Mr. Obama Goes to Copenhagen

DATELINE:  Europe.  Obama Negotiates World Temperature!

To thunderous world applause, President Barack Obama extended a hand of friendship to Mother Nature and Old Man Winter, hoping to negotiate a 2 degree Celsius drop in world temperatures.

The Belgians, previously thought to be extinct, had tears in their eyes as they cheered Mr. Obama.  The assembled press corps shivered with excitement and collectively piddled down their little hind legs as the great man emerged, smiling, from the negotiations.  Their wagging tails and incessant yapping betrayed their unbridled glee.

Ocean Kings Balk at Negotiations
"But trouble lurks," warned the UN Special High Poobah Rapporteur for Climatological Appeasement.  That triumvirate of the murky depths, Kings Poseidon, Neptune, and Triton, have stubbornly resisted The World's blandishments and continue to hold El Nino and La Nina hostage.

Ocean Receding Vow "a mistake"

Cowering Europeans blame a rare misstep by President Obama for incurring their wrath.  In a fit of election night euphoria, then president-elect Obama needlessly provoked the lords of the deep with his careless vow to make the oceans recede. 

EU Parliament members have taken to wearing flippers and have outlawed seafood consumption in an effort to appease the angry gods of the deep, but so far to no avail.

As the US president works through his long list of apologies, it is rumored that a mea culpa to the wrathful sea titans is in the works.

Bush, Cheney to blame for ignoring, disrespecting the ocean kingdom

In a face-saving move, the apology will be couched in criticism of the last administration.  Dick Cheney showed total disregard for the Oceanic kings by never once having visited the beach. 

And it is alleged that President Bush urinated upon their abode during various sailing jaunts off the coast of Kennebunkport, Maine.  While in the very act, the former president is rumored to have said, "what's the ocean ever done for me?  Heh heh heh!"

Obama's Peace Prize, Global Warming, and Other Fantasies

Obama's Peace Prize is really about getting the US to pass cap and trade and then sign on to a disastrous climate change treaty this December

Here come the scolding mommies from Europe, demanding we "Do Something!" in response to their incomprehensible fairy tales about global warming making Mother Earth hot and mad ...

Delegates wrap up two weeks of talks in Thailand tomorrow in an effort to replace or extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, whose emission limits for industrialized nations expire in 2012.

Failure (of the US) to have a new law in time for Copenhagen’s final round of negotiations would raise question marks over what commitments the U.S. can make, Falkenberg said.

Note the arch, scolding, passive/aggressive tone these internationales use:

Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President Barack Obama faces “more than an embarrassment” should his nation fail to lead international negotiations to complete a new climate-protection treaty by December, a senior European climate negotiator said.

“Obama and his administration are very committed, and it will be more than an embarrassment for them if at Copenhagen they would have to admit they are not ready,” Falkenberg said late last night in Bangkok, where more than 180 nations are meeting for talks.

“We can just help, but helping them also means directly telling them that the world has an expectation.”

I don't like the pompous tone from these little pissant busybodies!  Nobody talks to the US President like that, and we sure as hell don't care about "the world's" expectations.

I was getting really angry reading this piece, until I came across this laugher:

The UN is pushing for a deal that would limit the rise in world temperatures since industrialization began to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

A deal on limiting the earth's temperature?  Who do they propose to negotiate this with?  Old Man Winter?  Mother Nature? The sun?  

The International House of Scandal and Corruption and the polyglot dingleberries who cling to it can't even agree on a what constitutes terrorism or a human rights abuse.  Yet they propose to turn down the earth's thermostat?  

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Finally, the article hints there is hope:

Obama’s scope is limited because the U.S. Congress may not approve a domestic law to control emissions before the December deadline for signing an international climate accord...

Bloomberg - Climate Change Nonsense

Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

Liberals Give us The Finger

Like swarms of know-it-all gnats or plagues of lecturing locusts, progressive do-gooders just can't refrain from admonishing us...


Another day, another scold from the Obama White House. First they tell us to wash our hands and show us how to sneeze, now they're going to teach us about "green-house gas emissions":

When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.

The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.” (In that case, the Energy Department has a few renegade teens of its own.)

The administration aims to teach them—literally.

Liberal hot air emissions are a bigger threat. We may end up teaching them a lesson in 2010. Good Lord willin'...

Global Warming and Other Modern Day Fairy Tales

From the Guardian, whose editorial board is disappointed that President Obama has yet to command the oceans to recede:

Europe has been increasingly critical of America's failures to live up to its global responsibilities. The US is not only the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases but is by far the largest per capita emitter of carbon and other pollutants.

Oh yeah, Bozo? The US also happens to be the world's largest emitter of international aid, cutting edge electronic consumer products, and medicine and medical equipment, not to mention scientific research.

So blow it out your bagpipes you limey lecturers! *

Everything's a catastrophe with these anointed cognoscenti. Banking crisis; credit crisis; people aren't buying enough union-made cars crisis; illegal aliens and bullet-proof 20-somethings won't buy health insurance crisis...

When nobody believes their insipid global warming propaganda, they scream louder!

Here's some advice: Shut Up!
Here's some advice for these people: Shut up and get out of my face! Get your grubby dickskinners off our lives and go fix the bloated, bankrupt government you've been entrusted with!

Global warming is a sun-spot induced fairy tale, and wanting to blow trillions to turn down the earth's thermostat when temperatures are already falling is the pinnacle of scientific and economic ignorance.

So just shut up and put your wagging finger away! If the earth catches fire I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

* Apologies to my British friends. You're not limeys, just the stupid ones are.

Can You Believe It? The Age of Unreason

Credulity [kruh-doo-li-tee] –noun:
Willingness to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility.

One of the peculiar sins of the twentieth century which we've developed to a very high level is the sin of credulity. It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything.
-- Malcolm Muggeridge

Malcolm Muggeridge was a British journalist and editor of the humor magazine "Punch". He found Christ late in life and turned his acerbic wit on the ignorant, materialistic culture he saw taking root in Western Christendom. To make his point, he famously pondered the result of bringing an African witch doctor to a modern Western country and subjecting him to television advertising. He posited that the shaman would be green with envy.

In Africa, he had to peddle his dubious potions to a poor, skeptical public by going door-to-door and town-to-town. Here in the Western world, the most highly educated, the most progressive, the most advanced part of the earth, there is a reservoir of credulity beyond his wildest dreams.

So true. Back in the old days, people were much more skeptical. If someone leveled an allegation or posited a point of view without proof or reason he would be laughed out of town and marginalized.

Nowadays, it's a 24/7 party in Kooksville, where crackpots on 500 channels and multifarious media outlets peddle unsubstantiated drivel to a gullible public:

Obama is a Muslim, Hillary is a lesbian, Sarah Palin had an affair, George Bush was in on the 9/11 conspiracy, Bush-Cheney-Halliburton invaded Iraq to steal their oil...

Each of these could be true, but there is no credible supporting evidence.

A related malady is the global warming hysteria. There is still credible scientific disagreement on this issue. Regardless, our government is willing to bet trillions of taxpayer money that Al Gore is right.

I'm incredulous...

For a more in-depth discussion that completely guts the arguments of the Environmental left, visit Ontological Angst...

USA Apology Tour Continues: Sorry for all that progress

After flying to India in a pollution-spewing jetliner, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apologized for all the pollution we and the other industrialized nations have caused:

"We acknowledge now with President Obama that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change," she said. "We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes." (Source: Google-AP)

We could cut gaseous emissions by two-thirds if she, Obama, and all the preaching, screeching Democrats would just shut up.

What will we apologize for next? Advances in medical and pharmaceutical technology that have eradicated scurvy, beriberi, rickets and other forgotten diseases that used to kill third-world children at alarming rates? How about we apologize for all the pollution our humanitarian operations have caused?

I could go on, but you get the drift. The industrialized world has brought a cornucopia of goodness to the world, the entire world. Indeed, the US, Europe and Japan have lavished literally trillions less fortunate countries over the past 60 years.

These people are an embarrassment, and hopefully they are on their way out:

Obama continues to be comparatively popular. But now recent national surveys have shown a measurable drop in his job approval rating, even among Democrats. A CBS news survey out this week had his national approval rating at 57 percent, and his standing among Democrats down 10 percentage points since last month, from 92 percent to 82 percent. (Source: AP Google)

The more they talk and spend, the worse it gets for them. Hopefully, three and a half years from now, the only apology we will be making is for unleashing a plague of historically-ignorant guilty elitists upon the benighted peoples of the world.

AP Google - Obama Losing Support
AP - Another Damned Apology

Castrated on the Altar of Gaia

Incoherent Stupidity is The #1 Congressional Output
The house wants to slap tariffs on all goods coming into the country originating from nations that do not conform to our proposed cap and trade law. This will surely start a trade war that will further tank the global economy.

