesas. At least the windmills don't stink like oil wells; that crude smell gets to you.
In global warming news, looks like the "heat" is causing weather extremes eh? :shades:
That sounds like Alaska weather. Maybe the poles are shifting and we are all in for a different climate. We know the Arctic was tropical somewhere in History.
Try to stay warm and be safe. I got an email from a friend in Anadarko, OK saying it was the Christmas Blizzard of 2009. They are all shut down there. Good day to have a supply of firewood and a nice warm fire to just kick back and enjoy the day.
I don't think those oil wells are as bad as the old pulp mills. My uncle worked in the one at Albany Oregon. Told me it smelled like bread and butter to him.
It was close to freezing here. I tossed another log in my new stove and love the free heat. Well almost free thanks to the tax credit. I think the windmills are aesthetically pleasing, just slowly cranking out those KWHs. Not the eyesore of Solar Panels on a neighbors roof. I am waiting to hear our wood smoke is blocking their sunshine or spewing PM on their panels making them worthless.
Not free! The rest of us are being debited so that you can have that tax credit!! :lemon:
That wouldn't be so bad except that every dollar of credit results in about a two dollar increase in our debt!! And even worse that your children and grandchildren will be paying most of the debt!! When they think of their bleak future, I will bet that they don't realize that your tax credit is part of it!!
Strange how everything today has to be incentivized by the federal government! No one wants to do anything, be it getting a better car, caulking their windows, paying their mortgage, or buying a more efficient stove, unless there is a government program to take someone else's money to help pay for it!! Like the idiots running around in 'free' electric golf carts and wheelchairs while their fellow citizens are being saddled with the largest national debt in history!!
That's what happens when the government steps in - wanting people to do what they otherwise don't see more benefit versus the cost.
I don't blame the people who take advantage of a discount; blame the do-gooder, patronizing idiots in government who aren't content with running their own lives, but want to micro-manage everyone else's. You know - you probably have relatives like that who not only know what's best for them, but want to "help and advise" you. It's a serious character flaw - lack of respect for others.
Not free! The rest of us are being debited so that you can have that tax credit!
That is exactly the way I felt when people were given $4500 for an old $500 POC vehicle in trade. And the $2 per gallon we are subsidizing the ethanol industry. I could go on for hours on the wasted money at the Federal, State and local levels. You forgot the $8000 tax credit for buying a home. They figure at least a third of those cashing in on that deal were cheating. What is worse than the tax credits are the handouts to people that don't even pay any taxes. I have not added up all the tax I have paid at every level this year. I imagine it will be well over $50,000. So that $802 tax credit on the wood stove kind of evaporates into thin air. Now if I could just find a golf cart I like before the end of the year. :shades:
""You forgot the $8000 tax credit for buying a home.""
Yeah! The worst part is that they are incentivizing the very people who couldn't really afford the houses that they were buying, and therefore defaulted on them, thanks to the federal government (Barney Frank & Chris Dodd), pushing, (forcing), banks to make loans to people with low or no income, bad credit, little down payment, etc.!! Now they want to get more people into unsustainable loans by the gift of $8,000 of other people's money!! If I have always paid the mortgage on my current house, have good income, have good credit, and have money for a down payment, I am NOT eligible for a discount!! What, for a financial sense, is wrong with this picture!??!
If, like decades ago, the home buyer needed 20% cash down, (not a loan or gift from someone else), sufficient income, and very good credit, there would not be these foreclosures and 'bad' loans today! And back then, during the Carter Calamity, interest rates were 10 to nearly 20%!! In the 70's I was delighted to find a home with an assumable 10% mortgage when current rates were in the high teens. What a great deal!
I got out of the landlord business when people that I wouldn't rent to due to too low income and bad credit became eligible for home loans! I was worried that I wouldn't get my rent, but the banks didn't seem to care that they probably wouldn't see many house payments!! Why would even some deadbet rent when he could buy? Quality renters have become an indangered species!!
Crow and An Inconvenient Truth producer Laurie David are touring 11 campuses to inform college students about the climate crisis and how they can help stop it. (They also have a documentary team with them filming the tour.)
Cheryl Crow is protesting rounding up NON indigenous horses in Nevada. If cattle, sheep and horses are a big part of MM/GW, why would she worry what happens to a bunch of wild horses that should not be left to destroy the eco system in states like Nevada?
