Posts Tagged ‘fake science’

Follow the money! : Professor Emeritus agrees

October 14, 2010

The man made global warming fiasco took one heck of a shot from a real scientist.

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?


It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

Full story HERE

This entire scam was, and is, nothing more than a money making fraud committed on a world wide scale, and yet there still are people here trying to pass laws, taxes etc. That would choke an already battered economy based upon this criminal foolishness. Be sure to read the entire article.

State of the Nation: Just a quick round up

March 10, 2010

You don’t say: “I have thus far failed, and our world has thus fair failed to respond adequately to this crisis.” –Algore on his efforts to educate the world about climate change

Unsolicited advice: “I understand you may be looking to replace Rahm Emanuel as your chief of staff. I would like to humbly offer myself, yours truly, as his replacement. I will come to D.C. and clean up the mess that’s been created around you. I will work for $1 a year. I will help the Dems on Capitol Hill find their spines and I will teach them how to nonviolently beat the Republicans to a pulp. And I will help you get done what the American people sent you there to do.” –from an open letter to BO from crockumentarian Michael Moore

Useful idiot: “Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. … [T]ruly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.” –actor Sean Penn on his buddy Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan dictator (No wonder they get along so well!)

In need of remedial history: “Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” –actor Tom Hanks promoting his upcoming HBO miniseries “The Pacific”

Somehow not comforting: “Believe me, if we were charting this administration as a political exercise, the first thing we would have done would not have been a massive recovery act, stabilizing the banks and helping to keep the auto companies from collapsing. Those would not even be the first hundred things he would want to do.” –White House adviser David Axelrod

Delusions from a parallel universe: “Campaign promises are about getting elected; once there, they are quickly forgotten. Courage is not a word you hear very often in discussions about politics. Not Barack Obama. Whether or not you support or even understand his health care plan — and the polls suggest that right now most Americans don’t — you must admit this: Obama is a man who does everything humanly possible to keep his promises. He promised health care reform, and he is risking his presidency to deliver it. If that’s not courage, what is?” –political commentator Susan Estrich (Try blind ideology.)

Oh no! “Now that we have finally arrived at the do-or-die moment for Obama’s signature issue, we face the alarming prospect that his presidency could be toast if he doesn’t make good on a year’s worth of false starts. And it won’t even be the opposition’s fault. If too many Democrats in the House defect, health care will be dead.” –New York Times columnist Frank Rich

Propaganda FAIL: “John Patrick Bedell, whom authorities identified as the gunman in the Pentagon shooting on Thursday, appears to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings.” –Christian Science Monitor staff writer Peter Grier (Oops, Bedell was a registered Democrat and an anti-Bush 9/11 “truther.”)

Rather racist: “One, part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama’s leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. ‘Listen he just hasn’t been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death.’ And a version of, ‘Listen he’s a nice person, he’s very articulate’ — this is what’s been used against him — ‘but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.'” –HDNet’s Dan Rather trying to put words in Republicans’ mouths

“The more we come to rely on government, the fewer freedoms we will enjoy. Government will start dictating what we can own, eat and drive, how much of our money they will let us keep, how we run our businesses, how many — if any — guns we can own, and what we may and may not say. Oh, wait! They are already doing that. To preserve freedom we must fight for it.” –columnist Cal Thomas

“True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another.” –economist Walter E. Williams

“With their backs to the wall, Democratic leaders are preparing a complicated plan to pass their national health care bill. Standing in the way are Democrats who oppose the bill, whether on principle or out of fear that voting for a wildly unpopular measure will spell defeat for them in November. If you think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going to let them off easy, allowing them to kill the party’s top policy priority in more than a generation — well, that’s not gonna happen. Democrats who are considering voting against the bill are about to experience arm-twisting, threats, and pressure like they’ve never experienced.” –columnist Byron York

“In my entire career, I have never been as confounded as I am over President Obama and the Democratic leadership’s obsession with a piece of legislation that not one major national poll has shown to be popular. … So I have to ask, why are the president and the leaders of Congress willing to see their entire party and a multitude of other policy proposals go down in flames over something that the public can’t stand? … Folks, this is nothing more than a power grab. It’s an effort to take one of the most essential elements of every person’s life — their health — and put it under the control of government.” –columnist Matt Towery

