Crazy is still crazy, not matter what it looks like!

It's been a little bit since my last post. I did a very good job expanding my carbon footprint by eating my fair share of turkey, gravy, stuffing; I even opted for Idaho potatos because they have to travel much further to get to my dinner table, than the ones grown here in Maine.

The picture illustrates an important lesson, that no matter how good things may appear, they are what they are. My first wife is a good example of looks being deceiving!

David Lindorff, takes a very cheerful approach to the reluctance of those who, like myself, regard climate change as a natural phenomenon, not human induced; he would like us to drown!

In keeping with the "peace on earth" and all that other ho-hum jazz of the season, Lindorff suggest that the "Red" states, those who consistently vote conservative, lay in the flood plains of the south east, and coastal regions of California, so it's only natural that we die. Although, Lindorff who lives on the metropolitan east coast, suggest dikes and leavies could be built to protect, New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. Why not, we saw first hand how well they worked for New Orleans!

Lindorff suggests that conservatives deserve to die, due to their inaction on climate change. Now if that's the case, why would he even bother to write about it? Seem to me he would keep the secret under wraps while he, and his cronies buy up beach front property in Oklahoma.

The important thing is that we, on the higher ground both actually and figuratively, need to remember that, when they begin their historic migration from their doomed regions, we not give them the keys to the city.

So, let me get this straight, suggesting that conservatives drown, and deserve to do so is taking the "higher ground?" Huh? Well, there you have it. To me, liberals would love the Utopia that conservatives are creating for them! Why the hate then?

Global Warming Will Save America from the Right...Eventually
by Dave Lindorff

The consensus is, there is no consensus.

Not only Yeah, but HELL YEAH!

Or is it no? Consensus is a word that floats around the GOREBAL Warner circle quite often. In their minds, there is a "consensus" that human caused climate change is real and an unavoidable fact of our greed and consumerism. Perhaps they're right, I mean, I would think there probably is a general consensus among the so-called environmentalists that we are to blame for the ills of the world, despite evidence likewise.

But as human caused climate change critics swell in numbers, the "consensus" a nice little term that the legacy media likes to hang thier credibility on, is simply fading away. The IPCC is composed of 2,500 members, but not everyone is drinking the kool-aid.

Recently, and in contrast to the tears shed for the environment at the Bali conference, more and more current and former IPCC panelists are coming forward against ALGORE and his hysteria machine. At least 400 speaking out despite the political and professional pitfalls that obviously face these heretics. And as per the article...

Several scientists in the report said many colleagues share their skepticism about man-made climate change but don't speak out publicly for fear of retribution, acording to the report.

I could go on and on about about the doubt being cast on this all, but I think it is best said in the words of the dissenting members...

"I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached," -Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrick Tennekes

"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact." -Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences

If you have a distrust of Russians, what does the expert reviewer for the IPCC say?

"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... the public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates." -David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

And, of course, the obvious shot at the media's role in all of this...

"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming." -Chief meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

So what does the GORE camp say about all this? Stop me, if you've heard this one before...

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

So where is the consensus? And as Hendrick Tennekes concludes, "The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day."

True, but as long as the legacy media can cash in on our ignorance, man-made GOREBAL Warning may have a long demise.

Scientists doubt climate change
By S.A. Miller

Sometimes I take a couple of days off from the blog to let my brain relax a little, but I'm still indexing, reading, and generally keeping an eye out for next dropping of GOREBAL guano. Then I came across this gem of an article.

Eco boat is a "zero net footprint" craft that is going to circumnavigate the world completely with bio diesel. I know what you're thinking, "what a good use of wasted french fry grease." Well, apparently french fry grease is not nearly as attention grabbing as using human body fat!

Demonstrating further commitment to the cause, Bethune underwent liposuction and donated enough to produce 100ml of biofuel, while two other, larger volunteers also had the procedure, making a total of 10 litres of human fat. This in turn produced seven litres of biofuel, which could help the boat travel about 15km.

Now here is something that ALGORE could certainly do to offset his the carbon footprint of his 10,000 acre mansion! And just think of the good now that Hollywood's elite can claim to be doing for the environment! Why I can see Rosie O'Donnell now, claiming to have offset billions of tons of carbon output!

"Politicians in Western Europe must be prepared to stand up to the oil industry, and be more supportive of the biofuels industry to make sure the production of biofuels is sustainable."

Now if they found a way to use their brains for bio fuel, I would wholeheartedly support that statement!

Eco-boat powered by human fat attempts round the world speed record

Even Global Warming causes Global Warming!

Damn it!

Well, someone did their homework, actually "This is London" did their homework, and calculated the cost, in terms of emissions, for Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary, to fly all over the world to express his deepest concerns for the environment. Apparently, concern kills!

According to This is London online, Ban Ki-Moon will be traveling from Bali to New York, adding 4,300 miles to his itinerary. And as far as irony goes....

The flight from Tokyo to New York takes him the wrong way around the world to arrive in time for the reception of a Korean concert-at Carnegie Hall, where he is the guest of honour. The concert is titled Around The World In Eighty minutes.

HUH?! Seems to me you would not want to draw attention to yourself when you're traveling back to your home country, the wrong way!

I think one of the people posting to the article sums it up best...

What’s funny is that they are contributing OUR money to “various environmentally friendly projects” to offset THEIR extravagance. - Qaton Chozeh, Detroit, Michigan

But a submission by a chap from the UK simply named Brett succinctly sums up the article..

There's something haunting, ominous and ironic about someone claiming that the world is going to end while causing it at the same time. It's like a preacher passing the collection plate for and 'end of the world fund.'

BRAVO, BRETT! BRAVO!

What a lot of hot air!
This is London
December 12, 2007

Breaking hockey sticks over their heads!

Well, I couldn't come up with any other clever titles for this post but I did post these polar bears playing hockey, so you have to cut me some slack.

Anyone that has been following the climate change debate knows the hockey stick theory. For those that do not, I've posted the graph that depicts the estimated temperature variation globally for the past 1,000 years. Around here, we call it "Lie #1."

As the article states, inconvenietly missing from the timeline is "the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850)." If such crucial data is absent from the chart, then how can an entire social movement be built upon a chart with incomplete data?! I'll have the answer to that question in tomorrow's post!

The article starts with the shaft and goes right to the blade of the IPCC's most coveted possession, the "Hockey Stick" theory, the "tip of the spear," if you will, of the IPCC's argument that my '97 F150 is creating ocean front property opportunities in Ohio. The author, David Legates, puts that tip to a grinding stone.

Starting at the shaft....

They contend that Mann and his colleagues in their 1998 and 1999 papers unjustifiably truncated or extrapolated trends from source data, used obsolete data, made incorrect calculations, and associated data sets with incorrect geographical locations.

The broken blade...

Mann’s warming estimate has grown substantially over the last couple of years, apparently to accommodate his continuing claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the last two millennia, but we found that the blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques.

The uncertainy factor...

Mann and Jones’ uncertainty assessment — the estimate of how much warmer or cooler than their reconstruction the temperature could actually have been — is based solely on how well the proxy records match the observed data. However, their assessment fails to account for several significant forms of error, including:

• Biases in hemispheric air temperatures estimates
• Reconstructions based on a small number of trees
• The inability of a proxy record to represent regional air temperatures
  

The stick is broken....

Consider that if 1) the amount of uncertainty is doubled (an appropriate representation of the “sheath”), 2) appropriate 20th century increases in observed air temperature are applied (a correct representation of the “blade”), or 3) the period from A.D. 200 to 1900 correctly reproduces millennial-scale variability (a reliable representation of the “shaft”), then one can have no confidence in the claim that the 1990s are the warmest decade of the last two millennia. The assertions of Mann and his colleagues — and, consequently, the IPCC — are open to question if even one component of their temperature reconstruction is in error, let alone all three!

'Nuff said!

Breaking the “Hockey Stick”
by David R. Legates

"Do Nothings" you can really support!

Meow! Lazy kitty says, "Why bother?" And seriously, why bother? I wonder if the world spent as much energy (no punn intended) on Global hunger, would anyone go without a Big Mac today? Hmmm...I'll have to think about that one.

But on a more serious note, the United Nations, specifically the IPCC, are hell bent on stifling the opposition and those legitimate scientists who are screaming, "Show us the proof!" Why?

Well, when you're the UN and you need to line your pockets with the West's money, I don't think you'd be very well willing to give that up. And think of the power you'd be losing if GOREBAL Warning were in fact, untrue. Who can forget the "Food for Oil" program?

There is currently a conference going on in Bali being heald by the UN to discuss so called "climate change." Apparently Lord Monkton, this chap from the U.K. who is also a leading climate researcher, has soured the tea of the conference and put the IPCC on bloody report!

Here are some of the highlights:

"Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

And if you ever wondered how open the IPCC is to differing opinion...

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

Oh, and there are others...

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - (LINK)

And...

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

And yet still, what I've been saying all along...

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)

I guess to the UN, self importance is far greater than the truth; why am I not surprised?

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
By Marc Morano

The Truth versus Opinion

Pursuit of the truth can be a dangerous journey to undertake. You may have to face demons within yourselves, and slay others along the way. You see, truth is what we believe to be true and not necessarily fact. Facts however, are laws. Laws of nature, although truisms in themselves, are also undeniable fact.

Unfortunately, this is not taught in today's learning environments. In an age where it's acceptable to get an equation half right as long as you get the concept, it's easy to pull the wool over the eyes of those willing to be deceived, not because they want to be wrong, but because they're never taught that truth is the glue that holds us all together.

The following online article was written by David Morgan, Editor-at-Large of the Tribune Papers. Morgan does an excellent job of putting together the counter-argument to much of what he calls the "glum prognosis" of the GOREBAL Warning crowd. I love the following quote from the article, and it sums up the debate very nicely...

Remember that H.L. Mencken once observed, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

And isn't that what ALGORE and his ilk are all about? Are we not being constantly told of the doom and gloom as a result of our excessive lifestyles and our insistence on the use of fossil fuels? Every day (and you can Google your way to hysteria if you'd like) we are faced with the dire consequences of western glut.

My cynicism takes it one step further...perhaps we are too comfortable in the west to be newsworthy. Maybe, perhaps, GOREBAL Warning is our punishment for not acting like Islamo Facists. I wonder what Afghanistan's and Iraq's official position is on GOREBAL Warning? Do you think that Iran will soon ship IED's to Iraq with lower emisions with a reduced "carbon footprint?"

It should be mandatory that David Morgan's article linked below be giving to every student required to watch an "An Inconvenient Truth." The truth today is far to objective and too far an important responsibility to be given to a politician who also was a journalist!

Morgan concludes his article fittingly with..

Climate change – note, it is no longer being called ‘global warming’ - has now become a multi-billion dollar industry that is being driven mostly by unsubstantiated facts and simple hypothetical models. Lobbying for environmental causes alone consumes some $1.5 billion per year, according to Myron Ebell who works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC.

Remember: Gravity – it’s not consensus. It’s the law.

Global Warming – Since When, and Says Who?
By David Morgan

Going the way of the Dodo.

This is one of those articles that makes you just want to pull your
hair out! It has more twists and turns that San Francisco's Lombard Street! For instance...

Globally, 30 percent of the Earth's species could disappear if temperatures rise 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit _ and up to 70 percent, if they rise 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit, a U.N. network of scientists reported last month.

Then...

It wouldn't be the first time. There have been five major extinctions in the last 520 million years, and four of them have been linked to warmer tropical seas, according to a study published last month in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a British scientific journal.

So the article readily admits that the temperature of the earth has in fact change dramatically over the "520 million years" to the point of mass extinction? Interesting. And all this time I thought dinosaurs roamed the earth on their feet, not SUV's.

But let's take a closer look at the first statement. The article claims that 30% of the earth's species will die off if there is a 4.5 degree increase in temperature and 70% if there is a 6.5 degree increase? Huh? Where do they get these numbers? What is the magic formula that even remotely indicates that the earth's temperature will rise 4.5 degrees ? What is their timeline for that?

Such arbitrary behavior for anyone that considers themself a "journalist" should be unacceptable to their respective editors.

With many species unable to evolve fast enough to adapt, conservationists are considering the creation of natural corridors to encourage animals to move and even relocating them to cooler places. The latter is controversial.

"You are effectively playing God. You are effectively changing evolution on purpose," Foden said. "If our job as biologist is to conserve species, then certainly we must move them. But if it's to conserve natural evolutionary processes ... then we have to give them corridors and let them do their thing."

Well, unless you are God, they will either survive, or be at the end of their evolutionary life. Clearly more sensationalism to urge us "to act", but how? Evidence has shown that mass extinctions occur without human involvement, or activity. So what is the correct course of action? If we only produce less that 1% of greenhouse gasses that are created on an annual basis, what is there left for us to do?

Yet, like the article itself supports, some will perish and some will flourish, it's called evolution. Why is it a hard concept for the left to accept when they themselves use evolution to kill God in our classrooms?

Earth is a living breathing organism in of itself and as history shows, mass extinction leads to more and even exotic life. Who are we to determine that humans are the apex of Mother Earth's evolution? We surely are not.

Global Warming Wreaks Havoc With Nature
By MICHAEL CASEY, AP Environmental Writer
Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Another reason to dislike my ex-wife!

I don't care what ALGORE says, I'm not living with her!

In this article titled "Divorced Couples Contributing to Global Warming!" scientists, at least research students in need of work, concluded that divorce contributes to global warming because...

The new report shows divorced couples utilize more areas inside their homes. This effectively means there are 38 million more rooms to provide lighting, heating, and cooling for. Do your math correctly and you will see this works out to 73 billion extra kilowatt-hours of electricity.

Now I don't know how many of those connected to the study have been, or are, curently married, but I can assure you that when my ex was living with me, we spent so much time in seperate rooms, that being married, or not being married mattered very little.

Interestingling enough, the failed to mention that most men who are married to nags spend most of their time in sports bars. I wonder what the laundry list of eco-unfriendliness is for sports bars?!

The study also shows that when they live separately, they tend to use up 627 billion gallons of water more than they would if they had stayed together in 2005. The logic behind the calculations is simple. Being divorced and staying separate effectively means having two sets of the same things – from the plates to the SUVs.

Well, ya! I mean, that's part of the deal! However, isn't this all a moot point? I mean, most men find a young blonde to shack up with, while ex-wives get involved with guys that have tatoos on their necks and go by the name snake?

Again, in all seriousness, it's studies like these that make you want to pull your hair out. They're meaningless. You're not going to stop divorce, period. And one man's trash in another man's treasure; the carbon production of divorce will be offset by you ex's marriage to some other poor slob who prior to your divorce was enjoying himself in a sports bar.

I can see it now, "We would like to get divorced your honor." "O.K., but it's going to cost you 400 carbon credits." Sigh.

Divorced Couples Contributing to Global Warming!
by Daisy Sarma
December 4, 2007