Sheryl Crow, other wild-horse advocates ask Obama, Reid to stop mustang roundup in Nevada
RENO, Nev. (AP) — Sheryl Crow and other wild-horse advocates on Thursday called on President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to block a major roundup of mustangs set to begin Monday in Nevada.
The request came a day after a federal judge denied a request to block the government gather in the Calico Mountains Complex, saying opponents failed to demonstrate that removal of the horses would violate federal law.
These entertainment types will jump on any bandwagon that will get their names in the paper. They must think the American Public is just plain stupid. Which is it going to be? Stop MM/GW from horse and cows spewing GHG out both ends, or let US be over run with NON indigenous species?
They don't really have to be do gooders. The simple truth is, government behaves like an agent : It takes a cut on all amounts it taxes and spends. The more it taxes and spends, the richer it, and the people in it, get. So it has the strongest possible incentive to simply do more all the time. So it must justify new intervention. One of the most efficient ways to do that is to create great scares.
That, rather that doing good, is what this whole AGW business is all about.
They don't really have to be do gooders. The simple truth is, government behaves like an agent : It takes a cut on all amounts it taxes and spends. The more it taxes and spends, the richer it, and the people in it, get. So it has the strongest possible incentive to simply do more all the time. So it must justify new intervention. One of the most efficient ways to do that is to create great scares.
That, rather that doing good, is what this whole AGW business is all about.
Amen.
I trust you all had a Happy Christmas and will have a Splendiferous New Year.
With a little luck you will get rid of Gordon Brown, while you have anything left of your country.... At least you have a team that have names that are fun to make fun of. Brown and Balls take the UK to the Brink of economic collapse.... :shades: Face it where would Brown be without Balls?
wanting people to do what they otherwise don't see more benefit versus the cost.
Weatherization type programs get picked up on by landlords as well as homeowners, so that improvement in the housing stock helps the renters with their monthly cash flow. Lots of landlords wouldn't do squat otherwise, even if there were other tax deductions available for improvements.
I did a lot of subsidized stuff to my house when I lived in Anchorage - a new door, window, lots and lots of insulation and caulk. The energy programs up there at the time were funded by Exxon, courtesy of a settlement that found that they were overcharging for something.
And I did a new heat pump system here; the old one was shot but the $1500 energy credit was "used" to upgrade to a more efficient unit.
“”I did a lot of subsidized stuff to my house when I lived in Anchorage .. funded by Exxon.””
And just how does you having a better house help the rest of us?? Why are we paying more in taxes, or more for gas, so that you can upgrade your house?? Why don’t you save lots of money and energy by moving to a warmer climate?? Or are you waiting for the warmer climate to move to you??
If these improvements were so beneficial, why didn't you help yourself by doing it yourself, rather than just helping yourself to other people's money?? You wouldn't take a penny out of someone's pocket, but you will gladly accept thousands in 'stolen goods' that the government has taken unjustly from the pockets of your fellow citizens!!
PS: Exxon is a publicly owned company, so, if it has lower profits due to paying high taxes and 'fines', your fellow citizens, who have invested in Exxon, will receive lower dividends so you can save money and increase the value of your house!!
Comments
from: http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-globa- l-warming-data/
Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.
In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.
The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.
Sackur accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” based on “exaggeration and alarmism,” pointing out that it was “preposterous” to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle that has survived much warmer periods in history, would completely melt when it had stood firm for hundreds of thousands of years.
“There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear,” said Sackur.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. That may have been a mistake,” Leipold was eventually forced to admit.
However, Leipold made no apologies for Greenpeace’s tactic of “emotionalizing issues” as a means of trying to get the public to accept its stance on global warming.
He also argued that economic growth in the United States and around the world should be suppressed and that overpopulation and high standards of living should be combated because of the perceived damage they were doing to the environment, eugenicist rhetoric which will be familiar to our readers and anyone who has watched Alex Jones’ Endgame documentary.
As the Watts Up With That blog highlights, “Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.”
Similar claims that the north pole will be “ice free” crop up almost every summer yet are routinely disproved.
Indeed, it was discovered that during August 2007 to August 2008, Arctic ice had in fact grown by around 30 per cent, an area equivalent to the size of Germany.
