Catastrophe Denied: The Science of the Skeptic’s Position
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html?gclid=COCilL65iKoCFRJ6gwodgW-IzA
Romney: EPA carbon regulation a ‘mistake’
http://junkscience.com/2011/07/18/romney-epa-carbon-regulation-a-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-3752
Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
http://junkscience.com/climate-features/is-there-a-conflict-between-greenhouse-effect-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics
..... feedback very obviously exists and that returning some portion of exported heat inevitably results in a reduced rate of cooling and that this reduced rate of cooling results in the exporting body being warmer than it would otherwise have been. You could say this heats the Earth although technically it “less-cools” the Earth.
Earth’s non-gaseous surface, being warmer than the atmosphere, emits at greater intensity and maintains the transfer of heat from the body of higher temperature to the body of lower temperature.
Earth’s temperature rises and falls according to changes in the balance and rate of heating and cooling.
Australian Prime Minister Gillard: Writing Crap and Talking Crap
http://drtimball.com/2011/australian-prime-minister-gillard-writing-crap-and-talking-crap
Gillard doesn’t know she’s talking crap climate science. Besides, it’s used to justify a political deception of introducing a policy in absolute contradiction to an avowed pre-election promise.
Gillard’s problem is people understand the deception and the ‘crap’ climate science. In a wonderful video a woman confronted Gillard for lying about not introducing a carbon tax to get elected and then doing so once in office. The response was classic, insulting, patronizing and nauseating political reaction.
The term “carbon pollution” displays Gillard’s ignorance of science. The phrase likely came from an Obama comment to the British Parliament.
“No country can hide from the dangers of carbon pollution, which is why we must build on what was achieved in Copenhagen and Cancun, to leave our children a planet that is safer and cleaner.”But he’s another world leader who doesn’t understand the science but exploits it for political gain. They ignore the corrupt climate science disclosed by leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit just prior to Copenhagen.
Carbon is a solid. Obama and Gillard really mean CO2, which is a gas. In addition, CO2 is not a pollutant. Al Gore and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) among others created the myth in order to vilify a gas essential to life on the planet. They also argued it is at record levels when it is at the lowest level in 300 million years. Even if you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas warming the atmosphere, and many question it, there is no problem. No record anywhere for any time period has an increase of CO2 precede a temperature increase. The only place it happens is in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models. However, lets accept the assumption. Even if CO2 doubles or triples the temperature can only increase by a very small amount. As Junkscience notes,
“The estimated temperature increment range for a doubling of pre-IR CO2 (graphed as 300ppmv to 600ppmv) is just +0.6 °C to +1.5 °C and for a quadrupling (to 1200ppmv) +1.3 °C to +2.9 °C.”These temperatures would put global temperatures below those for most of the last 9,000 years as Greenland ice cores show. The IPCC tried to manipulate the science by claiming a positive feedback mechanism that drove the temperature higher, but it was quickly proved wrong.
What is the US President Talking About?
http://drtimball.com/2011/what-is-the-president-of-the-united-states-talking-about
History of attempts to distort climate science and use it as a vehicle for political ends is a sequence of shifting goalposts. It moved from global warming to climate change to climate disruptions. CO2 became greenhouse gases then carbon. CO2, a gas essential to plant life for oxygen production and thereby life on earth became a toxic substance.
The Kyoto Protocol died at the G8 Summit in France as President Obama and other key nations said they would not agree to a second series of cuts to CO2. As usual most reports incorrectly called them “carbon cuts”. Some assume it’s the end of attempts to reduce CO2 emissions. It isn’t. All they’re saying is the Kyoto Protocol is unfair because nations like China and India among others are not required to reduce levels. Obama has prepared for the shift.
In the last couple of years he combined the shifts by using the term “carbon pollution”. He did it again in a speech at Penn State and repeated it in his address to the British Parliament just prior to going to the G8. It’s troubling when the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth uses completely incorrect terminology. He can claim he’s a victim of bad advice, but as an earlier President said, the buck stops here.
At Penn State he said:
Everybody focuses on cars and gas prices, and that’s understandable. But our homes and our businesses use 40 percent of the energy. They contribute to 40 percent of the carbon pollution that we produce and that is contributing to climate change. It costs us billions of dollars in energy bills. They waste huge amounts of energy.Mr. President, apart from the scientific errors, people need to live somewhere and business provides the economy that supports the nation. Of course they can do that more efficiently, but it’s a matter of priorities. Did you fly to Pennsylvania in a 747? How much have your energy policies forced the cost of living increase? How much energy does government waste? How much has the expansion of government under your administration increased energy consumption? It probably equals any savings from homes or businesses and contributes nothing to the economy or quality of life.
In Britain he said,
No country can hide from the dangers of carbon pollution, which is why we must build on what was achieved in Copenhagen and Cancun, to leave our children a planet that is safer and cleaner.Little or nothing was achieved because the corrupted science of the IPCC and Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was exposed through leaked emails. The key phrase is “build on what was achieved.” Fortunately little was achieved so far, despite Obama’s efforts to target CO2 and restrict industry. The phrase “carbon pollution” is another goalpost move and means he won’t stop because it is fundamental to his goals of undermining the US economy, expanding government control and redistributing wealth.
His use of the term carbon pollution is a measure of the desperation. He, like too many others, uses carbon incorrectly. It’s a non-metallic solid element coming from the Latin word carbo (meaning coal). He is actually talking about CO2, which is a gas. Carbon is a much better political term because people associate it with coal and especially soot – clearly dirty and undesirable. We should reduce the amount of soot going in to the atmosphere and, apart from China, significant advances have occurred. Scrubber technology has been available for a long time; if he really wants to help, he should then encourage in every way possible its application.
Use of the term carbon as a substitute is completely wrong but is now standard. For example, “carbon footprint” is really a “CO2 footprint”. Apparently Obama means CO2, not carbon, because he says it is causing climate change, the official claim of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We know he thinks CO2 is a pollutant because of the EPA activities. It’s not a pollutant, but the designation is necessary for having absolute control over the sources, especially industry. Fortunately, the Congress acted.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee, on a mostly partisan vote, approved the bill that would halt EPA regulations that began this year to control emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants linked to climate change.What Obama apparently doesn’t realize is that the phrase carbon pollution can cause climate change, but not as he and most people understand. People still associate CO2 with global warming. The shift from the threat of global warming to climate change occurred as CO2 continued to increase while temperatures began to decline. Ironically, it is unclear how soot would affect the climate. They are added to the general volume of aerosols and can cause cooling or warming. Here is what the 2007 IPCC Report says about aerosols:
The global Aerosol Model Intercomparison project, AeroCom, has also been initiated in order to improve understanding of uncertainties of model estimates, and to reduce them (Kinne et al., 2003). … Interactive atmospheric chemistry components are not generally included in the models used in this report.In other words, we don’t know.
Cap and Trade: A Solution to a Non-existent Problem With Devastating Consequences
http://drtimball.com/2010/cap-and-trade-a-solution-to-a-non-existent-problem-with-devastating-consequences
An energy policy built on the lie that human CO2 is causing global warming is likely to fail. It is a bigger lie when CO2 is incorrectly called carbon. The policy is guaranteed to fail when proposed energy alternatives cannot fulfill needs and will cause economic slowdown, decreased competitiveness, and further economic decay.
On June 26th, the US House of Representatives passed a Bill titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act by a scant 219 to 212 votes. The title is misleading. It appeals to patriotism, which Samuel Johnson said is the last refuge of a scoundrel. “Clean Energy” really means without producing CO2, which incorrectly assumes it is a pollutant. Security means eliminating imported energy, but the nation is less secure with a weakened economy guaranteed under provisions of the Bill. It is more commonly (but equally incorrectly) called the Carbon Cap and Trade Bill. Carbon is not CO2; but this is only one of the deceptions.
Spain was touted as the model because it led all countries in money and commitment to electricity from renewable energy. Spanish economics professor Gabriel Calzada calculates that
…each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital.A report from Britain about attempts to replace traditional energy with renewables notes,
Britain is already struggling to meet its ambitious target of supplying 10% of electricity needs from renewables by 2010 and 15% by 2015. Today’s figure is about 2%.Once you realize the renewable strategy is not working, how quickly can you recover?
The big question is whether the UK can act fast enough to tackle the looming crisis. Even if the government’s nuclear plans remain intact, it could be at least 10 years before the first new nuclear station is ready. A typical coal or gas-fired project could take between three and five years to construct.
Recovery potential is worse in the US because regulations extend construction time for nuclear plants and environmentalists will do everything to block coal plants. Meanwhile, the economies of these countries suffer, even though they didn’t do anything as drastic as Obama proposes. Recovery can’t possibly occur within Obama’s first term, which may make it his last.
How the World Was Bullied Into Silence
http://drtimball.com/2011/how-the-world-was-bullied-into-silence
One of the most disturbing aspects of the global warming scam is the number of prominent people and entire segments of society bullied into silence. Consider the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson, described as follows:
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”.Then consider her statement:
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly… As a scientist I remain skeptical… The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.No, we don’t all know the frailty of the models! Certainly most of the media and thereby the public and politicians don’t know otherwise the latter would not be planning completely unnecessary, incredibly expensive and society-altering policies. But the opening comment is actually frightening and speaks to why the scam has progressed so far: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.”
Undoubtedly, there are positions and times when people are muzzled; national security is a good example. I sympathize with young people starting out on careers. I understand the pressure of maintaining a family and paying mortgages. But none of this should apply to science. It’s a measure of the degree to which climate change has become political. It’s also a measure of the degree of bullying that has occurred. Why would a scientist in an organization directly involved in climate science not feel free to speak out? But they are not the only ones who have kept quiet. Entire segments of society have either remained silent or taken evasive action. Few had the courage to even ask for a full and open debate. Now everything is changing as the claims of warming are offset by the realities of cooling.
Cold weather is doing more to raise questions about the scam of global warming than all the appeals to scientific reason. Even people who don’t understand the science recognize the illogic of arguing that colder temperatures are due to warming. This is causing advocates of human-caused global warming to take increasingly ridiculous positions to defend the indefensible. They are making more strident calls for action accompanied by claims the tipping point, beyond which action is too late, is ever closer. Politicians are warned not to let economic woes divert them from saving the planet. Consider this incredible and totally unfounded position reported in the Observer – Guardian newspaper; Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of NASA scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen, who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth.
Hansen must know that if the cooling trend continues, as many scientists anticipate, he is in a dangerous position. When a bureaucrat convinces a politician of a scientific position, as Hansen has so forcefully done with Gore and Obama, and they make it a major part of their political positions he is on a treadmill. He has to keep spinning the story and avoid the facts while increasing the threats. Further, Hansen must make sure political actions he advocates, such as carbon taxes, must be implemented before more cooling occurs and Obama’s four-year term ends.
On the other side of the debate an increasing number of scientists are speaking out for a variety of reasons. The most likely is because the public is showing signs of disbelief in the entire global warming claims. An Angus Reid poll showed a decline in public concern about global warming in 2008.
Consensus was a major argument throughout the debate, even though it’s a meaningless argument in science. Consensus is not a scientific fact. It is important in politics, which underscores the political nature of the debate. U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA recently said, “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.”
Some are being more cautious and looking for ways out. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden notes,
Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.Decades ago Tolstoi provided another explanation for failing to acknowledge the growing evidence:
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.The tools of bullying used against those who question the claim that humans are causing global warming include:
- Expropriating the moral high ground of environmentalism. If you don’t agree with their position you are accused of not caring about the planet, the children, the future. How do certain people claim the title of environmentalist? We are all environmentalists. If you are not a member of Friends of the Earth, does that mean you are not a friend of the Earth?
- Claiming that funding from some sources is tainted. Why is money from a private source considered more controlling and directing than money from government? Is funding from an environmental group less directing than money from anywhere else? Last year Exxon announced they would not fund anymore climate research. Why? A company involved in energy use should know what the climate experts are saying for proper management decisions. Companies that don’t do diligent research do not impress shareholders. Actually, it doesn’t matter who funds research because the real test is scientific credibility.
- Assuring that the many scientists who try hard to avoid politics continue to do so. They want to stay out of the limelight and do their work. This view is reinforced when they see the attacks and threats against scientists who dare to speak out. With climate they also want to avoid being automatically politically pigeonholed. If you agree with the view that humans are causing global warming, you are left wing; if you disagree you are right wing. I know many scientists who disagree but are left wing so they remain silent.
- Questioning credentials of those who speak out against the hypothesis, but never mentioning it for those in support. Few ever ask about Gore’s credentials.
- Belittling opponents by calling them skeptics, or deniers. Referring to them as “flat-earthers,” or comparing them to supporters of the tobacco industry.
- Forcing large corporations and governments to waste money by pretending to be green because they fear the accusations they are not good citizens.
As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming (the Levi, Borgerson article of 9/24/08) to be a disservice to science, to your readers, and to the quality of the political dialogue leading up to the election. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that the Gore-IPCC theory that human activity is causing global warming is false.
CO2 Insanity: Kill the Plants, Kill the People
http://drtimball.com/2011/co2-insanity-kill-the-plants-kill-the-people
Reduce CO2 and we are worse off, as the plants suffer. Something must be done to protect the plants – as well as the people – from fanaticism. There is no evidence that CO2 is causing global warming or climate change, but that is the basis for the slur and the proposed actions. As usual, little thought is given to the direct and collateral damage such as the economic impacts from increased taxes and cost of doing business. No thought is given to the damage to nature. So you have the paradox of environmentalists screaming to reduce CO2 to save the planet, while putting all life in jeopardy by killing the plants. It is blind faith. But this is not surprising because the great problem of environmentalism as a religion is the failure to do full and proper cost/benefit analyses. For example, all you ever hear about are the downsides to warming when there are actually more upsides. One major downside rarely mentioned is the impact on plants of reduced CO2 levels or the benefits of higher levels.
Extreme environmentalists consider plants and animals more important than humans. Ron Arnold, Executive Vice President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, said:
Environmentalism intends to transform government, economy, and society in order to liberate nature from human exploitation.
David Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, said:
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. … Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
Graber is not alone because Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and patron of the World Wildlife Fund, said:
If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
If he starts with Royalty, the idea has possibilities.
Uprising Radio
Exposé: How Corporations and the Wealthy Write and Pass Bills at the State Level
Listen to this segment | the entire program
The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) published an expose of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) this week. ALEC is an organization that brings together corporations and conservative state lawmakers with the stated purpose “to conduct a policy making program.” In order to move their national agenda forward, ALEC pushes legislation state by state. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is an alumnus of ALEC, where he participated in developing model bills as a state legislator. Many of Walker’s political lieutenants are actively involved with ALEC, and have pushed a slew of bills through the Wisconsin legislature. CMD has done a detailed analysis of ALEC model bills in Wisconsin. The organization also released to the public, over 800 of ALEC’s model bills which span all aspects of government. Some of ALEC’sDEA: “No Accepted Medical Use” For Marijuana
Listen to this segment | the entire program“Eat Real” Connects LA’s Local Food Movement at Affordable Food Fest
Listen to this segment | the entire program
Food industry giants, General Mills, Conagra, and Kellogg, have just proposed a set of standards by which to limit advertising of their own junk foods to children. Responding to growing public pressure and government attempts at regulation, the companies have offered to voluntarily limit their marketing practices in the interests of children’s health. However, their standards are unsurprisingly less stringent than government proposals. If their standards for fat, sugar and sodium content are the ones adopted by the government, General Mills would still be able air advertizements for cereals like Honey Nut Cheerios, Trix, Lucky Charms and Count Chocula, directly to kids — those same cereals would not meet government proposed voluntary guidelines. Growing public awareness of the dangers of highly processed food has resulted in a surge of popularity …Dr. Gloria
Health Detective || Most Recent Articles
- Identifying Bad Blood - A Test That Could Save Your Life
- Amazing RE-discovery of Benefits from a Complex of Two Ancient Herbs-Part 2 of 2
- Amazing RE-discovery of Benefits from a Complex of Two Ancient Herbs-Part 1 of 2
- Cognitive & Eye Disorders on the Rise – Could Chemical Cuisine be the Cause?
- Magnesium Deficiency Linked to Chronic Disorders
- Carrageenan - Food Additive & Aircraft De-icer! ! !
- Spicing-up Your Supplements Shown to "Digest Cancer"
- Dangerous Turf, Safe Alternatives & Relief from Allergic Responses for Your Pet, Children and You!
- New Organic Healthy Delights – A Sap Story......Part 2 of 4
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Debt crisis today, or debt crisis tomorrow? Why just raising the debt ceiling doesn’t solve the problem.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment