Saturday, August 27, 2011
scientists would not lie
Yea Sure Big Al and what is next? You did not became the first environmental Billionaire?
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
NOAA's Climate Office.
this is a must read. The current upper echelons of NOAA are remorseless eco-zealots. They are not public servants in that they feel no need to answer to the American people. They have their truth, and it shall be the truth for all, or else. Congress must stick to their guns and not allow this callous cabal to reorganize before the 2012 election.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Trying to put the Climategate genie back in the bottle..by Judith Curry
Anna Haynes (sourcewatch) latest antics:
For example, one of Mashey and Mann’s supporters has made it her business to contact by telephone and e-mail NAS trustees, members, employees, and others with leading questions about my views on climate change and sustainability. Her questions have insinuated that two former employees of NAS who died in 1995 were murdered, perhaps at the behest of Richard Mellon Scaife! (As it happened both died of heart attacks; and both had suffered previous heart attacks.) This woman has similarly attacked other people and organizations that express views on climate change that she disagrees with. Her targets have sometimes spoken up, but as far as I can tell she is accepted by AGW proponents as a welcome contributor to the effort.
Wood closes with the following text:
The techniques vary. The results, however, are similar: What cannot be established by transparent science can be imposed by coercion and intimidation.
The hardball approach of his defenders is in large part a reflex of this loss of prestige and authority. The proponents of AGW, however, have chosen a very foolish tactic. Bullying skeptics and sneering at those who raise questions is no way to regain public trust.
The sharp practices of the warmists also damage the tenor of academic, scientific, and public debate. Frivolous lawsuits, intimidation, mobbing are not the flying buttresses of modern science. They are the rot that undermines the intellectual authority of science. Can you trust anything said by someone who engages in such tactics?
For example, one of Mashey and Mann’s supporters has made it her business to contact by telephone and e-mail NAS trustees, members, employees, and others with leading questions about my views on climate change and sustainability. Her questions have insinuated that two former employees of NAS who died in 1995 were murdered, perhaps at the behest of Richard Mellon Scaife! (As it happened both died of heart attacks; and both had suffered previous heart attacks.) This woman has similarly attacked other people and organizations that express views on climate change that she disagrees with. Her targets have sometimes spoken up, but as far as I can tell she is accepted by AGW proponents as a welcome contributor to the effort.
Wood closes with the following text:
The techniques vary. The results, however, are similar: What cannot be established by transparent science can be imposed by coercion and intimidation.
The hardball approach of his defenders is in large part a reflex of this loss of prestige and authority. The proponents of AGW, however, have chosen a very foolish tactic. Bullying skeptics and sneering at those who raise questions is no way to regain public trust.
The sharp practices of the warmists also damage the tenor of academic, scientific, and public debate. Frivolous lawsuits, intimidation, mobbing are not the flying buttresses of modern science. They are the rot that undermines the intellectual authority of science. Can you trust anything said by someone who engages in such tactics?
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
what if it was Exxon-Mobil?
Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre discovered earlier this week that the IPCC’s recent report on alternative energy — which asserted that it was possible to convert the world to 80% green energy by 2050 if politicians would simply tax conventional sources and spend billions on alternative sources — was lifted largely from Greenpeace reports.
The lead author of the IPCC report turns out to be Sven Teske, a Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner, who the IPCC does not identify as such in either the report or its media releases. Mr. Teske is also the author of much of the Greenpeace material on which the IPCC report is based, in effect making him a peer reviewer of the validity of his own material.NP
here
The lead author of the IPCC report turns out to be Sven Teske, a Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner, who the IPCC does not identify as such in either the report or its media releases. Mr. Teske is also the author of much of the Greenpeace material on which the IPCC report is based, in effect making him a peer reviewer of the validity of his own material.NP
here
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
NAS Climate Panel Fails The Laugh Test
May 18, 2011
By James Taylor, Forbes
Three environmental activists and a duck walk into a bar and start talking global warming with a dozen people who have no formal education in climate science. Sound like the beginning of a bad joke? Actually, it’s not. It’s what the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) would have us believe is an expert, objective, scientifically authoritative panel qualified to produce its latest report, America’s Climate Choices.
America’s Climate Choices asserts that humans are the primary cause of recent climate change that poses significant risks to human welfare and the environment. The report asserts we need to act now to fend off future harms.
Environmental activist groups and their media allies have had a field day claiming America�s Climate Choices is an unquestionably objective and expert report providing irrefutable proof that humans are causing a global warming crisis.
USA Today, for example, claimed the report was authored by “the nation�s pre-eminent scientific advisory group” and said the report “leave[s] the deniers in the same position as the ‘birthers’” who challenge President Obama’s reported birthplace.
Not to be outdone, the Washington Post referred to the report as “the scientific consensus of America’s premier scientific advisory group” and says “climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three.”
These are very strong assertions. Let’s see if the facts back them up.
Only 23 people served on the panel. This is hardly sufficient to form a �scientific consensus.�
Of the 23 panelists, only five have a Ph.D. in a field closely related to climate science. That’s less than 22%.
Five of the 23 panelists are or were staffers for environmental activist organizations. That means there are as many professional environmental activists on the panel as there are persons with climate-related science degrees.
Prior to publishing the report, 19 of the 23 made statements claiming global warming is a human induced problem and/or we need to take action to reduce carbon dioxide restrictions. That means 83% of the panel was clearly and obviously biased before being selected.
Two of the panelists are or were politicians.
One of the panelists was appointed by the Clinton administration as general counsel for the Environmental Protection Agency.
To claim that a report from such a small panel, comprised primarily of non-climate scientists and environmental activists, is objective and scientifically authoritative is a joke. The fact that 19 of the 23 panelists were clearly biased before even writing the report makes the report an even bigger joke. The only thing missing from such an “expert” and “objective” panel is the presence of Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar.”
When environmental activists lament the fact that public opinion has turned so forcefully against global warming alarmism, they need only look in the mirror to find the answer. You can’t trot out staffers from Environmental Defense Fund, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and other environmental activist groups and claim this is authoritative, objective science. And if you are going to issue a global warming report and claim it is from impeccably qualified scientific sources, at least a quarter of the report’s authors should be climate scientists.
Environmental activists and their media allies repeatedly point out that America’s Climate Choices is a National Academy of Sciences publication. Rather than provide credibility for the panel of activists and non-climate scientists, the involvement of NAS merely illustrates how far away from quality, objective science NAS has travelled when the topic is a political one as well as scientific one. The fact that NAS chose to publish the report in no way changes the fact that the report was written by a very small panel of environmental activists and non-climate scientists. All the Washington Post and USA Today editorials in the world cannot change the fact that the NAS panel is about as close to representing an objective, authoritative scientific consensus on climate science as Donald Trump is to representing an objective, authoritative scientific consensus on the accuracy of President Obama’s birth claims.
Indeed, when three environmental activists and a duck walk into a bar to discuss global warming with non-climate scientists, the duck is most objective, qualified source in the room. Too bad the duck was the only entity left off the NAS panel.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Marc Morano has compiled some links here.http://www.climatedepot.com/a/11086/Climate-Depots-Round-up-on-National-Research-Councils-media-hyped-political-science-scare-report
Repulsive: National Research Council Chaired by Corrupted Warmist Ralph Cicerone: Turned Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study used to lobby for climate bill rcicerone@nas.edu
Flashback: MIT’s Lindzen Slams: ‘Ralph Cicerone of NAS/NRC is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov’t wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide’
By James Taylor, Forbes
Three environmental activists and a duck walk into a bar and start talking global warming with a dozen people who have no formal education in climate science. Sound like the beginning of a bad joke? Actually, it’s not. It’s what the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) would have us believe is an expert, objective, scientifically authoritative panel qualified to produce its latest report, America’s Climate Choices.
America’s Climate Choices asserts that humans are the primary cause of recent climate change that poses significant risks to human welfare and the environment. The report asserts we need to act now to fend off future harms.
Environmental activist groups and their media allies have had a field day claiming America�s Climate Choices is an unquestionably objective and expert report providing irrefutable proof that humans are causing a global warming crisis.
USA Today, for example, claimed the report was authored by “the nation�s pre-eminent scientific advisory group” and said the report “leave[s] the deniers in the same position as the ‘birthers’” who challenge President Obama’s reported birthplace.
Not to be outdone, the Washington Post referred to the report as “the scientific consensus of America’s premier scientific advisory group” and says “climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three.”
These are very strong assertions. Let’s see if the facts back them up.
Only 23 people served on the panel. This is hardly sufficient to form a �scientific consensus.�
Of the 23 panelists, only five have a Ph.D. in a field closely related to climate science. That’s less than 22%.
Five of the 23 panelists are or were staffers for environmental activist organizations. That means there are as many professional environmental activists on the panel as there are persons with climate-related science degrees.
Prior to publishing the report, 19 of the 23 made statements claiming global warming is a human induced problem and/or we need to take action to reduce carbon dioxide restrictions. That means 83% of the panel was clearly and obviously biased before being selected.
Two of the panelists are or were politicians.
One of the panelists was appointed by the Clinton administration as general counsel for the Environmental Protection Agency.
To claim that a report from such a small panel, comprised primarily of non-climate scientists and environmental activists, is objective and scientifically authoritative is a joke. The fact that 19 of the 23 panelists were clearly biased before even writing the report makes the report an even bigger joke. The only thing missing from such an “expert” and “objective” panel is the presence of Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar.”
When environmental activists lament the fact that public opinion has turned so forcefully against global warming alarmism, they need only look in the mirror to find the answer. You can’t trot out staffers from Environmental Defense Fund, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and other environmental activist groups and claim this is authoritative, objective science. And if you are going to issue a global warming report and claim it is from impeccably qualified scientific sources, at least a quarter of the report’s authors should be climate scientists.
Environmental activists and their media allies repeatedly point out that America’s Climate Choices is a National Academy of Sciences publication. Rather than provide credibility for the panel of activists and non-climate scientists, the involvement of NAS merely illustrates how far away from quality, objective science NAS has travelled when the topic is a political one as well as scientific one. The fact that NAS chose to publish the report in no way changes the fact that the report was written by a very small panel of environmental activists and non-climate scientists. All the Washington Post and USA Today editorials in the world cannot change the fact that the NAS panel is about as close to representing an objective, authoritative scientific consensus on climate science as Donald Trump is to representing an objective, authoritative scientific consensus on the accuracy of President Obama’s birth claims.
Indeed, when three environmental activists and a duck walk into a bar to discuss global warming with non-climate scientists, the duck is most objective, qualified source in the room. Too bad the duck was the only entity left off the NAS panel.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Marc Morano has compiled some links here.http://www.climatedepot.com/a/11086/Climate-Depots-Round-up-on-National-Research-Councils-media-hyped-political-science-scare-report
Repulsive: National Research Council Chaired by Corrupted Warmist Ralph Cicerone: Turned Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study used to lobby for climate bill rcicerone@nas.edu
Flashback: MIT’s Lindzen Slams: ‘Ralph Cicerone of NAS/NRC is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov’t wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide’
Thursday, May 12, 2011
The Global Warming Doctrine is Not a Science
They also know how to do it. They want to organize the CO2 emissions reduction by means of directives (or commands) issued by the institutions of “global governance”. They forget to tell us that this is not possible without undermining democracy, independence of individual countries, human freedom, economic prosperity and a chance to eliminate poverty in the world. They pretend that the CO2 emissions reduction will bring benefits which will exceed its costs.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Dr Igor Polyakov (University of Alaska) for the period 1860-2005.
These latest findings appear to contradict the general perception that sea level rise is escalating at present.
This data set shows clearly that the Arctic was at its warmest in 1935 and 1936 and the present temperature in the Arctic is about the same as it was in the mid-1930s. Further, the Arctic witnessed significant icecap and glacier melting during the 1920s and 1930s as evidenced by the following commentary “The Arctic sea is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared (US Weather Bureau CIRCA 1922)”.Study finds no acceleration in sea level rise, but instead a small average deceleration of -0.0014 and -0.0123 mm/yr2. These latest findings appear to contradict the general perception that sea level rise is escalating at present.(Houston & Dean (Journal of Coastal Research 2011)
This data set shows clearly that the Arctic was at its warmest in 1935 and 1936 and the present temperature in the Arctic is about the same as it was in the mid-1930s. Further, the Arctic witnessed significant icecap and glacier melting during the 1920s and 1930s as evidenced by the following commentary “The Arctic sea is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared (US Weather Bureau CIRCA 1922)”.Study finds no acceleration in sea level rise, but instead a small average deceleration of -0.0014 and -0.0123 mm/yr2. These latest findings appear to contradict the general perception that sea level rise is escalating at present.(Houston & Dean (Journal of Coastal Research 2011)
Friday, May 6, 2011
Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years
The professor says students need to know because they must deal with the buildup of CO2 causing climate change. This discloses his ignorance about the science of the carbon cycle and the role of CO2 in climate. It’s not surprising, and caused by three major factors:
1. a function of the emotional, irrational, religious approach to environmentalism;
2. the takeover of climate science for a political agenda; and
3. funding directed to prove the political, rather than the scientific, agenda.
1. a function of the emotional, irrational, religious approach to environmentalism;
2. the takeover of climate science for a political agenda; and
3. funding directed to prove the political, rather than the scientific, agenda.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Report Questions Wind Power’s Ability to Deliver Electricity When Most Needed
1. 'Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year'
In fact, the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
2. 'The wind is always blowing somewhere'
On 124 separate occasions from November 2008 to December 2010, the total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW (a fraction of the 450MW expected from a capacity in excess of 1600 MW). These periods of low wind lasted an average of 4.5 hours.
3. 'Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.'
Actually, low wind occurred every six days throughout the 26-month study period. The report finds that the average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. 'The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.'
At each of the four highest peak demand points of 2010, wind output was extremely low at 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
5. 'Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.'
The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
In fact, the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
2. 'The wind is always blowing somewhere'
On 124 separate occasions from November 2008 to December 2010, the total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW (a fraction of the 450MW expected from a capacity in excess of 1600 MW). These periods of low wind lasted an average of 4.5 hours.
3. 'Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.'
Actually, low wind occurred every six days throughout the 26-month study period. The report finds that the average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. 'The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.'
At each of the four highest peak demand points of 2010, wind output was extremely low at 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
5. 'Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.'
The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
An the Survey says.
The results of this poll were released in the congressional Energy and Commerce committee which I am told shocked Waxman into a rare silence (at least temporary).
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
no collective bargaining rights for federal workers
OOPS! That right-wing extremist Jimmy Carter and the Democrat congress passed the law which prohibited Federal employees to collectively bargain.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
"We can't control the weather,"
Et pourtant ils ont convaincus les politicien et le public « les payeurs de taxe » que de dépenser des milliards sur sais cochonnerie que ça allait changer les climats. La semaine prochaine on va voir comment les panneaux solaires sont efficaces sous 2 pieds de neige.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vfSk-6tIvo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vfSk-6tIvo
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Light-bulb law sickening
These lights contain almost as much mercury as a mercury filling. You get more mercury from eating tuna. These are not the only choice you have you also may purchase Halogen or LED lights. The old lights are 98% inefficient with the majority of power used converted to heat. The only real casualty here will be the easy bake oven. Tossing the old bulbs just makes sense and God forbid we do what is the right thing and improve the enviroment we live in. The C02 scare scam as some refer to it is listed by the US military as the largest threat to US security and world peace. If you think it is all a bunch of BS take a look at world food production and how it is being effected by this so called scam. Or the the changes in weather over the last 50 years in this country which have shown as much as a 63% decrease in cold weather days. Cold weather days are days that are -15 C. Yeah all a big scam to make people aware that this Natural Cycle which has not appeared in nature in over 650,000 is all business as ussual and that human pollution is not contributing to any of the problems. Take a few minutes and learn about global dimming as well as acidification of the worlds oceans caused by excessive C02 or the changes in the jet stream, Glacial melt or ocean temperature rise. Think on this, at one time the earth had C02 levels 10 times higher than now, there just was no life on the surface of the earth at the time.
...
If these So Call CFL Lamps are so good, why do we need a Law to impose/force them on to the Public?“ the majority of power used converted to heat” and If the Heat from the Incandescent lamps is removed this mean that we will have to turn up the Thermostats a “tad” up to compensate for the loss and resulting in more fuel being use. Is that not counter to what these poison lamps are suppose to do? “ Some improvement to the environment we live in.”
“World food production has decline” No! world food production has not decline it is growing food for fuel instead of growing it to feed people that has decline Another wonderful gift from the environmentalist.Even Al Gore admits that this was the wrong thing to do.
“Or the the changes in weather over the last 50” Thank God it changes…what should the weather do? Stay the same?
“63% decrease in cold weather days” Where is that occurring? Even the high priest Phil Jones from the MECCA of the Environmental religion The UK MET Office/IPCC stated that “there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and between 2002 and 2009, the global temperatures had declined 0.12C (0.22F).” But! But! But! How can that be since CO2 is going up?
“this Natural Cycle which has not appeared in nature in over 650,000” ? 30 years ago it was cooling.30 years before that it was warming and before that cooling and so on.. seem to me that every 30 some years we do have a NATURAL weather/climate cycle.
“Think on this, at one time the earth had C02 levels 10 times higher than now, there just was no life on the surface of the earth at the time.” And that was when Antarctica turned into a block of Ice. While at the same time Life was flourishing in other areas.
And I am Sure at some point in our planet Billion years history that there was no life on earth.
We were told by now our children would not know what snow was... some of us do remember. Global Dimming? Check the tribune History and you will find some of my post regarding GD more then 3 years ago...( I think it is on my blog ).. Co2 is not a pollutant so what is the point of talking Pollution when there is no connection. Pollution is a problem we must deal with but for the right reason not emotional speculation regarding CO2. The only place where CO2 is a catastrophic global warming Gas is Inside a Computer Model, Not from Observed data. If one want? one can say that anything anytime anywhere can cause AGW. Example: Storms are cause by Global warming..How do we know? well we have storms. Another One a Flat tire will cause a car to ran out of Gas ! How do you know .. Well I had a flat tire and I ran out of Gas... It is call The Illogical Logic. Any thing can be cause by Global Warming .. a Bridge comes down GW . A Street Riot GW, floods ,droughts , Donuts Holes, Snow GW, no Snow GW Cold Hot ..even the Ocean Alkaline solution can be call Acidification if you try very hard.
...
If these So Call CFL Lamps are so good, why do we need a Law to impose/force them on to the Public?“ the majority of power used converted to heat” and If the Heat from the Incandescent lamps is removed this mean that we will have to turn up the Thermostats a “tad” up to compensate for the loss and resulting in more fuel being use. Is that not counter to what these poison lamps are suppose to do? “ Some improvement to the environment we live in.”
“World food production has decline” No! world food production has not decline it is growing food for fuel instead of growing it to feed people that has decline Another wonderful gift from the environmentalist.Even Al Gore admits that this was the wrong thing to do.
“Or the the changes in weather over the last 50” Thank God it changes…what should the weather do? Stay the same?
“63% decrease in cold weather days” Where is that occurring? Even the high priest Phil Jones from the MECCA of the Environmental religion The UK MET Office/IPCC stated that “there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 and between 2002 and 2009, the global temperatures had declined 0.12C (0.22F).” But! But! But! How can that be since CO2 is going up?
“this Natural Cycle which has not appeared in nature in over 650,000” ? 30 years ago it was cooling.30 years before that it was warming and before that cooling and so on.. seem to me that every 30 some years we do have a NATURAL weather/climate cycle.
“Think on this, at one time the earth had C02 levels 10 times higher than now, there just was no life on the surface of the earth at the time.” And that was when Antarctica turned into a block of Ice. While at the same time Life was flourishing in other areas.
And I am Sure at some point in our planet Billion years history that there was no life on earth.
We were told by now our children would not know what snow was... some of us do remember. Global Dimming? Check the tribune History and you will find some of my post regarding GD more then 3 years ago...( I think it is on my blog ).. Co2 is not a pollutant so what is the point of talking Pollution when there is no connection. Pollution is a problem we must deal with but for the right reason not emotional speculation regarding CO2. The only place where CO2 is a catastrophic global warming Gas is Inside a Computer Model, Not from Observed data. If one want? one can say that anything anytime anywhere can cause AGW. Example: Storms are cause by Global warming..How do we know? well we have storms. Another One a Flat tire will cause a car to ran out of Gas ! How do you know .. Well I had a flat tire and I ran out of Gas... It is call The Illogical Logic. Any thing can be cause by Global Warming .. a Bridge comes down GW . A Street Riot GW, floods ,droughts , Donuts Holes, Snow GW, no Snow GW Cold Hot ..even the Ocean Alkaline solution can be call Acidification if you try very hard.
Friday, February 11, 2011
The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder
Global-warming alarmists insist that economic activity is the problem, when the available evidence show it to be part of the solution
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Predicting the Pakistan floods
Predicting the Pakistan floods is as easy as predicting that Joe Romm was going to blame political unrest on........ Global Warming.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
Climate "Consensus" Opiate, The 97% Solution
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_qconsensusq_opiate_the_97_solution.html
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Arctic sea Ice
In 2007 we were told " The First year ice is to thin and Might last the 2007 summer melt".
2008 same story " The Second year Ice is to thin and Might last the 2008 summer melt".
Of course non sense speculation that the Ice would be gone was even dated.
2009 came and by this time "The good old third year ice, " Yawn" ,would all be gone by 2020".
While I was debating and asking the Carbonistas " If you have an increase of yearly ice how can you claim that this ice increase is a decrease?
This is were I usually get the Deer caught in car Headlights look..... and then the usual Childish Insults ..Oh Yea ! Oh Yea ! well my dad can beat your dad!!!! type of thing.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683
2008 same story " The Second year Ice is to thin and Might last the 2008 summer melt".
Of course non sense speculation that the Ice would be gone was even dated.
2009 came and by this time "The good old third year ice, " Yawn" ,would all be gone by 2020".
While I was debating and asking the Carbonistas " If you have an increase of yearly ice how can you claim that this ice increase is a decrease?
This is were I usually get the Deer caught in car Headlights look..... and then the usual Childish Insults ..Oh Yea ! Oh Yea ! well my dad can beat your dad!!!! type of thing.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
let it snow
Oh, the weather outside is frightful,
But our fraud is so delightful,
So off to Cancun we'll go,
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.
We have no plans for stopping,
And your cash we'll soon be copping;
The curly lights really blow,
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.
When we've given you a good fright,
About some drought or a storm;
And if we get our way you might,
Not be able to keep yourself warm.
The fraud is slowly dying,
And, my dear, we're all still lying,
But as long as we're in Mexico.
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.
But our fraud is so delightful,
So off to Cancun we'll go,
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.
We have no plans for stopping,
And your cash we'll soon be copping;
The curly lights really blow,
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.
When we've given you a good fright,
About some drought or a storm;
And if we get our way you might,
Not be able to keep yourself warm.
The fraud is slowly dying,
And, my dear, we're all still lying,
But as long as we're in Mexico.
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Friends of Nemaiah Valley
"Politically, he says, all these groups are "involved in political agitation and keeping things off balance as much as possible."
http://www.nationalpost.com/charity+with+plenty+very+long+tentacles/3859570/story.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/charity+with+plenty+very+long+tentacles/3859570/story.html
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Fish Lake the Con Job.
Again the Environmentalist and the Natives have taken the Liars road to accomplish their goals. The Natives do not want the Prosperity mine to proceed, instead of committing themselves to fight against the mine and the destruction of Fish Lake on principles and honest objections to the project, they choose to lie, distort, intimidate with threat of violence if the mine is to proceed. If the natives fishes the lake "regularly", why is it the people who REALLY camp and fish there for 6 weeks at a time, have not seen them? Why is it that if Fish Lake is a "an important food fishery" then how is it that the only native people seen up there in 20 years were SENT THERE 3 years ago, "by the chiefs" and also said, "we don't fish here, it's too far from home and the road is too bad." And “ We do not eat them fish they are too small and do not taste good”
I guess mining companies don't have the exclusive on disinformation, propaganda and false claims.
I personally have no problem if the project is terminated by solid, scientific and rational reasons. BUT if it is terminated by propaganda, lies, blackmail and coercion, then I will have a huge problem.
If this mine goes ahead, and the threatened blockades appear, don't be too surprised if "counter-blockades " appear, also.
I guess mining companies don't have the exclusive on disinformation, propaganda and false claims.
I personally have no problem if the project is terminated by solid, scientific and rational reasons. BUT if it is terminated by propaganda, lies, blackmail and coercion, then I will have a huge problem.
If this mine goes ahead, and the threatened blockades appear, don't be too surprised if "counter-blockades " appear, also.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Congressman Calls For Schools To ‘Promote The Agenda’ Of Climate Change, Population Limitation
“Like I keep saying over and over again, if you get young people invested in those ideas early on, that will result in those kinds of positive policy developments," Sarbanes told CNSNews.com. "So, whether it’s climate change, whether it’s population growth, whether it’s all these factors that impact the health of our world, raising that awareness early among young people is only going to promote the agenda.”
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Questioning the Arctic Ice Melt and Temperature Scare
First, let’s look at the expanded definition of ‘Arctic.’ If you headed south from the Arctic toward the equator would you expect the weather to change? Well, you don’t have to be smarter than a fifth grader to know that the further you got away from the Arctic Circle the more likely the weather wouldn’t be as severe. One unreported fact about the Arctic is that its geographical boundaries have been expanded. Several years ago the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) decided to expand the Arctic by about 50% or approximately 4 million square miles. (2) Have you seen or heard about this from the media?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
CO2 levels have been 10 to 20 times higher than the present during multiple periods of Earth's history without causing a 'tipping point' of no return'
'An entire ice age came and went with CO2 levels about 11 times higher than the present throughout the Ordovician period' -- 'Antarctica abruptly transitioned from a warm, subtropical hothouse to the present solid ice sheet during a period when CO2 levels exceeded those of today by 10 times'
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Global Warming Alarmist Calls For Eco-Gulags To Re-Educate Climate Deniers
The heart of Linkola’s dark philosophy revolves around the need to slaughter masses of humans. “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die,” he writes.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Across Canada on two BMW motorcycles
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12a660fdb5e3c773&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D4499fd39a2%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12a660fdb5e3c773%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbRJUJB10XTiePwsGaOJ-FhKbhzlXA
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12ae9f266d0a600a&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D4499fd39a2%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12ae9f266d0a600a%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26realattid%3D74b9f510ebf3d5de_0.1%26zw&sig=AHIEtbR748mkQp7mCm6FZM9av45e6DZx5A
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12afc39b1eade426&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D4499fd39a2%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12afc39b1eade426%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbQw1OnUGMLSc75OJ6nW6BV3sgaP7A
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12ae9f266d0a600a&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D4499fd39a2%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12ae9f266d0a600a%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26realattid%3D74b9f510ebf3d5de_0.1%26zw&sig=AHIEtbR748mkQp7mCm6FZM9av45e6DZx5A
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12afc39b1eade426&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D4499fd39a2%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12afc39b1eade426%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbQw1OnUGMLSc75OJ6nW6BV3sgaP7A
Saturday, September 4, 2010
It is confirmed IPCC not a scientific body
Let’s face it, we are an intergovernmental body and our strength and acceptability of what we produce is largely because we are owned by governments. If that was not the case, then we would be like any other scientific body that maybe producing first-rate reports but don’t see the light of the day because they don’t matter in policy-making. Now clearly, if it’s an inter-governmental body and we want governments’ ownership of what we produce, obviously they will give us guidance of what direction to follow, what are the questions they want answered. IPCC Head Rajendra Pachauri.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/I-am-happy-that-truth-has-come-out-Pachauri/articleshow/6482854.cms
And let's not forget about the Guessing.. Pachauri " You really don't have a quantitative base by which you can attach a probability or a level of uncertainty that defines things in quantitative terms'
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/I-am-happy-that-truth-has-come-out-Pachauri/articleshow/6482854.cms
And let's not forget about the Guessing.. Pachauri " You really don't have a quantitative base by which you can attach a probability or a level of uncertainty that defines things in quantitative terms'
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
THE END OF THE IPCC ? naaa! Move along nothing to see here.
InterAcademy Council Report on the IPCC Released
Following controversy over the IPCC's 2007 assessment report, last March the UN and the IPCC asked the IAC to assemble a committee to review the processes and procedures of the IPCC. The 12-member committee from ten countries and headed by Harold Shapiro of Princeton University released its report on August 30. Unlike the Climategate inquiries, this one is no whitewash. Key recommendations (see Chapter 5 of the report) include:
1. Modernizing the IPCC's management structure to include an Executive Committee, a rigorous conflict of interest* policy and limiting the term of the Chair to one term only;
2. Strengthening the review process to ensure more effective responses to reviewer comments;
3. Characterizing and communicating uncertainties, particularly with regard to the level-of-understanding and likelihood scales used in the IPCC reports;
4. Developing an effective communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses;
5. Increasing transparency, including explicit documentation that a range of scientific viewpoints** has been considered;
6. Clarifying use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed sources;
7. Engaging the best regional experts;
8. Expediting approval of the Summary for Policy Makers;
9. Reducing the growing burden on the scientific community, for example, by having shorter reports focusing on key issues or significant new developments; and
10. Maintaining flexibility.
* Chapter 4 of the report deals extensively with the conflict-of-interest question, noting that no such policy exists for the IPCC and that questions were raised about its Chair's (i.e., Rajendra Pachauri's) service with some for-profit energy companies and the practice of Lead Authors reviewing their own work (p. 46.)
** Chapter 2, page 20, notes John Christy's presentation that alternative views are not always cited in a chapter if a Lead Author disagrees with them.
Morano: 'The IAC has once again revealed that the UN IPCC is merely a partisan error-riddled pressure group campaigning for their cause. Quite simply, the IPCC is the best science that politics and activists could manufacture. Skeptics worldwide should rally around the discredited UN IPCC chief Pachauri. The longer Pachauri stays, the more damage he does to the pitiful IPCC process. Viva Pachauri!'
UK Telegraph: 'Flawed science': 'UN IPCC was rightly warned not to stray into what might be seen as scaremongering and policy advocacy'
Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook: 'The IPCC report is filled with statements of '90% certainty' without even saying 90% of what or providing any basis for such statements. Yet those pronouncements of certainty were used over and over as though that had been scientifically proven somehow'
Following controversy over the IPCC's 2007 assessment report, last March the UN and the IPCC asked the IAC to assemble a committee to review the processes and procedures of the IPCC. The 12-member committee from ten countries and headed by Harold Shapiro of Princeton University released its report on August 30. Unlike the Climategate inquiries, this one is no whitewash. Key recommendations (see Chapter 5 of the report) include:
1. Modernizing the IPCC's management structure to include an Executive Committee, a rigorous conflict of interest* policy and limiting the term of the Chair to one term only;
2. Strengthening the review process to ensure more effective responses to reviewer comments;
3. Characterizing and communicating uncertainties, particularly with regard to the level-of-understanding and likelihood scales used in the IPCC reports;
4. Developing an effective communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses;
5. Increasing transparency, including explicit documentation that a range of scientific viewpoints** has been considered;
6. Clarifying use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed sources;
7. Engaging the best regional experts;
8. Expediting approval of the Summary for Policy Makers;
9. Reducing the growing burden on the scientific community, for example, by having shorter reports focusing on key issues or significant new developments; and
10. Maintaining flexibility.
* Chapter 4 of the report deals extensively with the conflict-of-interest question, noting that no such policy exists for the IPCC and that questions were raised about its Chair's (i.e., Rajendra Pachauri's) service with some for-profit energy companies and the practice of Lead Authors reviewing their own work (p. 46.)
** Chapter 2, page 20, notes John Christy's presentation that alternative views are not always cited in a chapter if a Lead Author disagrees with them.
Morano: 'The IAC has once again revealed that the UN IPCC is merely a partisan error-riddled pressure group campaigning for their cause. Quite simply, the IPCC is the best science that politics and activists could manufacture. Skeptics worldwide should rally around the discredited UN IPCC chief Pachauri. The longer Pachauri stays, the more damage he does to the pitiful IPCC process. Viva Pachauri!'
UK Telegraph: 'Flawed science': 'UN IPCC was rightly warned not to stray into what might be seen as scaremongering and policy advocacy'
Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook: 'The IPCC report is filled with statements of '90% certainty' without even saying 90% of what or providing any basis for such statements. Yet those pronouncements of certainty were used over and over as though that had been scientifically proven somehow'
Monday, August 30, 2010
Arctic Sea Ice Taking a Turn for the Worse
As usual theslutblog is at it again. How do you get a first ,second and multi-year ice if it is melting?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Settled Climate Science is Unsettled – Again
Earth rotation and wind control sea currents .
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/gulf-of-mexico-loop-current-broken-risk-of-global-climate-change-by-bp-oil-spill/
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/gulf-of-mexico-loop-current-broken-risk-of-global-climate-change-by-bp-oil-spill/
Monday, July 19, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Leaked Document Shows Spain's "Green" Policies Are An Economic Disaster
Global warming proposals could experience rough seas in the UK
Leaked Document Shows Spain's "Green" Policies Are An Economic Disaster
According to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Pajamas Media has received a leaked internal assessment produced by Spain's Zapatero administration. This assessment confirms the catastrophic economic failure of Spain's "green economy" initiatives. On eight occasions US President Obama has referred to these policies as being the model he envisions for America.
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/974-leaked-document-shows-spains-green-policies-are-an-economic-disaster.html
Leaked Document Shows Spain's "Green" Policies Are An Economic Disaster
According to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Pajamas Media has received a leaked internal assessment produced by Spain's Zapatero administration. This assessment confirms the catastrophic economic failure of Spain's "green economy" initiatives. On eight occasions US President Obama has referred to these policies as being the model he envisions for America.
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/974-leaked-document-shows-spains-green-policies-are-an-economic-disaster.html
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Tree-huggers and loggers bury hatchet
Yes of course that will happen only when Pigs fly.
I cannot believe that the forest industry is giving up to blackmail.
I cannot believe that the forest industry is giving up to blackmail.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)