A new peer reviewed study has also discovered, “Total annual precipitation in Greenland ice sheet for 1958-2007 to be up to 24% and surface mass balance up to 63% higher than previously thought.”
As we reported last year, climate scientists allied with the UN IPCC were also caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, in another shocking example of mass public deception.
In November 2008, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that the previous month had been the hottest October on record. It later emerged that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.
Watch a clip from the Sackur- Leipold interview below.
from: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121814.html
Friday December 18, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Global Warming Science? Nope, Global Warming Scam.
How do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather isn’t cooperating? Here are a few tricks of the trade.
by Steven W. Mosher
December 18, 2009 (pop.org) - How do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather isn’t cooperating? Here are a few tricks of the trade that the scammers are using to explain away the recent cooling trend, as revealed by the hacked e-mails of the world’s leading advocates of man-made Global Warming.
As you read these disturbing e-mails, bear in mind that Obama administration officials remain determined--scandal or no scandal, fraud or no fraud--to compromise the future prosperity and security of our country by their CO2 cap-and-tax schemes.
Trick No. 1: You Destroy Conflicting Data:
Phil Jones, who directs the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, was emphatic in his 21 February 2005 e-mail to American Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann and two others: “I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”
Here Jones appears to violate a basic rule of scientific research, namely, that you make your raw data available on request so that others can verify--or disprove--your hypothesis. Why would the CRU director not be happy to turn over his evidence of climate change, unless . . . his original temperature data didn’t show any convincing rise in temperature at all and it had been conveniently “lost” in consequence?
And it is not his temperature data anyway. The whole CRU was in fact set up in the early 1980s (with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy!) to produce the world's first comprehensive record of surface temperature. Phil Jones and Tom Wigley were sent data gathered over the course of decades by thousands of temperature recording stations located in dozens of countries. This “Jones and Wigley" record, as it is called, served until 2007 as the primary reference standard for the UN climate panel.
After years of stonewalling, Jones now admits that he “merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones. . . . Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.” (See Phil Jones to Graham F Haughton, 27 October 2009)
In other words, this valuable data set, compiled at great expense . . . was discarded. It doesn’t require an advanced degree in the hard sciences (which I have, by the way) to understand that you never, ever, under any circumstances destroy raw data. (The claim that “data storage” was lacking is nonsense.)
Did the raw temperature data contain an inconvenient truth? Can anyone spell c-o-v-e-r u-p?
Trick No. 2: You Cherry Pick Your Data to Show a Recent Rise in Temperatures:
Mike Mann is the author of the now famous “hockey stick” graph, which asserts that global temperatures remaining virtually fixed for centuries, then shot up in the last few decades. The “hockey stick” was Exhibit Number One in the UN’s 2001 climate report, which went on to claim that this dramatic increase in temperature was the result of human activity. (See Graph 1)
The graph was questioned even by the Global Warmers themselves, one of whom wrote that “Mann is an outlier though not egregiously so.” (Curt Covey to Christopher Monckton, 5 February 2007).
Mann refused to release either his data or his algorithm for years, but the Climategate e-mails reveal an even more disturbing instance of cherry-picking data.
The story is too complicated to tell in detail (the whole sordid tale can be found here,) but it involves another famous “hockey stick” graph, this one based on tree rings from Yamal, Russia. This was crafted by another CRU Global Warmer, Keith Briffa. It went on to be used in a dozen other temperature reconstructions, all of which the UN climate panel said validated Mann’s original graph. But Briffa, like Mann and his own boss, Phil Jones, for ten years refused to release the data on which he based his graph.
When Briffa’s hand was finally forced a few weeks ago, it turned out that he had used only a tiny, biased fraction of the raw data available. When skeptic Steve McIntyre calculated a revised chronology based on more complete data, the sharp temperature increase at the end of the twentieth century simply vanished. The twentieth century now showed no significant trend. The blade of the Yamal hockey stick was gone.
Phil Jones later claimed in an e-mail to Graham F. Haughton on 27 October 2009 that “The claims of [Steve McIntyre] are exaggerated.”
Left unanswered is the question of why his Institute seems to specialize in cherry-picking data to bolster the case for “Global Warming,” while keeping the original data--which weakens the case--under wraps?