The Senate doesn't like that provision and vows to strip it out of the bill.

So it's either start a trade war by insisting others follow our suicidal rules, or allow other countries to sell us cheap stuff because they refuse to saw the legs off of their economy like we have ours...

Behold the sheer stupidity of cap and trade! Don't we have enough problems already without congress blowing billions to create more?

FT - Carbon Import Tariffs

G8 Addresses Global Warming & Other Fairy Tales

International Organizations = Global Incompetence

L'AQUILA, Italy (AP) - President Barack Obama and other leaders at the Group of Eight summit have struck a new agreement on fighting global warming.

Consider the ridiculousness of this statement by our president:

“We have agreed for the first time that average global temperatures must rise by no more than 2C."

This is folly. Why not demand the wind stop blowing? It spreads air pollution around and messes up women's hair-dos. Why don't they just have Obama rebuke the global atmosphere? "Peace, be still!" No, wait. That was Jesus calming the seas...

Santa Claus and Witches are Next
The gathering also targeted tax criminals such as Santa Claus, who undercuts local businesses and pays no political contributions or taxes. He's also an environmental offender, spewing reindeer flatulence, which the G8 recently declared a greenhouse gas. The bearded offender is known as Pere Noel in France, Cinter Klaas in Holland, Der Weinachtsmann in Germany and El Navideno on the Iberian Peninsula.

The G8 midgets also agreed to scour European forests for the big bad wolf and and the witch who menaced Hansel und Gretel. The latter should be easy since she is rumored to live in a gingerbread house and has developed a taste for oven-roasted children.

Last year we discovered that Bush was Batman, but so far, the secret is still safe that Barack Obama is Robin Hood.



AP - G8 Follies

Times Online - Climate Fantasies

Chicago Ray

Democrats are the Tools of Billionaire Businessmen

Cap and Trade will put millions in the pockets of big business. How about you?

DALLAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--T. Boone Pickens offered the following statement on passage of Waxman/Markey climate legislation entitled, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009:

“I congratulate Chairmen Waxman and Markey and the House leadership for taking important first steps in advancing the use of renewable energy in our nation’s power grid. The American public wants this, and they recognize the important role a Green Bank, Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) and transmission provisions will have in revitalizing our economy..."

Silverfiddle's Statement on the Passage of Tax and Slave:
You morons. A billionaire just patted you on the head for doing his bidding with my money and you are too stupid to realize it. Do you really think you can turn down the earth's temperature like a house thermostat? How will you know when you've got the temperature just right? When we're all living in caves and wearing loincloths because construction and manufacturing have been driven from the country?

How do you reduce dependence on foreign oil?

Use domestic oil! And gas! And coal! If your damned windmills were economically viable, T. Boone, you wouldn't have to be mooching my tax dollars to keep your Rube Goldberg scheme going.

"The People's House": Bought and Paid for by Big Business

The Democratic party, along with some ignoramuses in the GOP, just slit the throat of the American worker. Businesses deemed "dirty" or "ungreen" will simply move to where they don't have to put up with this statist BS. The Democratic party, and some of its associate members in the GOP, have just taken a giant crap on the little guy, the forgotten man, who can barely put gas in the tank and pay the light bill right now.

Can we now drop, once and for all, this liberal fantasy that the GOP is for big business and the Democrats are for the little guy? This legislation is worth millions to T. Boone Pickens. How much is it worth to you?

Lies, Damn Lies, and Computer Climate Models

The news of Antarctica's warming is being met with cheers by the Gaia worshipers and their enablers in the media. They had been frustrated that despite the ozone hole, hockey stick graphs, and gaseous hot air spewing forth from the Reverend Al Gore, this icy continent has not been warming.

Well, someone left their cake out in the rain, I don't think that they can take it, it took so long to bake it, and they'll never have that recipe again... (Apologies to Donna Summer)

Christopher Booker at the Telegraph reports that the claim by Professor Eric Steig is based on a bogus scientific model crafted by Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann.

Here's reaction from two famous global warming supporters:

One of the first to express astonishment was Dr Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a convinced believer in global warming, who wryly observed "it is hard to make data where none exists".

A disbelieving Ross Hayes, an atmospheric scientist who has often visited the Antarctic for Nasa, sent Professor Steig a caustic email ending: "with statistics you can make numbers go to any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage."

Children in the underdeveloped world do not have clean drinking water, but the media stooges are more interested in junk scientists who waste their time crafting worthless linear models of a complex ecosystem they do not understand.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-warming-up.html
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/new-virtual-village-explores-global-drinking-water-crisis,322213.shtml

Matters of Faith: Intelligent Design & Global Warming

The climate change movement, bereft of convincing scientific proof, has devolved into a religion. It has its own Orthodoxy Which Shall Not Be Questioned, lists of anathematized heretical scientists, and a green morality it uses to admonish the unwashed as it determines sinful and virtuous behavior.

Arguments over global warming, like those over religion, are exhausting and futile due to a lack of verifiable scientific data. What I've found interesting is the apparent (anecdotal) inverse relationship between belief in a creator and belief in climate change: The stronger one's belief in a creator the more skeptical one is of climate change; The stronger one's belief in climate change, the more skeptical one is about a creator.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a climatologist and former NASA scientist, and he has addressed both issues.

Although imminently qualified to refute Al Gore's climate nonsense (and he has in numerous articles and books) Dr. Spencer's recent blog post lists Gore's propaganda devices and gives examples of each one. Philosophers and students of logic will recognize these devices Mr. Gore employs, as they are the rhetorical rocks that a loser throws when he has expended his magazine of logic.

Here is the list. Dr. Spencer provides examples as well in his blog article:

Appeal to Authority
Bandwagon
Flag-waving
Ad Hominem Attacks
Appeal to Prejudice (using loaded words, appeals to a moral code)
Black and White Fallacy (False dilemma)
Euphoria (Movies and live events that make televangelists green with envy)
Falsifying Information
Stereotyping or Labeling

Even more interesting is Dr Spencer's defense of Intelligent Design. Here are some excerpts from his short, interesting defense of Intelligent Design. Note his adherence to scientific methods and lack of Gore-esque hot air rhetoric.

I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred. A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution — they are still moths.

In the biological realm, natural selection (which is operating in these examples) is supposedly the mechanism by which evolution advances, and intelligent design theory certainly does not deny its existence. While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life — and that is what evolution is.

Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc.

One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith. Even some evolutionists have admitted as much in their writings. Modern biology does not “fall apart” without evolution, as some will claim.

Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs... Just as someone can recognize and study some machine of unknown purpose built by another company, country (or alien intelligence?), one can also examine the natural world and ask the question: did this machine arise by semi-random natural physical processes, or could it have been designed by a higher power? Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.

Religion and climate change: Two separate issues, but the arguments sure sound the same. When a climate change proponent finally in desperation employs Pascal's Wager (even though we can't prove we're destroying the planet, we've got to do something just in case!), the skeptic has won the argument.

Of course, the God-denier could say the same of the believer. The difference is this:

My belief in God doesn't require everyone to use only one square of toilet paper, drive expensive battery-powered crap-boxes, and economically castrate themselves upon the altar of Gaia.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/al-gores-propaganda/
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/

Reality -vs- Computer Models

More bad news for the Global Warming crowd: Reality is contradicting the hysterical computer models showing the Earth's temperature approaching that of the sun if we all don't repent and send our dollars to Reverend Al Gores's Church of Gaia. Yes, global temperatures in all parts of the world are falling, except in the fevered imaginings of the climate change crowd.

Reality can be intrusive like that. Christopher Booker sums it all up in his Daily Telegraph article:

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

Personally, I think it was the election of Mr. Obama. Didn't he say the oceans would recede?

More Scientists Defy Climate Dogma

These eminent scientists explain why they do not believe in global warming. Their explanations are much more cogent and logical that the those of the global warming crowd. I am not a climate scientist, so all I can do is read and figure out who to trust. I don't trust Al Gore or the UN. If others want to believe, I wish them well; just don't ask me and other hard working taxpayers to fund your fantasies.

WASHINGTON, DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears.

“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past,” he added.

“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he explained. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer added.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the University of Arizona - Tucson, past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who has authored more than 80 scientific publications and authored the paper “Human Population and Carbon Dioxide,” dissented in 2008.

“My principal objections to the theory of anthropogenic warming are as follows:

1) I am mistrustful of ‘all but the kitchen sink’ models that, by virtue of their complexity, cannot be analyzed mathematically. When we place our trust in such models, what too often results is the replacement of a poorly understood physical (chemical, biological) system by a model that is similarly opaque,” Schaffer told EPW on December 19, 2008.

2) I am troubled by the application of essentially linear thinking to what is arguably the ‘mother of all nonlinear dynamical systems’ - i.e., the climate.

3) I believe it likely that "natural climate cycles" are the fingerprints of chaotic behavior that is inherently unpredictable in the long-term. As reviewed in a forthcoming article (Schaffer, in prep), these cycles are "dense" on chaotic attractors and have the stability properties of saddles. Evolving chaotic trajectories successively shadow first one cycle, then another. The result is a sequence of qualitatively different behaviors - what climatologists call "regime shift" - independent of extrinsic influences. Tsonis and his associates discuss this phenomenon in terms of network theory and ‘synchronized chaos,’ but these embellishments are not necessary. To be chaotic is to dance the dance of the saddles,” Schaffer explained.

“The recent lack of warming in the face of continued increases in CO2 suggests

(a) that the effects of greenhouse gas forcing have been over-stated;

(b) that the import of natural variability has been underestimated and

(c) that concomitant rises of atmospheric CO2 and temperature in previous decades may be coincidental rather than causal,” he added.

“I fear that things could easily go the other way: that the climate could cool, perhaps significantly; that the consequences of a new Little Ice Age or worse would be catastrophic and that said consequences will be exacerbated if we meanwhile adopt warmist prescriptions. This possibility, plus the law of unintended consequences, leads me to view proposed global engineering ‘solutions’ as madness. (LINK) (LINK)(LINK)

Info courtesy of Marc Morano, Office of Senator James Inhofe, Senate EPW Committee

Global Warming's Missed Opportunities

Arguments over global warming/climate change/whateveryouwanttocallit have taken on the tenor of religious discussions. Logic is abandoned for frantic imperatives to action: Don't think, just do something! Tax water vapor! Buy carbon offsets!

Crabby skeptics like me resent being labeled stupid, environmentally insensitive, unscientific, or *horror or horrors* uncaring. I love the environment; that's where the tasty animals come from. It also comes in pretty handy when I want to fish, camp or ski.

The angry shoutfest that has sprung from the climate change debate is is a shame, because there are real, uncontroversial global environmental issues that require international cooperation.

Climate fetishism wastes the finite resources needed to resolve these issues. This is what economists call an opportunity cost. The cost of trying to cool down the planet with expensive, dubious schemes is that the resources used cannot be used in solving more tangible and immediate problems. There are only so many dollars, people, and other resources in the world. If you spend a dollar here, you can't also spend it there.

Scientists and other climate experts like CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers are pushing back against the climate change movement's intellectual incontinence:

“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”

Prominent intellectual and University of Copenhagen professor Bjorn Lomborg would disagree with Myers' first sentence but agree with the second. Lomborg is not an environmental scientist (he has a PhD in Political Science), but he has conducted some rigorous academic study on the subject of climate change. Lomborg accepts the premise that man is affecting the earth's climate. Where the professor parts company with the climate change crowd is in the solution. He writes in a recent WaPo article that resources should be dedicated to R&D efforts in pursuit of practical solutions such as more efficient solar panels and a new generation of biofuels.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a co-sponsor of the bill, has called it "the world's most far-reaching program to fight global warming." It is indeed policy on a grand scale. It would slow American economic growth by trillions of dollars over the next half-century. But in terms of temperature, the result will be negligible if China and India don't also commit to reducing their emissions, and it will be only slightly more significant if they do. By itself, Lieberman-Warner would postpone the temperature increase projected for 2050 by about two years.

Many people believe that everyone has a moral obligation to ask how we can best combat climate change. Attempts to curb carbon emissions along the lines of the bill now pending are a poor answer compared with other options.

Consider that today, solar panels are one-tenth as efficient as the cheapest fossil fuels. Only the very wealthy can afford them. Many "green" approaches do little more than make rich people feel they are helping the planet. We can't avoid climate change by forcing a few more inefficient solar panels onto rooftops.

The answer is to dramatically increase research and development so that solar panels become cheaper than fossil fuels sooner rather than later. Imagine if solar panels became cheaper than fossil fuels by 2050: We would have solved the problem of global warming, because switching to the environmentally friendly option wouldn't be the preserve of rich Westerners.

This message was recently backed up by the findings of the Copenhagen Consensus project, which gathered eight of the world's top economists -- including five Nobel laureates -- to examine research on the best ways to tackle 10 global challenges: air pollution, conflict, disease, global warming, hunger and malnutrition, lack of education, gender inequity, lack of water and sanitation, terrorism, and trade barriers.

These experts looked at the costs and benefits of different responses to each challenge. Their goal was to create a prioritized list showing how money could best be spent combating these problems. The panel concluded that the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

Air pollution and water pollution contribute to death and disease worldwide; lack of fresh water and biomass cause hunger, conflict and death. Most everyone can agree that these are pressing issues. Carbon emission restrictions via onerous taxation schemes will keep the developing world mired in poverty, while robbing the rich nations of their wealth. This in turn will destroy the economic engine needed to fund tangible environmental solutions.

I am a fan of Professor Lomborg because he gathers up the incoherent, disjointed shards of the chaotic climate change debate and constructs logical, practical solutions that satisfy all but the extreme fringes. The middle is where these solutions will be implemented. It is naive to imagine any country will economically castrate itself in sacrifice to Mother Earth.

Even at the personal level, people will not deny themselves what is readily available: Environmentally aware Hollywood celebutards jet around the world, drive gas hogs and live in palatial mansions, but scold me for using my gas powered chainsaw, leaving my computer running, and using too much toilet paper.

Professor Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus provides practical solutions that can preserve the environment while tangibly improving the lot of the poor. The brilliance of these solutions is that one can support them regardless of belief or disbelief in man-made climate change.

LINKS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501946.html

http://www.lomborg.com/

Climate Change Orthodoxy

All those record low temperatures were making a mockery of Global Warming, so in a brilliant marketing ploy, Mother Earth worshipers changed the name to Climate Change. It was hot and sunny yesterday, but today it's snowing! Climate change!

Climate Change has left the realm of cold, logical scientific inquiry and has now become Religious Orthodoxy--Do Not Question Authority!

Another CNN meteorologist attacked the concept that man is somehow responsible for changes in climate last year. Rob Marciano charged Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” had some inaccuracies.

“There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano said during the Oct. 4, 2007 broadcast of CNN’s “American Morning.” “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.”

Marciano also said that, “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we’ve seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.”

His comments drew a strong response and he recanted the next day saying “the globe is getting warmer and humans are the likely the main cause of it.”

Like Copernicus and Galileo before him, Marciano bowed down and recanted under the weighty glare of Pope Albertus Maximus, Supreme Pontiff of The Church of Gaia and the International Climate Change Inquisition.

Larrey Anderson over at American Thinker explains how the climate change crowd's logic has collapsed upon itself, devolving the arrogant movement into a petty, incoherent religion. Here is a large excerpt from his article:

The original "climate change" hypothesis was that the planet was getting colder and that it would continue getting colder. That was a very simple hypothesis and was easily proven or refuted. Planet keeps getting colder = hypothesis correct. Planet gets warmer = hypothesis incorrect.

The world got warmer instead of colder. The "climate change" hypothesis was rewritten. This time the planet was facing a catastrophic meltdown. The world was not only getting warmer -- it was going to keep getting warmer at an ever increasing and life-threatening rate.

I remember this hypothesis too. It was scary. Computers were fed information that the world was now heating up and asked, again, "what will the weather be tomorrow?" This time the computers spit out: "hotter." Good computers.

The computers said it would be even hotter the day after tomorrow. Hotter still next week, and next month. And in a few years? Forget about it.

The hypothesis predicted, and the computers affirmed, an exponential increase in temperatures was being caused by the exponential increase in man made green house gases. Al Gore's famous (and refuted) "hockey stick graph" proved it. In other words, the earth would heat fast, then faster, then faster still. Man made global warming was predicted to be a run away train on a steep downhill incline that had to be stopped and stopped immediately.

That was the hypothesis. It was simple. And it was just as easily proved or refuted as the global cooling hypothesis. World gets steadily and increasingly warmer = hypothesis correct. Planet gets colder = hypothesis incorrect.

But while concentrations of CO2, the culprit behind man made global warming, continued to rise -- the temperature did not. The empirical data refused to cooperate with the hypothesis. In the last few years the earth's temperature has leveled off. It may be dropping.

Oops. Another hypothesis bites the dust. Not to worry. The hypothesis has been rewritten, once again. Now we have a "climate crisis." Long term global warming is causing short term global cooling that will, eventually, result in long term global warming. Really. That is the new hypothesis.

The official reason being given is that the "weather is not the climate." For those readers not skilled in dialectical huckstering, the argument seems to be that the weather can get colder while the climate gets warmer.

Proponents of global warming finally have an irrefutable, because incoherent, theory guaranteed to win any debate. This hypothesis cannot be refuted. If the "weather" cools it proves that the "climate" is getting warmer. If the weather gets warmer then the climate gets warmer. As the barker shouts out at the carnival,
"Winner! Winner! Winner!"

This latest hypothesis is a violation of the most basic of the laws of logic: the principle of non-contradiction. Something cannot be both A and not A. The weather cannot get colder while the climate gets hotter anymore than the earth can be flat while the world is round. This is not science, or logic; this is unabashed nonsense.

Yes. Climate science has come to this: We are now being told, in effect, to ignore the data and believe the hypothesis. I have recently written that global warming is not a science -- it is a religion. I take it back. Global warming, aka climate crisis, is now a crisis of logic. In other words, it is insanity.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His latest award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved. His memoir, Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market, has just been released.

Links

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/climate_crisis_logic_crisis.html

Global Warming Skeptics Question Authority

Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer.
-- George Santayana

Do not allow yourselves to be deceived: Great Minds are Skeptical.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Millions of gullible world citizens have surrendered all sanity and skepticism to worship at Reverend Albert Gore's altar to Gaia.

Meanwhile, here are quotes from some of the world's leading scientists to remind us that the science is not "settled," nor is there a consensus. Both very unscientific terms, by the way:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

This collection of quotes comes courtesy of Mark Morano, dedicated staffer to Senator James Inhofe, Republican, Oklahoma. Senator Inhofe uses his good offices to expose the Global Warming panic. Go here to see his official Senate web site and the latest report.

President Bush Leaves Us a Cooler Planet

The planet has cooled since President Bush took office eight years ago. Go to http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2756 for details.

Ocean Ice is back to 1980's levels and October wasn't such a hot month after all.

As you enjoy the thought of this, go read this article about the fallacy of green jobs. Every dollar our government directs to something is a dollar taken from something else.

Global Warming Follies

Somebody get Reverend Algore on the phone! Despite what the alarmists told us, this past October was not the hottest on record. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies made an oopsie:

GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery.

The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

Hey! When you can't get real data, just make stuff up! Here is the entire global warming farce summed up in one ridiculous event. I hope these guys aren't working on shuttle launches; our astronauts would end up on Mars...

Here's what October really looked like, but when your head is stuck so far up your statistical models it's near impossible to see reality:

Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

How much do you want to bet that if their data showed a 10 degree drop in temperatures they would have dug in and found the error immediately? The global warming scientists represent the very worst of advocacy science. Where is the scientific skepticism they constantly employ to tell us there is no God?

There is no god but Gaia, and Algore i$ her profit!

Reusable Toilet Paper, and other Liberal Ideas

Reusable toilet paper is not a joke. This comes courtesy of an e-mail from Senator James Inhofe's staff. Senator Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma uses his position on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to combat the global warning madness and the wackadoos who aid and abet it. Oklahoma's other senator is Dr. Tom Coburn. We should all say a prayer thanking God for the good people of that state for blessing us with two such outstanding public servants.

This is where leftist environmentalism is leading us: Don't use toilet paper, use old rags to save a tree. Why don't we all just walk around in cloth diapers? Then nobody would ever have to waste water by flushing a toilet. Better yet, we could wipe with our hands like the superior cultures of the Middle East do! If we could get over the body odor thing, we would save even more water by eliminating all that senseless showering.

Here's the original e-mail. Enjoy the laugh!

Reusable Toilet Paper? ‘Family Cloth” or ‘Family Wipes’ urged as eco-friendly replacement for toilet paper – Yahoo Answers & Green websites tout new eco-friendly alternative!

Excerpt: The purpose of the family cloth is to reduce the waste created by toilet paper. The environmentally unfriendly aspects of toilet paper happen before it arrives at your home. Trees are destroyed for the necessary pulp and large amounts of chemicals are used to turn the wood pulp into the soft, fluffy, white tissues we like to use. In addition, those darn packages of t.p. are big and a lot of fuel is burned getting them to their destination. These concerns are causing people to ditch their toilet paper and use a family cloth instead. Eco-friendly families usually start out trying different cloths. Old t-shirts are the most popular source for family cloth pieces. Using them for a family cloth prevents them from becoming yet another piece of landfill. Cotton t-shirt material is soft and very absorbent. They also receive high ratings from female users because they don't leave any of that annoying tissue dust after usage. For those unfamiliar with the family cloth, the name is somewhat misleading. No one seems to be certain where the term originated but is not an accurate title. Family members do not share a single cloth for their bathroom wiping needs. Each family has their own method, but most often a stack of clean cloth strips are left near the toilet in the bathroom. After use the family cloth is placed in a bucket. Every few days the contents are washed.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080424091000AAXmmhe

