Friday, December 21, 2007
Scientists Smack Down GoreIt was bound to happen. More and more scientists are coming out against AGW*.
More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.
The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the “scientific consensus” that man-made global warming imperils the planet.
“I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit,” said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
“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,” Mr. Tennekes said in the report.
And what does Mr. Gore’s people say in response? Why, the typical and meaningless retort commonly used by AGW believers.
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.
Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.
It’s nice to hear from the oil company themselves, but let’s examine Gore’s argument. 30 scientists out of 400 have been paid by an oil company? And that negates the other 370 how?
And really, the “they got paid by oil companies” argument is laughable to begin with. Why would a politician’s argument have more weight than a private scientist’s on a subject that the scientist is a specialist in? How are scientists paid by governments to reach a certain conclusion (as are AGW proponents) more credible that scientists who may or may not get paid by energy companies? Politicians and political organizations like the UN have agendas too. They tend to be corrupt and mendacious to the core. So how is anything they say credible?
The fact is that science is not about opinion. It’s not about hype or hysteria. It’s certainly not about belief. It’s about provable and demonstrable results. They have yet to prove anything with AGW. They can’t prove it. They can only point to something like weather patterns and claim it’s the result of something, when they often do so by ignoring the factors that aren’t man made, because that would deflate their message. Factors like the sun. Like water vapor. Two of the most important factors in climate change. Neither are man made.
So if the most important factors in climate change aren’t man made, you can’t really blame mankind. Especially if you ignore these factors and try to say it’s something like CO2 which is so insignificant in the scope of things, it’s laughable.
Gore is a attention seeking politician. His movie is full of hyperbole, hysteria and outright fictions. Whether or not he won some awards doesn’t mask the fact that his credibility on this subject is zero to anyone who bothers to ignore the hype and research the facts.
* AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Permalink
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Global Warming or Global GovernanceThis documentary features a host of climate scientists who explain why the IPCC is wrong and AGW is merely a propaganda tool of politicians to enact strict laws. The whole AGW claim is nothing but a ploy so that socialists can get more power. The talks in Bali make that obvious since a lot of it has to do with global taxes and income redistribution. Neither has anything to do with “saving the planet”. It all has to do with power grabs through the use of guilt and recrimination.
Permalink
Saturday, December 15, 2007
When Lunatics Run the AsylumWe can joke all day long about the Bali conference, but these people are cutting deals that can hurt our economy. And this is asample of the intelligence of these people.
He is known as the “hard man” of climate-change negotiation.
But after 12 exhausting days of trying to reach a worldwide agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was suddenly all too much for Yvo de Boer.
As the 200-nation Bali conference wrangled over a minor procedural matter, the Dutch diplomat in charge of the talks burst into tears and had to be led away by colleagues.
Moments earlier, Mr de Boer had been warning delegates that failure to reach an agreement on global warming could “plunge the world into conflict”.
Officials from China, which feels Western countries should do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, accused UN negotiators of ignoring conference protocol.
Mr de Boer, distinctively dressed in a floral shirt, stepped up to the microphone to defend his staff - only to find that the words would no longer come.
As his unfinished sentences trailed away, he broke down and walked off the platform to supportive applause.
“He wasn’t just wiping his eyes, he was in floods of tears,” said one observer.
There’s going to be a conflict from the people if we have to put up with much more of this AGW nonsense. The fanatics are coming out the the woodwork.
Permalink
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Tons of AGW Skeptic DocumentariesA very nice resource when you want to show someone plenty of arguments against global warming hysteria.
They also have tons of links refuting all sorts of AGW arguments.
Permalink
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
I love my CO2Check out the open letters and follow the links. This Dutch scientist debunks AGW and he’s supported by thousands of scientists. Here’s one point he makes that I’ve been saying for years.
Mass (air) = 4 pi R^2 * P/g, where
R=earth radius=6371000 m - P=surface pressure=101300 Pa - g=acceleration due to gravity=9.8 m/s^2Thus, Mass (air) = 5.3 x 10^18 kg = 5,300,000,000 Gigatons
Mass (CO2) = mass (air)*ratio (CO2/air)*mol. mass (CO2)/mol. mass (air), where
ratio (CO2/air)=380 ppm=380 parts CO2 per 1 million parts of air
molecular mass (CO2)=44 kg/kmol - molecular mass (air)=28.8 kg/kmolThus, Mass (CO2)=3 x 10^15 kg=3,000,000 Gigatons (that’s 3,000 million million kg, OK?!)
Man-made emissions of CO2 are estimated at 110ppm, which is 28.95% of the total CO2
and that equals 868,500 Gigatons = 0.0164% by mass of the total atmosphere.A Gigaton is a 1,000 million tons and 1 ton is 1,000kg, equal to 2,240lbs. Carbon Dioxide Graphic
SO . . . IF THE UK WAS TO COLLECTIVELY “SAVE” 100 BILLION TONS . . . (quite impossible)
THAT’S EXACTLY 0.00333% OF THE TOTAL . . . and all the Government wants to save so far is about 100 million tons - a mere 0.00000333%
Governments want to pass laws that tax us more and take away many of our choices, all for a completely bogus theory.
Permalink
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Hero of the DayLord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.
“Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton told participants.
“The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)” Monckton added. (LINK)
Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.
“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.
More skeptical scientists need to speak out against the IPCC while there’s still time. The frauds are getting away with too much these days. And speaking of Lord Monckton…
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, an aide to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, sent the UN a list of 31 errors and exaggerations shortly after launch of the summary in February 2007 of its latest report on the science of climate change.
The UN’s climate-change body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, did not reply directly to Lord Monckton’s criticism, but made many of the corrections nevertheless.
“The tradition of elementary but serious scientific errors, of which the notorious ‘hockey-stick’ graph of estimated global temperatures over the past 1,000 years is an example, is alive and well in the UN’s 2007 report,” Lord Monckton said.
“The UN has still not corrected or apologized for the ‘hockey-stick’, by which it falsely abolished the mediaeval warm period, when temperatures were 2 or 3C warmer than today, and disaster failed to ensue. But it has been forced to correct several schoolboy howlers – though it has not had the honesty to announce publicly and clearly that it has done so,” Monckton said.
UPDATE: Now the pope is getting on the AGW shreiker’s case!
Permalink
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Doomsday Called Off
The CBC did this excellent documentary debunking the IPCC’s global warming claims.
Permalink
Friday, November 30, 2007
Another Clue Bat ExperienceThe AGW weenies never learn. Nature likes to rain on parades. Reality doesn’t care about ideology.
PermalinkA North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
“Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey,” said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The List Keeps Getting BiggerI posted this on my old blog. But the list has gotten bigger so it needs revisiting.
These are all the things that are claimed to be caused by global warming. I think the shark has been jumped about 70 times by now.
Permalink
Sunday, November 25, 2007
BS of the DaySupporters of the Kyoto Protocol were gleeful on Saturday after Australian elections left the United States in the wilderness as the only major economy to boycott the UN’s climate pact.
The ouster of Prime Minister John Howard stripped President George W. Bush of a key ally barely a week before a conference in Bali, Indonesia, on the world’s response to climate change beyond 2012, they said.
“It’s great news for the Kyoto Protocol,” Shane Rattenburg, Greenpeace’s political director, told AFP.
“It’s a very important event in the international climate debate, and for Bali. It will leave Bush and the United States more isolated.”
Except that isn’t true. Canada is planning to back out of the treaty. Of course, they’re phrasing it in such a way as to suggest other non-treaty nations must join for Canada to stay. But he knows that’s not going to happen.
The treaty is worthless. Even the IPCC agrees it would have a negligible impact at best. But its effect on the economies of signatory nations is something else all together, which is why many of them have failed to meet their goals and have, instead used the hilarious “carbon offsets” argument.
So what’s the point? It seems to be yet another anti-capitalist scam designed to force rich nations to downscale their economies, which means, hindering corporate growth. And that means less jobs. Less revenue for everyone. What a deal!
Nature has a way of raining on parades. Record ice in Antarctica caused a cruise ship to sink the other day. I thought the ice was melting. Next thing you know, we’ll find out they lied about the sea levels rising.
Permalink