Trick No. 3: You “Adjust” Away Inconvenient Trends That Threaten to Derail Your Hypothesis:
The warming trend of the early Twentieth Century, which ran from 1910 to 1940, is a major embarrassment for the Global Warmers. They can’t simply ignore this “bend” in the hockey stick, because it is too well-known and too well-documented. But neither can they blame it on people and their infernal combustion engines, since atmospheric CO2 scarcely increased over this time period.
Instead, they go to great lengths to try and “adjust it away,” as Tom Wigley explains to Phil Jones:
Dear Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs [Sea Surface Temperatures] to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. . . . The land also shows the 1940s blip . . . So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC [degrees Centigrade], then this would be significant for the global mean--but we’d still have to explain the land blip. . . . I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and I think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip. . . . My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. . . . It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with ‘why the blip.’
In case you didn’t get all that, let me translate what Wigley is saying into plain English:
“I am fudging the data to take out as much of the ocean warming as I can. I can’
I've ridden the train with coworkers in France and yes it is a fine service (besides the lines to buy a ticket). But the problem with trains or any centralized transportation system is that they are susceptible to being shutdown for a problem. Examples are what you see today - bad weather, labor strikes, a terrorist threat or actaul attack, or even a single mechanical problem. Decentralized transportation systems are much more resilient and reliable for society.
In case you didn’t get all that, let me translate what Wigley is saying into plain English:
“I am fudging the data to take out as much of the ocean warming as I can. I can’t take out all of it, because then we would have no explanation for the land warming, which would raise suspicions. But even with my fudge factor, we still don’t have a convincing explanation for why the ocean warmed during this period.”
Why the blip, indeed.
By the way, the Climategate deniers who dissed the e-mails as “ten years old” should note that the date on this one is 27 September 2009.
Trick No. 4: You Cherry Pick the Model to “Prove” Global Warming is Real.
This 14 October 2009 e-mail from insider Tom Wigley to Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann speaks for itself:
“The figure you sent [from Gavin Schmidt] is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM (Parallel Climate Model) look as thought they match observations--but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity--compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by [the UN climate panel].”
The response, from Schmidt himself, makes it clear that he was working backward from the recent cooling trend to salvage the Global Warming models. “The kinds of things we are hearing, “no model showed a cooling”, the “data is outside the range of the models,” need to be addressed directly,” Schmidt explained.
His “very deceptive” figure was an effort to make the real world data showing static or cooling temperatures appear not to contradict the model predicting Global Warming. You get the idea.
You won’t hear them talk like this in public, of course, where they close ranks in defense of their increasingly discredited theory.
Trick No. 5: You Spend a Lot of time Promoting Your Views with the Media--and Publicly Attacking Your Skeptics.
When the BBC finally--after a decade of no global warming--began to tentatively question whether temperatures were rising after all, the Global Warmers circulated frantic e-mails entitled the “BBC U-turn on climate.”
The reaction of Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann was to go after the reporter:
xtremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. It’s particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office (British Meteorological Office). . . . it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here? (Michael Mann to Phil Jones, Tom Wigley and others, 13 October 2009)
Trick No. 5: “The Science is Settled. The Science is Settled.”
Realizing that their models are open to question, the Global Warmers have tried frantically to shut off debate by chanting in unison: “The science is settled. The science is settled.” Critics are mocked and derided.
When one scientist suggested that skeptics like Fred Singer and Lord Christopher Monckton be taken seriously, “Hockey Stick” Mann exploded: “I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans.”
What set him off was Lord Monckton’s comment, forwarded in an e-mail, that the UN climate reports were unreliable:
I understand that the IPCC's [the UN climate panel’s] 2007 draft does not contain an apology for the defective "hockey-stick" graph, which the US National Academy of Sciences has described as having "a validation skill not significantly different from zero."
In plain English, this means the graph was rubbish. It is difficult to have confidence in a body which, after its principal conclusion is demonstrated in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature and in numerous independent reports as having been useless, fails to make the appropriate withdrawal and apology. Worse, the UN continues to use the defective graph. This failure of basic academic honesty on the IPCC's part was the main reason why I began my investigation of the supposed climate-change "consensus".
Contrary to what you may have heard, the science of “man-made Global Warming” was never settled. Now that these e-mails have exposed the duplicity of that theory’s chief backers, perhaps we can begin trying to understand what, if anything, is really happening with the earth’s climate.