How to Store Used ‘Family Wipes’

Excerpt: Some families find it easiest to put a small wet bag in their bathroom - either just laying on the floor near the toilet, or hanging from a nearby doorknob, cabinet knob, or hook. One friend actually hangs her bag from the toilet paper holder. My family keeps a small version of a diaper pail in the bathroom just for wipes. It's a 2-gallon stainless steel garbage bag with a step-pedal to open the lid. Wally loves depositing his wipes in there after we're done cleaning him up!

http://living.wallypop.net/infohowtoclothwipes.html

How to Wash Soiled ‘Family Wipes’

Excerpt: If you have kids in diapers, wash with the diapers. If you don't have kids in diapers, I recommend washing wipes separately from the rest of your laundry. Wash in hot, dry in the dryer. You may add whatever laundry additives you desire - chlorine bleach, oxygen bleach, tea tree oil, lavender oil, stain remover, whatever.

http://living.wallypop.net/infohowtoclothwipes.html

How to Use Cloth Wipes (Family Wipes, Toilet Wipes) (Sold on Wallypop.net – “Supporting a natural lifestyle”

Excerpt: OK, this is not nearly as gross as you might be imagining. Give it a try, you'll see what I mean! But, really, you might be wondering, how do I use these? Using cloth wipes for urine-only visits to the bathroom is so simple it's hardly worth mentioning. Go, wipe, and then toss the wipe into whatever container you prefer. Using cloth wipes for other toilet visits is not any more difficult, but there is a certain ick factor involved. Consider how much waste you're willing to leave on your children's diapers or wipes when you toss them in the pail. Use the same standards for yourself. Shake, scrape, swish, or squirt off anything you don't want in your laundry, and then toss the wipe into the pail or container. (Personally speaking, we just wipe and toss in the pail.)

Background on environmentalist’s war on toilet paper

Excerpt: Ready to Rethink Toilet Paper for Earth Day?
Forests Being 'Slaughtered for Toilet Paper,' Actress Declares

Flashback: NYC Environmentalists Eliminate Toilet Paper in Effort to Save the Planet
Introduction of the Flush Toilet Deplored at Earth Summit
Dry Toilet Conference Declared a Success by Organizers
Diaperless Babies Seen As Earth-Friendly Solution
Flush Toilets Called "Environmental Disaster"
Philadelphia Plumbers Union Pipes Up About Waterless Urinalshttp://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcconserv/6philplum4.html
Ready to Rethink Toilet Paper for Earth Day?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042407/content/01125116.guest.html

Global Warming (Despite Cooler Temperatures)

Looks Like 2008 may end up being the coolest year of the young century. Imagine that, in the midst of all this global warming...

China became the world's biggest polluter in April of this year... Self-righteous USA critics have yet to shift their scorn eastward.

We could be in for more cooling for the next decade or so. Doesn't Mother Nature know the science is settled?

BBC reports all this grudgingly, and inserts all manner of caveats and finger shaking scolds, admonishing us naive global warming deniers to not let our guard down.

This is all temporary! Professor Dinglebulb from the Department of Settled Pseudoscience has a computer model that shows the earth catching fire in 2018 unless we forsake our SUVs, cut industrial output by 75%, and recycle our own feces. China and the rest of the the non-western countries are exempt, of course.

Many of the more enlightened Gaia worshipers who follow the Reverend Al Gore are the very same people who mock God and make fun of us bible clinging hicks who worship him. They aver religion is a scam devised by crafty pastors to threaten and control their fearful flocks. Meanwhile, these same concerned global citizens calculate their carbon footprint (examine their conscience) and buy carbon offsets (purchase indulgences) while hanging on Al Gore's every admonition (listening to the preacher) and demanding we all change out polluting ways (repent!). Believe us, don't believe your senses (have faith).

My religion has historical eye-witness testimony and roots that go back thousands of years--theirs was started by an angry and imperious former Vice President who refuses to debate his critics. So who's callin' who naive?