“The president cannot show us he is looking out for our interests and our future by forcing a quick, partisan vote on an issue that will impact not only this time but generations to come. This is especially true since he was so adamant in his opposition to using this very parliamentary measure in governance during his campaign. And he cannot show us that he is listening when polls show that only 35-40 percent of Americans support this bill.” –radio talk-show host Michael Reagan

Now All We Have Left Is Change: “Closure of Hope Plant to Cost 50-60 Jobs” –Associated Press

We Blame Global Warming: “Obama Turns Up Heat for Health Care Overhaul Plan” –Associated Press

Wide Ends, Poor Hardest Hit: “Obesity Hits New York’s Poor Neighborhoods Hardest” –Reuters

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: “Subprime Mortgage Crisis Hits Whorehouses” –Human Events

Bottom Stories of the Day: “Gore Still Hot on His Doomsday Rhetoric” –Boston Globe

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto)


Makes you wonder what people have been smoking…

The Climate has changed: In Wyoming, we call it winter…

December 3, 2009

Funny how that happens year after year. In any case we now have “Climate gate.”

The Climate Has Changed

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

The case for man-made global warming took a major hit last week when 62 megabytes of data, including e-mail messages and model codes (searchable here), were stolen from the UK’s University of East Anglia and then made public. The new information tells us much that we already suspected — warming scaremongers are cooking the books and suppressing dissent in order to push their agenda.

These aren’t just any scientists, either. They have been influential in driving the hype, including with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which issued a report in 2007 declaring that the end is near if massive shackles aren’t put on the economies of nations such as the U.S. Phil Jones, director of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Keith Briffa also of CRU and Michael Mann of Penn State University — the creator of the debunked “hockey stick” graph — are some of the key players.

One of the most enlightening e-mails discusses whether the work of academic skeptics should be included in that IPCC report (which won the Committee and Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize, by the way). Jones wrote to Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The pair also discussed how they could pressure scientific journals to maintain the party line. Mann suggested that, for one, the journal “Climate Research” should be targeted. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” (Sounds a bit like White House adviser David Axelrod’s assessment of Fox News: “[Fox is] really not news — it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations … ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way.”)

Of course, the definition of science is challenging hypotheses, not stifling dissent; following the evidence, not contriving it to fit.

But stifling and contriving are exactly what warmists are doing. In another e-mail, Jones wrote, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” So the goal is to “hide the decline”?

Scientist Mick Kelly wrote to Jones about manipulating data to hide the fact that the planet is actually cooling: “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again, as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent coldish years.”

Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote to Mann complaining of cold weather and admitting, “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.”

Perhaps they can’t account for cooling because their code for creating the models is geared toward making the earth appear warmer. In fact, the code may be more damning than the e-mails. One line of code features, for example, a variable called “fudge factor,” which allows these scientists to put in whatever they want to create the desired outcome in the computer models.

Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, summed it up: The e-mails “show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination.” Other than that, the science was accurate!

Considering that everything from the Kyoto Protocol to Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer in Congress, to EPA regulations to the Copenhagen conference are based on this faulty, fudged and fictitious data, policy makers should, at minimum, re-evaluate their plans. Certainly, the world’s economy should not take a hit for nothing but lies.

UPDATE: The Washington Post, no doubt in an effort to be “fair and balanced,” published three letters to the editor in response to an editorial about this climate scandal. Two of the letters were in opposition to the Post’s defense of the warmists. Trouble is, the second letter was from none other than Michael Mann, and he linked to so readers could be bombarded with more warming propaganda. The Post didn’t bother to note that Mann is being investigated for his role in the scandal.

UPDATE 2 (Tuesday afternoon): The Associated Press reports, “Britain’s University of East Anglia says [Phil Jones] the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.”


Do you want bureaucrats to rewrite laws?‏

November 24, 2009

The whack job moon bats are at it again, or maybe they never stopped. The global warming scandal reported on recently should be a real heads up for anyone that still believes in man made global warming. Nevertheless, people that should know better are still at it.

Here’s my take on this: SAVE THE POLAR BEARS! At least long enough for me to make Boone and Crockett with one!