For, as Kevin Trenberth admitted to Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann on 14 October 2009: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
The e-mails do prove one thing, however. They make abundantly clear that much of what was presented as objective “scientific research” by the Global Warmers was nothing more than cleverly disguised advocacy for the radical environmentalist, radical anti-people belief that man is slowly destroying his planet.
At the end of the day, it may turn out that the only thing “man-made” about Global Warming is the hysteria and hot air that has been generated by theory’s heated backers. That is certainly anthropogenic.
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute.
Technical Failure on U.K.-France Trains Stranded 60,000 Travelers Over Weekend
After conducting tests for much of the day Sunday, Eurostar officials said the cause of the breakdown was that cold, dry air from the freezing weather in northern France mixed with the warm, humid air of the tunnel and caused condensation that prompted the engines to shut down.
The chaos could damage Eurostar's reputation as the easiest way to travel between London and Paris and Brussels.
Tulip Siddiq, a 27-year-old researcher in London, chose to take the train over a plane to visit her brother in Belgium for the weekend. As of Sunday night, she was still waiting to leave.
"I was trying to be good and get the Eurostar [for my carbon footprint]," Ms. Siddiq said. "Flights tend to be delayed and a hassle ... And then it turns out it was Eurostar that was canceled."
Last week Eurostar train managers threatened to strike during the weekend over meal allowances before calling off the strike. Eurostar had said the strike wouldn't affect service.
So if the weather don't get you the Unions will. No Thanks to Mass Transit. After nearly a million actual miles on Alaska Airlines, I hate the hassle of flying. Cannot imagine messing with a train for travel.
At the very least the miscreants in our government should be deluged with these facts. I'm copying and forwarding same to my reps.
Regards, DQ
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
from: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138/??
Reasons 1 to 25:
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago
12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds
13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.
14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions
15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”
16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.
17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.
18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control
19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.
20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates
21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades
23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries
24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder
25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research
from: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138/??
Reasons 26 to 50:
26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles
27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population
29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago
30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles
31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming
32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures
33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere
34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere
35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything
36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes
37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”
38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC
39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally
40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms
41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful
42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical
43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests
44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years
45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations
47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.
48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change
49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.
50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.
from: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138/??
Reasons 51 to 75:
51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.
52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”
53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.
54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot
55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.
56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.
57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”
58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.
59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.
60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.
61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.
63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.
64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.
65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.
66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.
67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.
68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.
69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.
70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”
71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.
72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.
73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.
74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.
75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay
from: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138/??
Reasons 76 to 100:
76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.
77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.
78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.
79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).
80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.
81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.
82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.
83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.
85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.
86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.
87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.
88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.
90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.
91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.
92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.
94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.
95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.
96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.
97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.
98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and
The following points were truncated and are reproduced below:
75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”
I would submit that the above 100 statements do provide some food for thought and some nice material for intelligent discussion for those so inclined.
Kind of serves the globalists right...in their omnivorous quest for profit and power, they have created a monster who will not cooperate with them.
Never depend on British data. I am sure it was once believable, but that was long before I was born.
I think our current government have two books as their guidelines; "1984" and "Animal Farm". Quite a few of the top comrades come from Marxist backgrounds but the good folk of USSGB, (Union of Soviet States of Great Britain), have voted these muppets into power three times. However, UK voters are very poor at turning out to vote, so we end up with minority governments............like this one.
Apathy Rules U.K.
Orwell is laughing from the grave right now.
I wonder if there will ever be a straw that breaks the camels back...
The so-called BASIC countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – backed the accord in a meeting with the US on Friday night, and it was also supported by nearly all other nations at the talks, including all of the biggest emitters.
But on Tuesday the Brazilian government labelled the accord “disappointing” and complained that the financial assistance it contained from rich to poor countries was insufficient.
South Africa also raised objections: Buyelwa Sonjica, the environment minister, called the failure to produce a legally binding agreement “unacceptable”. She said her government had considered leaving the meeting.
“We are not defending this, as I have indicated, for us it is not acceptable, it is definitely not acceptable,” she said.
There was even harsher criticism from Andreas Carlgren, environment minister of Sweden, current holder of the rotating European Union presidency, who proclaimed the Copenhagen accord “a disaster” and “a great failure”.
Let's hear three big CHEERS for the Failure in HopenChangen, RAH, RAH, RAH
RONKONKOMA, N.Y. (CBS) ―
The Long Island Rail Road has apologized to the riders who were stranded on a train at Wyandanch during the snow storm early Sunday morning.
But as CBS 2 HD found out, some of the passengers are still angry over the inconvenience that lasted six hours.
If only the trains were running normally early Sunday morning. Instead, one train was stranded with no power.
"For me it was the cold that was killing me. My jacket was my blanket," passenger Derek Gumin said.
Gumin and his friend Joe Iannello, both 24, experienced the train ride from hell.
"There was no bathroom except one which was flooded. It was the biggest concern to most people," Gumin said.
What should have been a trip lasting an hour and 20 minutes took a total of six hours with the passengers stranded for three hours.
I don't care if it gets 30 degrees warmer. I am not going to live in a stinking city forced onto filthy mass transit.
According to the results of a University of Toronto study, participants who assigned more social value to 'green' shopping were more likely to cheat and steal in subsequent tests than those with less stringent shopping habits.
The study, to be published in the new year in the journal Psychological Science, is the latest in a growing field of research called "moral licensing."
It's a relatively new concept that posits humans might store up a reserve of good karma only to squander it later. It's a little like Tiger Woods spending thousands of hours of golf practice and earning hundreds of millions of dollars on the PGA tour, only to fritter it all away with a few nights of extramarital indiscretion.
Co-authors Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, professors at the university's Rotman School of Business, said they considered themselves to be "green" consumers, which is partly why they took up the research.
The pair set up tests for a sample of university students which asked them to purchase a basket of goods at either a hypothetical organic shop or a typical grocery store.
Those who bought more green items were found in separate tests to be significantly less likely than their conventional counterparts to share money with an anonymous recipient and more likely to cheat on and lie about the results of a simple quiz.
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Study+shows+Green+shoppers+more+likely+cheat/- 2362923/story.html
This explains why Climate Scientists found it easy to lie about the data to push their agenda. Environmentalists are more likely to be liars and cheats.
PARIS (AFP) – Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.
The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.
Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.
To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.
Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.
Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.
The USA would have to remove 132 million SUVs to equal the pollution caused by the 61 million dogs in the country. Maybe we can sell them to China and pay off some of our debt. The EPA needs to get on this first of the New Year, and BAN DOGS as gross polluters.
Ban Pets
And pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.
With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.
Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life.
And cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease.
Pet owners respond:
Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.
I can relate to her. My SUVs give me so much pleasure, they cannot possibly be polluting. :shades:
I wonder if this was mentioned at the HopenChangen Summit?
These nuts are so stupid that they will believe anything they hear and have no idea that you can statistically "prove" almost anything if you are dishonest enough and have something to gain.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
How many documented provable deaths have been caused by MM/GW? Yet we have proof of folks dying because of the cold.
European weather deaths pass 100
Freezing weather brings death and disruption in Germany, Italy and across eastern Europe
More than 100 people have been killed in the cold snap across Europe, with temperatures plummeting and snowfall causing chaos from Moscow to Milan.
In Poland, where temperatures have dropped to as low as -20C in some areas, police appealed for tip-offs about people spotted lying around outside. At least 42 people, most of them homeless, died over the weekend.
In Ukraine 27 people have frozen to death since the thermometer dropped last week. Authorities in Romania said 11 people had succumbed to the chill, and in the Czech Republic the toll was 12. In Germany, where temperatures have fallen to -33C in certain parts, at least seven people are known to have lost their lives in the freezing weather.
For millions of others across the continent, the cold snap has brought severe disruption, with flight cancellations and traffic jams thwarting pre-Christmas travel plans.
Now that sounds like a lot of driving, and since I drive a Lexus LS 430, you would think I could save a lot of money each year by buying a small hybrid, either to totally replace the Lexus or just as a third car.
According to my car's trip computer I have averaged 22 mpg over the lifetime of my current car. Let's say I could average 40 mpg with the Prius.
With gas costing $2.60 a gal I would save a total of $144. per year by giving up my safe, comfortable V8 and changing to a Prius. At that rate it would only take a little over 12 years to totally recoup....the sales tax on the Prius.
Of course I am completely discounting the dollar value of the smugness factor here.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I've got a solution! Why don't you just put your club in the bag with the woods and putters, in the trunk of your car.
A main concern of course would be if the government, being justified in the name of controlling "pollution" - CO2, decides that it will regulate how much pollution you can create. So in other words you need to get the government's permission to do things that pollute. While the government couldn't tell you you can't go play golf, they might be able to tell you, you can't drive your car to get to the golf-course! And until we get electrical generating plants that don't use fossil fuels, I'd guess the EPA will have authority to regulate the use of EV's.
Technically the EPA has now been empowered by the Judiciary Branch, such that the EPA can "regulate" those sorts of things, because of the "pollution" and hazard to everyone. Nice huh? Let's see how long it takes before someone in the Obama administration gives the EPA direction to start testing-the-waters, and setting precedents by taking small steps, into more control of our lives.
What Congress has recently said is, the EPA has already been granted by law that they can regulate to protect citizens, if they believe or determine a substance to be a hazard to the public. So in order to regulate CO2, all they need is to have some science support a hazard, and then for the EPA to make a subjective decision that this is a significant risk to the public or environment. The "some science" is there to make any claim look legitimate. Maybe the study is from some professor and his grad students who are receiving grants from some government agency, or by a private corporation which stands to benefit by some negative facts being found by this "neutral scientific group".
There's nothing like having an agenda, working for an agency that is empowered, having the money to hire your own scientists to uncover any negative facts (or better yet "strong beliefs"), and then get the researchers to look like a neutral party who are supporting your position. Similar to: Tobacco companies doing this for years; and cops doing this when they want to frame someone.
The more you hear about Climategate, the more I see, hear, and smell a duck.
I have lived in the KC area for 30 years now and we have never had a full fledged blizzard before...until now. 13 degrees, wind out of the north at 30 mph, 11 inches of snow with possibly more on the way.
Long range forecast (next 7 days) lows around 0, highs in the 20's or lower, and another storm next week.
Merry Christmas everyone !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I did my part - flew to TX and put 1500 miles on a rental car (had to use up my carbon allotment for the year, don't you know).
I'm not sure what's worse to look at in the oil patch down here - the 1,000s of stripper well pumps or the 1,00s of windmills on all the mesas. At least the windmills don't stink like oil wells; that crude smell gets to you.
In global warming news, looks like the "heat" is causing weather extremes eh? :shades:
Try to stay warm and be safe. I got an email from a friend in Anadarko, OK saying it was the Christmas Blizzard of 2009. They are all shut down there. Good day to have a supply of firewood and a nice warm fire to just kick back and enjoy the day.
It was close to freezing here. I tossed another log in my new stove and love the free heat. Well almost free thanks to the tax credit. I think the windmills are aesthetically pleasing, just slowly cranking out those KWHs. Not the eyesore of Solar Panels on a neighbors roof. I am waiting to hear our wood smoke is blocking their sunshine or spewing PM on their panels making them worthless.
""Well almost free thanks to the tax credit.""
Not free! The rest of us are being debited so that you can have that tax credit!! :lemon:
That wouldn't be so bad except that every dollar of credit results in about a two dollar increase in our debt!! And even worse that your children and grandchildren will be paying most of the debt!! When they think of their bleak future, I will bet that they don't realize that your tax credit is part of it!!
Strange how everything today has to be incentivized by the federal government! No one wants to do anything, be it getting a better car, caulking their windows, paying their mortgage, or buying a more efficient stove, unless there is a government program to take someone else's money to help pay for it!! Like the idiots running around in 'free' electric golf carts and wheelchairs while their fellow citizens are being saddled with the largest national debt in history!!
.
I don't blame the people who take advantage of a discount; blame the do-gooder, patronizing idiots in government who aren't content with running their own lives, but want to micro-manage everyone else's. You know - you probably have relatives like that who not only know what's best for them, but want to "help and advise" you. It's a serious character flaw - lack of respect for others.
That is exactly the way I felt when people were given $4500 for an old $500 POC vehicle in trade. And the $2 per gallon we are subsidizing the ethanol industry. I could go on for hours on the wasted money at the Federal, State and local levels. You forgot the $8000 tax credit for buying a home. They figure at least a third of those cashing in on that deal were cheating. What is worse than the tax credits are the handouts to people that don't even pay any taxes. I have not added up all the tax I have paid at every level this year. I imagine it will be well over $50,000. So that $802 tax credit on the wood stove kind of evaporates into thin air. Now if I could just find a golf cart I like before the end of the year. :shades:
Yeah! The worst part is that they are incentivizing the very people who couldn't really afford the houses that they were buying, and therefore defaulted on them, thanks to the federal government (Barney Frank & Chris Dodd), pushing, (forcing), banks to make loans to people with low or no income, bad credit, little down payment, etc.!! Now they want to get more people into unsustainable loans by the gift of $8,000 of other people's money!! If I have always paid the mortgage on my current house, have good income, have good credit, and have money for a down payment, I am NOT eligible for a discount!! What, for a financial sense, is wrong with this picture!??!
If, like decades ago, the home buyer needed 20% cash down, (not a loan or gift from someone else), sufficient income, and very good credit, there would not be these foreclosures and 'bad' loans today! And back then, during the Carter Calamity, interest rates were 10 to nearly 20%!! In the 70's I was delighted to find a home with an assumable 10% mortgage when current rates were in the high teens. What a great deal!
I got out of the landlord business when people that I wouldn't rent to due to too low income and bad credit became eligible for home loans! I was worried that I wouldn't get my rent, but the banks didn't seem to care that they probably wouldn't see many house payments!! Why would even some deadbet rent when he could buy? Quality renters have become an indangered species!!
.
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f1d3f68/1091#MSG1091
Crow and An Inconvenient Truth producer Laurie David are touring 11 campuses to inform college students about the climate crisis and how they can help stop it. (They also have a documentary team with them filming the tour.)
Cheryl Crow is protesting rounding up NON indigenous horses in Nevada. If cattle, sheep and horses are a big part of MM/GW, why would she worry what happens to a bunch of wild horses that should not be left to destroy the eco system in states like Nevada?
Sheryl Crow, other wild-horse advocates ask Obama, Reid to stop mustang roundup in Nevada
RENO, Nev. (AP) — Sheryl Crow and other wild-horse advocates on Thursday called on President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to block a major roundup of mustangs set to begin Monday in Nevada.
The request came a day after a federal judge denied a request to block the government gather in the Calico Mountains Complex, saying opponents failed to demonstrate that removal of the horses would violate federal law.
These entertainment types will jump on any bandwagon that will get their names in the paper. They must think the American Public is just plain stupid. Which is it going to be? Stop MM/GW from horse and cows spewing GHG out both ends, or let US be over run with NON indigenous species?
That, rather that doing good, is what this whole AGW business is all about.
That, rather that doing good, is what this whole AGW business is all about.
Amen.
I trust you all had a Happy Christmas and will have a Splendiferous New Year.
With a little luck you will get rid of Gordon Brown, while you have anything left of your country.... At least you have a team that have names that are fun to make fun of. Brown and Balls take the UK to the Brink of economic collapse.... :shades: Face it where would Brown be without Balls?
Weatherization type programs get picked up on by landlords as well as homeowners, so that improvement in the housing stock helps the renters with their monthly cash flow. Lots of landlords wouldn't do squat otherwise, even if there were other tax deductions available for improvements.
I did a lot of subsidized stuff to my house when I lived in Anchorage - a new door, window, lots and lots of insulation and caulk. The energy programs up there at the time were funded by Exxon, courtesy of a settlement that found that they were overcharging for something.
And I did a new heat pump system here; the old one was shot but the $1500 energy credit was "used" to upgrade to a more efficient unit.
And just how does you having a better house help the rest of us?? Why are we paying more in taxes, or more for gas, so that you can upgrade your house?? Why don’t you save lots of money and energy by moving to a warmer climate?? Or are you waiting for the warmer climate to move to you??
If these improvements were so beneficial, why didn't you help yourself by doing it yourself, rather than just helping yourself to other people's money?? You wouldn't take a penny out of someone's pocket, but you will gladly accept thousands in 'stolen goods' that the government has taken unjustly from the pockets of your fellow citizens!!
PS: Exxon is a publicly owned company, so, if it has lower profits due to paying high taxes and 'fines', your fellow citizens, who have invested in Exxon, will receive lower dividends so you can save money and increase the value of your house!!
:lemon: