March 13, 2007

Mar. 13, 2007: Global Warming-Think for yourself

Kyoto, Global Warming, Environment

Sun, not us causing warming -- Lorne Gunter column...

Global Warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter strongly points towards the Sun or Some other cosmic force being the cause of the recent global warming on Earth. , Mar. 4, 2007 -- There are quotations from scientists and a video

And at the end ...

[....] “But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

– MIT Professor Richard Lindzen

Watch this video of Richard Lindzen and tell me he’s just some crackpot:

Oilpatch besieged by climate drive -- Rules, costs mount , Jon Harding and Claudia Cattano, Financial Post, March 10, 2007

CALGARY - The Canadian oilpatch is being bombarded by so many new costs -- primarily linked to climate change -- it is in danger of being stifled and growth plans could be put on hold, it was claimed yesterday.

Pierre Alvarez, head of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the Alberta and federal governments are taking aim at oil and gas companies. .... The hurdles include:

- The Alberta government announced on Thursday it accelerated implementation of the country's first carbon dioxide emissions management law. It involves having Alberta's top 100 industrial facilities reduce the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions by 12% starting on July 1. Those who can't meet the new regulations by becoming more efficient have to pay $15 per tonne for every tonne they produce above the target, money that will go into a provincial fund. [....]

review of royalty rates ...

- Ottawa is talking about eliminating the accelerated capital cost allowance, a tax measure allowing oilsands projects to recover their capital costs faster in the early years. [....]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Channel 4, Thursday 8 March, 9pm [There is a tinyurl link to watch the videos -- see below.]

Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there's no need to feel bad.
According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.

We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.

Another source: -- The Great Global Warming Swindle videos
[list of videos]

The Great Global Warming Swindle
1 hr 16 min
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Channel 4
1 hr 14 min
BBC Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle
British TV, Channel 4
1 hr 14 min

The emperor’s green new clothes , March 9, 2007, via newsbeat1

Channel Four’s devastating documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle has blown an enormous hole in every fundamental claim made to support the climate change obsession — including the claim that the argument is over. A procession of eminent scientists — climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, geologists, biogeographers, astrophysicists, professors of earth science, plus the former head of Greenpeace, who said that the global warming proponents were ‘anti-human’ — showed on the contrary that the theory bore no relation to science whatsoever. The earth was much warmer during many periods in the past; the ice caps were always expanding and contracting and Greenland was much warmer 1,000 years ago; most of the atmosphere was not warming as much as surface temperatures; volcanoes, animals and vegetation each produced infinitely more carbon dioxide than human activity; carbon dioxide could not possibly be the culprit for climate change since historically the warming of the atmosphere preceded any increases in carbon dioxide, thus showing up a central claim made by Al Gore in his movie to be utter rubbish; and so on.

Moreover, they also testified that the computer models which produced all the forecasts of climate apocalypse were rigged [....]

Gore gored pdf , 16 November 2006 -- or a cached copy here with an introduction by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

[It begins with a quotation from Monckton]

Gentle reader,
In this commentary on Al Gore’s Sunday Telegraph article of 19 November 2006 responding to my articles of 5 and 12 November on climate change, Gore’s full text is full-out in Roman face. Comments are indented in bold face. Readers may check the elementary calculations with a scientific calculator. The calculations use the simple formulae provided by the UN as derivations from the complex atmosphere-ocean general-circulation computer models upon which it heavily relies in the absence of hard, climatic data. References to scientific papers in support of the commentary are listed at the end.
Monckton of Brenchley

A FORMER colleague of mine in the US Senate, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” I was reminded of this upon reading the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s two submissions to the Sunday Telegraph. That global warming is likely to cause harm rather than good is an opinion, to which Gore is entitled. That there is no scientific consensus as to the rightness of that opinion is a fact, to which all are entitled. .... Of the emails, about one-third were from scientists in climate physics and related fields, including tenured professors, solar physicists, forestry specialists, government environmental scientists, and even a particle-physicist from CERN reporting its upcoming research to test the theories of Svensmark et al. (2006) about cosmic rays and cloud formation, suggesting a considerably larger role for the Sun in warming than the UN allows. About 95% of the 500 emails I received, and very nearly all the emails from scientists, were strongly supportive of the conclusions which I had reached: namely, that global warming is probably harmless, and that, if not, even if we in the UK stopped using energy altogether the effect on future temperature would be negligible.

To begin with, there is a reason why new scientific research is peer-reviewed and then published in journals such as Science, Nature, and the Geophysical Research Letters, rather than the broadsheets. The process is designed to ensure that trained scientists review the framing of the questions that are asked, the research and methodologies used to pursue the answers offered, and even, in some cases, to monitor the funding of the laboratories – all in order to ensure that errors and biases are detected and corrected before reaching the public. [....]

[Page 16]

ALL TEN of the propositions listed below must be proven true if the climate-change “consensus” is to be regarded as true. We conclude as follows:

1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed.
Demonstrably false
2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional.
Very unlikely
3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism.
Demonstrably false
4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured.
5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature.
Not proven
6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good.
Very unlikely
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life.
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference.
Very unlikely
9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective.
Very unlikely
10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course.
Demonstrably false
References [....]

Gaia Theory , James Lovelock, February 2003

Charles Clover's weekly column which takes an inside look at the environment.
Looking at the clouds from both sides
, Mar. 2, 2007

Clouds undoubtedly play an important dual role in regulating the Earth's climate — they both reflect light back into space in the daytime and keep the nights warmer. None of these effects is unknown – people have been studying them since the 1970s. The vital question is whether cosmic rays are the major factor in cloud formation, as Svensmark would like us to believe.

If cosmic rays are the dominant influence on climate, as Svensmark and Calder speculate, the 2,500 scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may have to revise their recent findings that man-made influences are 90 per cent likely to be the explanation for the warming we are seeing.

Will this happen? I don't think so – for three reasons.

There are many more articles under this heading if you go to CEI and search further for “alternate response”

The Heated Energy Debate
Assessing John Holdren’s Attack on Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist
By Robert L. Bradley, Jr.
President, Institute for Energy Research
-- or here posted by GTAsprawl

There is enough commentary in reviews for sceptics to use their own heads.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) (Paperback)

# Publisher: Regnery Publishing, Inc. (February 12, 2007)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 1596985011
# ISBN-13: 978-1596985018

Book Description
This latest installment in the P.I.G. series provides a provocative, entertaining, and well-documented expose of some of the most shamelessly politicized pseudo-science we are likely to see in our relatively cool lifetimes.

From the Inside Flap

"Global warming": the Left's last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy

For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to justify the lifestyle restrictions they want to impose. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only "global governance" (Jacques Chirac's words) can tackle such problems.

Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes--and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true. It's the ideal scare campaign for those who hate capitalism and love big government. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could "solve" it. According to the logic of the greens' own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of big government. [....]

20 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
Step out of the right-left paradigm..., February 28, 2007
Reviewer: Daniel Colman "Danielsun"

I am a college student .... I was convinced that man was significantly accelerating Global Warming and anyone who disagreed was motivated by politcal or economical ambitions. Since reading this book however, I have been questioning everything. I love dissent, for it is what makes good science and a good democracy for that matter. Furthermore I am suspicious of anyone who tries to silence debate. [....]

27 of 40 people found the following review helpful:
Destroys "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory, February 28, 2007
Reviewer: Scott Dow "God's Gift Is Your Intellect - Use It In All Matters" ...

This book is chock full of well-researched and documented facts concerning global warming - a natural cycle that has been happening on Earth for . . . ever.

[....] The Left has its own warped view of many subjects, global warming being only one, and no amount of reason, logic or intellectual discourse will make them change how they "feel" or turn them from their fanatic belief in their new religion.

following their own high-priest of global warming - a failed ex-politician who is making a fortune on the backs of his moronic followers.

They also, again with a straight face, talk about "deniers" who get paid by "big oil" while ignoring the fact that environmental organizations survive by exploiting and, at times, making up doomsday crises to generate a big fund-raising payday from the same "useful idiots" that Lenin (not Lennon, for you libs - Lenin) described so accurately and used so effectively.

And, yes. There is no doubt that the environmental movement is the new clandestine home of socialism/communism/marxism. U.N. control, international rules and regulations, penalties and taxes payable to the U.N., etc. And the U.S. is the target of it all. Don't fall for it.

... decide for yourself what makes more sense and what you will believe.

Via Small Dead Animals February 27, 2007 -- --

"Is it that evil right wingers don't understand [carbon offsets]..." "Or that they don't buy it?

[....] "And you're not even planting them yourself, you're buying 'carbon offsets' from somebody who tells you they're being planted so you can feel better about yourself. Where are these trees being planted? By whom? How long will it take for these miraculous fast-growing trees to counteract your wastefulness? Hurry!"

(Personally, I want to be on the same side as the guy who wrote this (warning: extremely rude & offensive in every possible way, shape and form), right or wrong, rather than that of boring old Suzuki.)

Very Political Science -- The scientific tradition of dispassionate objectivity is fast becoming a thing of the past , Ted Byfield - February 26, 2007

Scientists should temper the language with which they warn us of the perils of global warming, writes a Toronto columnist, because they're starting to sound more like politicians. ....

[....] Science portrays itself as above human emotion. It's strictly concerned with scientifically demonstrable truth. That factor provides its credibility.

It doesn't support causes, hold dogmas, run crusades, merchandise or advertise. It isn't out to save the world. It simply says, "Here's the truth, and here's the evidence," then bows serenely into the background. That was the tradition.
Not anymore. [....]

"Is this global warming stuff for real or just nonsense?" one might ask. "Nonsense?" comes the gasping reply. "It's the scientists who are saying this, mister. THE SCIENTISTS!" [with tongue firmly in cheek ....]

Labels: , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home