The Environmental Protection Agency is rewriting the Clean Air Act, without Congressional involvement! Our Write the Laws Act would prevent this kind of unconstitutional rule-making by Executive Branch bureaucrats. Please send Congress a letter telling them to pass the Write the Laws Act.

You can copy or borrow from my letter to Congress . . .

Here’s a perfect example of why I want you to introduce the Write the Laws Act.

The Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that . . .

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) must regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA (Clean Air Act).

But the CAA says nothing about greenhouse gases!

The CAA must be changed by Congress, NOT by the Judicial Branch, or by Executive Branch bureaucrats.

Only Congress has the Constitutional power to make rules that control my life. The Write the Laws Act would help you to obey this Constitutional requirement. But — as it stands now — the EPA is rewriting the law to . . .

* Classify greenhouse gases as pollutants
* Raise the trigger-point for regulatory control of this new class of “pollutants”
* Create a legal double-standard between big and small emitters of greenhouse gases

All of this contradicts the CAA as written by Congress. This unconstitutional legislating by unelected bureaucrats is going to create a legal and economic mess. The result will be . . .

* Years of litigation by large emitters challenging the special treatment given to small emitters
* Stunted economic growth as businesses cope with legal uncertainty during the litigation process

The Write the Laws Act would prevent this kind of mess by . . .

* Prohibiting the Judicial and Executive branches from making-up rules on their own
* Preserving the checks and balances required for Constitutional rule-making
* Protecting the right of the people to elect or un-elect the people who make their rules

If the people’s representatives in Congress were in charge of regulatory policy . . .

* There would be fewer legal challenges against bureaucratic overreach
* Businesses could rely on settled laws passed by Congress, instead of constantly adjusting to ever-changing bureaucratic dictates

The Supreme Court has no Constitutional authority to tell the Executive Branch to rewrite laws passed by Congress. Bureaucratic rule-making is both unconstitutional and impractical. Only Congress should have legislative authority. Show me you take your oath to support and defend the Constitution seriously. Introduce’s Write the Laws Act.


You can send your letter using’s Educate the Powerful System.

Remember that the more people who read this message, the more likely we will be victorious.

* For social bookmarkers and networkers, here’s a tinyurl for this message:
* A monthly pledge or generous one-time contribution furthers’s reach, and Congress feels it. You can make a difference on our secure contribution page.

Let’s Downsize DC!

Jim Babka
President, Inc. is sponsored by, Inc. — a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.  Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200

Green Weenies;Climate Change This Week: World to Get Really Hot, We Swear!

October 3, 2009

It’s laughable. Despite the mounting evidence to the contrary (and perhaps in an effort to remain relevant on the world scene), the UN continues to outdo itself in perpetuating global warming hysteria. According to The Washington Post, a recent report released by the UN’s Environmental Program claims Earth’s temperature will climb 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, even if nations adopt the most aggressive programs. This is even direr than the UN’s 2007 Intergovernmental Program on Climate Change. That group took home a Nobel Prize, but then again, so did Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Mikhail Gorbachev.

One thing about the envirofascist movement is that it’s becoming more and more transparent in its push for a “new world order,” and this latest report is just another scare tactic ahead of the December climate change conference in Copenhagen. As former Enron adviser and current New York Times “economist” Paul Krugman frets, “[C]limate change is a problem that can only be addressed through government action.”

The United States has already pledged to cut emissions by 73 percent from 2005 levels and the European Union by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Yet even this is not enough for the green weenies.


Another stupid is as stupid does redux: Gun Control California style

September 5, 2009

Despite California’s bans on “assault weapons,” “unsafe” handguns, private gun sales, and sales of two handguns in a 30-day period; its 10-day waiting period on all gun sales; and its denial of carry permits to people who don’t have the right connections, the Golden State’s murder and robbery rates are 12 and 20 percent higher, respectively, than in the rest of the country.

Nevertheless, the Brady Campaign calls California’s “assault weapon” ban “a model for the nation,” and gives the state a high “grade” just for having more gun control than other states. Washington, D.C.’s city council adopted California’s “assault weapon” ban and “unsafe handgun” ban whole cloth in January, backtracking on handguns this summer only in the face of court challenges.

And then there’s Garen Wintemute, of the University of California (Davis), who in September released another of his “studies” in favor of gun control. His new piece is called “Inside Gun Shows: What Goes On When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching.”

“Gun shows” are just the hook, however. While repeating gun control supporters’ mantra about the need to run instant background checks on people who buy guns from private parties at gun shows, Wintemute admits important factors that undercut his goal. First, he notes that straw purchases—the very purpose of which is to thwart the background checks he pretends to be concerned about—”are a major source of crime guns.” Second, he admits that “The proportion of all gun sales nationwide that occurs at gun shows is relatively small” and that “most sales at gun shows involve licensed retailers,” who are already required to perform background checks.

As you probably have already deduced, Wintemute has his sights on something more than just requiring background checks on all gun sales at shows. Eventually getting to the bottom line, he concludes that “Regulating private party sales just at gun shows will not end the problems associated with these anonymous and undocumented transactions. Most of them occur elsewhere already. … It would be preferable to regulate private party gun sales generally.” That’s the law in California, where private sales are prohibited, transfers of firearms are delayed by a 10-day waiting period, and sales are permanently recorded by the government.

If you think you’ve heard it before, you’re right. In 1976, the Brady Campaign, then named National Council to Control Handguns, advocated delaying handgun sales and registering handguns, before banning the possession of handguns altogether. Let’s hope Wintemute is as successful today as the Brady Campaign was a generation ago.


Global Warming Redux number: I forget!

August 10, 2009

I received this email from a friend that works at NOAA. I hope the graphs and such come through.


  FACTS about 
   Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's 
  atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human 
  activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's 
  oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying 
  land plants.
   At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of 
  earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths 
  of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's 
  current atmosphere is CO2- 
   CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants 
  absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe 
  oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a 
  pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. 
  All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When 
  plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon 
   CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there 
  but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the 
  great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

   If we are in a global 
  warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for 
  limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on 
  global climate!

The case for a "greenhouse problem" 
is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make 
inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. 
Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile 
people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, 
dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of 
us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being 

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming 
theory)(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 

"In the United States...we have to first convince the 
American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."

President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think 
there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to 
have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global 
warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the 
solutions are...

former Vice President Al Gore(now, chairman and 
co-founder of Generation Investment Management--a 
London-based business that sells carbon credits)(in interview with 
Grist Magazine 
May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An 
Inconvenient Truth)

"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined 
language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be 
one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current 
debate over global warming."

Dr. Richard S. 
Lindzen(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- 
MIT) (3)

 "Researchers pound the global-warming drum because 
they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been 
critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

Dr. William Gray(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort 
Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )(in 
an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 

"Scientists who want to attract attention to 
themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) 
way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things 
bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

Petr Chylek(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric 
Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)Commenting on 
reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 
August 22, 2001) (8)

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will 
be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental 

Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.After a 
short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)he now serves as President, 
U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion 

 "No matter if the science is all phony, there are 
collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest 
chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

    Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canadarecent quote from the Calgary Herald

Unraveling the Earth's Temperature Record

    photo by: Vin MorganPalaeo 
      Environment (Ice Cores) Field Work
      accumulating layers of glacial ice display annual bands which can be 
      dated, similar to annual rings of a tree, the age of ice core samples can 
      be determined. Continuous ice cores from borings as much as two miles long 
      have been extracted from permanent glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica, and 
      Siberia. Bubbles of entrapped air in the ice cores can be analyzed to 
      determine not only carbon dioxide and methane concentrations, but also 
      atmospheric temperatures can be determined from analysis of entrapped 
      hydrogen and oxygen.
Based on historical air temperatures inferred from ice core analyses from the 
Antarctic Vostok station in 1987, relative to the average global temperature in 
1900 it has been determined that from 160,000 years ago until about 18,000 years 
ago Earth temperatures were on average about 3° C cooler than today.
Except for two relatively brief interglacial episodes, one peaking about 
125,000 years ago (Eemian Interglacial), and the other beginning about 18,000 
years ago (Present Interglacial), the Earth has been under siege of ice for the 
last 160,000 years.

    Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J. 
    Jouzel et al., Nature vol. 329. pp. 403-408, 1987 and published in 
    EarthQuest, vol. 5, no. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas 
    Crowley, Remembrance 
    of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic 

  As illustrated in this final graph, over the past 800,000 years the Earth 
  has undergone major swings in warming and cooling at approximately 100,000 
  year intervals, interrupted by minor warming cycles at shorter intervals. This 
  represents periods of glacial expansion, separated by distinct but relatively 
  short-lived periods of glacial retreat.

    Temperature data inferred from measurements of the 
    ratio of oxygen isotope ratios in fossil plankton that settled to the sea 
    floor, and assumes that changes in global temperature approximately tracks 
    changes in the global ice volume. Based on data from J. 
    Imbrie, J.D. Hays, D.G. Martinson, A. McIntyre, A.C. Mix, J.J. Morley, N.G. 
    Pisias, W.L. Prell, and N.J. Shackleton, in A. Berger, J. Imbrie, J. Hats, 
    G. Kukla, and B. Saltzman, eds., Milankovitch and Climate, Dordrecht, 
    Reidel, pp. 269-305, 1984.Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance 
    of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic 

  The Polar Ice Cap Effect
  As long as the continent of Antarctica 
  exists at the southern pole of our planet we probably will be repeatedly pulled back 
  into glacial ice ages. This occurs because ice caps, which cannot attain 
  great thickness over open ocean, can and do achieve great thickness over a 
  polar continent-- like Antarctica. Antarctica used to be located near the 
  equator, but over geologic time has moved by continental drift 
  to its present location at the south pole. Once established, continental polar 
  ice caps act like huge cold sinks, taking over the climate and growing bigger 
  during periods of reduced solar output. Part of the problem with shaking off 
  the effects of an ice age is once ice caps are established, they cause solar 
  radiation to be reflected back into space, which acts to perpetuate global 
  cooling. This increases the size of ice caps which results in reflection of 
  even more radiation, resulting in more cooling, and so on.
  Continental polar ice caps seem to play a particularly important role in 
  ice ages when the arrangement of continental land masses restrict the free 
  global circulation of equatorial ocean currents. This is the case with the 
  continents today, as it was during the Carboniferous 
  Ice Age when the supercontinent Pangea stretched from pole to pole 
  300 million years ago.

  Stopping Climate Change
  Putting things in perspective, 
  geologists tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of 
  an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age temperatures have been the rule, not 
  the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not 
  totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar 
  Some say we are "nearing the end of 
  our minor interglacial period" , and may in fact be on the brink of 
  another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is 
  limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may 
  have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, 
  however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming 
  cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the 
  "global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" 
  threat of the 1980s and 1990s.
  Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing 
  toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of temperature 
  trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while 
  avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar 
  cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities 
  are at last pushed over the brink.
  Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena 
  for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of 
  dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm 
  Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... 
  Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its 
  own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in 
  order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade 
  additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent 
  making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the 
  inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and 
  precipitation that accompany climatic change.
  Supporting this view is British scientist Jane 
  Francis, who maintains:

    " What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within 
    our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global 
    effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really farcical 
    because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be 
    more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to 
    adapt to the change."

         THIS PAGE 

Monte Hieb

        This site last updated October 5, 2007


      Table of Contents


  (1) A scientific Discussion of 
  Climate Change, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for 
  Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for 
  (2) The Effects of Proposals 
  for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction; Testimony of Dr. Patrick J. 
  Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, before 
  the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, United 
  States House of Representatives
  (3) Statement Concerning 
  Global Warming-- Presented to the Senate Committee on Environmental and 
  Public Works, June 10, 1997, by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts 
  Institute of Technology
  (4) Excerpts from,"Our 
  Global Future: Climate Change", Remarks by Under Secretary for Global 
  affairs, T. Wirth, 15 September 1997. Site maintained by The Globe - Climate 
  Change Campaign
  (5) Testimony of John R. 
  Christy to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Department of 
  Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama 
  in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.
  (6) The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global 
  Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and 
  Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 
  6, 1998.
  (7) Variation in cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: a missing 
  link in solar-climate relationships; H. Svensmark and E. 
  Friis-Christiansen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, 
  vol. 59, pp. 1225 - 1232 (1997).
  (8) First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice 
  Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian 
  Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological 
  Society, August 21-24, 2001.

  Additional Reading
  Common Climate Claims: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen; Draft paper to appear in 
  the Proceedings of the 2005 Erice Meeting of the World Federation of 
  Scientists on Global Emergencies.
  Constraints on Global Climate Variability: Dr. Lee C. Gerhard-- A variety 
  of natural climate drivers constantly change our climate. A slide format 
  presentation. 8.5 MB.
  Thoughts of Global 
  Warming: "The bottom line is that climatic change is a given. It is 
  inescapable, it happens. There is no reason to be very concerned about it or 
  spend bazillions of dollars to try and even things out.
  Paleoclimatology: An educational trip through earths distant and recent 
  past. Also contains useful information and illustrations relating to the 
  causes of climate change.
  Cracking the Ice Age: From the 
  PBS website-- NOVA online presents a brief tour of the causes of global 
  Ice Age (Solar Influence - Temperature): From the online magazine, "CO2 
  Solar Variability and Climate 
  Change: by Willie Soon, January 10, 2000
  Fidgeting Climate: NASA Science News "It may surprise many people that 
  science cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as 
  important as climate change"

Climate Change This Week: Where Has Summer Gone?

July 18, 2009

In June this year, New York temperatures never made it past 85° F; Chicago saw 12 days of 70° F and below, and Western Pennsylvania nights have dipped into the mid-50s. Temps in Calgary, Canada, have been below average since November, with Environment Canada Senior Climatologist David Phillips saying, “For seven months, it’s really been a long bout of cold weather.” Across the Great Lakes and Northeast in general, the “hot” months haven’t been this cold in more than a decade, prompting some to label 2009 “The Year Without True Summer.” Chief Meteorologist and Expert Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi attributes the cold spell in part to “the combination of El Niño and worldwide volcanic activity over the past six to nine months.” But going back even further, global temperatures have dropped by 0.74° F since the 2006 release of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” How … inconvenient.

There is still hope for global warming alarmists, though, as Bastardi predicts a whopping five to 10 days of “more typical summer weather” in the Northeast and Great Lakes in late July and early August — that is, before the eastern U.S. plunges into a colder- and snowier-than-normal winter.


Cap and Trade, a failure on all counts

June 30, 2009

The nefarious forces that are beholden to political correctness and pseudo-science this week scored a victory for the hate America first group in an overt attempt to destroy what is left of the economy. Apparently, real science, as presented by a premier wordpress blog, Wattsupwiththat, mean nothing.

“The Heritage Foundation’s senior policy analyst for energy and environment, Ben Lieberman, has produced a stellar paper on [the cap and trade bill]… Based on available evidence and analysis, Lieberman concludes ‘that both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated.’ But even if we assume the problem is as bad as the hysterics claim, the proposed bill ‘would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases. …[It] would reduce the earth’s future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice.’ The bill would bind only the U.S., not other nations, many of which, like China, are ‘polluting’ at a record pace. Also note that many European nations that have already imposed similar emissions restrictions have seen their emissions rise. But what would the costs be for this quixotic legislative paean to earth goddess Gaia? Contrary to the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill’s proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs would be an average of $829 per year for a household of four, totaling $20,000 between 2012 and 2035. But when considering the total cost as reflected in the cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035. Adding insult and hypocrisy to injury, the bill would hurt the poor the worst because they would bear a disproportionate burden of the higher energy costs the bill would trigger. Now here’s the kicker. The bill is also projected to harm the manufacturing sector and cause estimated ‘net’ job losses, averaging about 1.15 million between 2012 and 2030. The overall gross domestic product losses would average $393 billion per year from 2012 to 2035, and the cumulative loss in gross domestic product would be $9.4 trillion by 2035. The national debt for a family of four would increase by $115,000 by 2035. Enough already. Throw the bums out.” –columnist David Limbaugh

Brrr… brrr… it is so darn’d warm!

November 17, 2008

The faux scientist’s took another hit it seems. First the originator of the computer model that pronounced climate change as man made said the model was faulty, and gave faulty results. Then the actual statistics showed that no warming had happened. Then, poor Al Gore had to go into hiding because it was shown that his big pitch was more about lining his own, and his cronies pockets than science. Now this..? What is an eco chicken little freak to do?

The world has never seen such freezing heat

By Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008

Have your say Read comments

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

Full Story

When has the earth not been either cooling or warming?

%d bloggers like this: