Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

Climategate (Hide the Decline)

February 4, 2010

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link.


The Joke in Copenhagen

December 23, 2009

I have now gone from being merely skeptical of the global warming frenzy to being angry by the revelations that we have been defrauded by people who have manipulated data and stonewalled any critical analysis of their findings and who have had the unmitigated gall to call themselves scientists. I am angry because  politicians and bureaucrats seem determined to forge ahead with policies that will do mortal damage our economies in spite of the information now becoming available that data was doctored in order to prove a predetermined hypothesis.

To add to all of this, after the e-mails out of East Anglia and just when the “scientists” and the global warming theorists were getting into their damage control mode attempting to explain that what the e-mails said meant something entirely different than what it sounded like, they were hit by a report from Russia that the temperature database from that country had been manipulated by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to show greater warming in Russia that was actually the case.

From there we went to the circus in Copenhagen where demagogues such as Venezuala’s president Hugo Chavez received standing ovations for his attacks on capitalism and his arch-enemy the U.S.

Assembled world leaders cheered on Chavez Wednesday during his first, scheduled speech, a ringing attack on all things capitalist that earned him standing ovations from leaders of the Third World.

Chavez berated developed nations for creating an “imperial dictatorship” that rules the world and urging his audience to “fight against capitalism,” the “silent and terrible ghost” that was haunting the elegant conference chambers in the Danish capital.

“I promise I won’t talk more than others have talked this afternoon,” he said at the start of a rambling, 25-minute diatribe that outshot other speakers by a full 20 minutes. In the wide-ranging speech, he called capitalism the “road to hell” responsible for poverty, murder, AIDS — and even unfair climate agreements, the Toronto Star reported.

And there were others

Over in Copenhagen, we have Robert Mugabe, perhaps the most brutal and corrupt despot in Africa, whose life’s work has been to destroy the once-prosperous country of Zimbabwe, lecturing the West on the “hypocrisy” of its position on climate change. (Zimbabwe doesn’t have to worry about greenhouse gas emissions, because, thanks to Mugane, its economy is in a state of collapse.) Update: Here’s Stephen Lewis talking about a new report on Mugabe’s use of rape as a weapon.

We have the government of China, which won’t allow its citizens free access to the Internet, complaining that the climate summit is “not transparent.”

We have Hugo Chavez, who took time off from shutting down Venezuela’s radio stations to fly to Denmark, complaining about western “dictatorship.” (If anyone back in Venezuela disagrees, he’ll toss them in jail).

Of course we also have the patriotic Mayor of Toronto, David Miller, standing up for Canada – sorry, my mistake. You have David Miller slamming Canada by volunteering to accept a Fossil award in Canada’s name.
“Like most Canadians, I’m embarrassed … our government continues to be one of the biggest obstacles to reaching agreement,” Mr. Miller said as he accepted two “Fossil of the Day” awards on behalf of Canada last week.
Two other commentaries that are well worth reading.
As always, a well-written, thoughtful column by Rex Murphy, which says in part:

If the hard science of global warming, or at least as much of that emergent discipline that may be called hard science, is to be the factual and scientific fulcrum on which policies for the world’s energy are to be decided, then it logically follows that such science must be absolutely untainted. That it not be infused with the activist spirit, that advocacy follows the science, not that science seeks to comport with advocacy. It is really impossible to read some of those e-mails and not to take, from both their tone and their substance, that the necessary neutrality and disinterest of true scientific enterprise – the essential virtues of science – have been severely disobliged.

Has the science been tainted, is the question of our time. Has the authority and prestige of scientific practice been invoked at the very moment when its methods – its practice – has been, to any degree, corrupted or degraded? This would be a reasonable question – and let me stress it is still a question – even if the project or subject was one of far less consequence and scope than the planet’s climate and its economic practice.

That question is not being asked with the rigour we should expect. There is something about the great cause of global warming that tends to disarm scrutiny, to tamp down the normal reflexes of tough questioning and investigation that the press brings to every other arena. The great conference at Copenhagen seems to have whistled by the quite momentous challenge that the East Anglia e-mails presents to the centrality of the claims made by the global warming cause. Lots of fossil-of-the-day moments – not many hard press conferences.

Then another by Roger J. Simon on Pajamas Media, who was in Copenhagen for the conference and who observes that the conference was less about CO2 reduction than about moving power into the hands of the UN.

It will say the same of Copenhagen, no doubt. At least the presence of the various despots (Chavez, Mugabe, the re-upped A-jad, etc.) was not as damaging this time. It was more of sideshow, compared to the true objective of COP15 – the cementing of UN bureaucratic power under the guise of CO2 regulation. That was why the Climategate revelations were particularly poorly timed for the United Nations. Yes, they were largely ignored or dismissed at press conferences, but they were an overwhelming presence about which many were aware.

But much of the reality of the conference seemed to me to be an opportunity for third world countries to try and extract money from the west to use for their own purposes. This comment from a US agricultural reperesentative at the conference had the same take on the proceedings.

“To me, it appeared like they wanted our money to fix the problems they have that didn’t necessarily have anything to do with greenhouse gases or climate change,” he says. “It’s just the fact that they wanted to redistribute the wealth.  They wanted our dollars because we were the ‘rich Americans’.”

I think that pretty much sums it up: redistribution of wealth. That’s the plan.

Climategate and an angry reaction

December 7, 2009

Some strong words from Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun.

If you’re wondering how the robot-like march of the world’s politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed “climategate,” it’s because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don’t give a s*** about “the science.”

They never have.

What “climategate” suggests is many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t either. Apparently they stifled their own doubts about recent global cooling not explained by their computer models, manipulated data, plotted ways to avoid releasing it under freedom of information laws and attacked fellow scientists and scientific journals for publishing even peer-reviewed literature of which they did not approve.

Now they and their media shills — who sneered that all who questioned their phony “consensus” were despicable “deniers,” the moral equivalent of those who deny the Holocaust — are the ones in denial about the enormity of the scandal enveloping them.


Big Government wants more of your taxes. Big Business wants more of your income. Big Green wants you and your children to bow down to its agenda of enforced austerity.

What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power.

If it was about saving the planet, “cap-and-trade” (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) — how Big Government, Big Business and Big Green ludicrously pretend we will “fight” global warming and “save the planet” — would have been consigned to the dust bin of history because it doesn’t work. We know it doesn’t work because Europe’s five-year-old cap-and-trade market — the Emissions Trading Scheme — has done nothing to make the world cooler.

You can’t much plainer than that.

Climategate and the Mainstream Media

December 2, 2009

The internet has been buzzing since the publication of the e-mail files that were hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain. However the interest in them doesn’t seem to have spilled over to the  MSM.

ABC, CBS and NBC’s collective silence on “ClimateGate” has reached ridiculous levels as the broadcast networks continued to ignore the great and growing scandal. The bias by omission has now become scandalous.

“The networks’ silence on ClimateGate is deafening. Scandal, cover-ups and conspiracy are the bread and butter of the media. Yet they have selectively and deliberately decided not to report this bombshell – or any of the incriminating details surrounding the scandal – because it goes against their left-wing agenda,” Media Research Center President and NewsBusters Publisher Brent Bozell complained in a statement released today.

Phil Jones announced yesterday that he is temporarily leaving his post as head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) pending the investigation into the controversial e-mails and documents that started ClimateGate.

Yet none of the broadcast network weekday morning and evening news shows addressed ClimateGate or the incriminating Jones development since the news broke yesterday. This marked 12 days since the information was first uncovered that they have ignored this global scandal.

Another site pointed out similar concerns.

With the AP busy fact-checking Sarah Palin’s book and much of the rest of the media busy trying to trip her up at her book signings, a huge story seems to have passed them by: ClimateGate.

However, as Noel Shepard at Newsbusters pointed out earlier this week that several days after the scandalous news broke, neither ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, nor NBC had bothered to cover a huge story that is becoming bigger by the moment. He also notes that NPR seemed to be a part of the blackout. Here are some of the stories they did deem important within those few days:
  • ABC’s “World News with Charles Gibson” Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
  • ABC’s “World News with Charles Gibson” Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
  • CBS “Evening News” Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
  • CBS “Evening News” Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website not being free and the movie “New Moon”
  • CBS “Evening News” Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
  • NBC “Nightly News” Friday reported on Switzerland’s supercollider being turned back on
  • NBC “Nightly News” Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
  • NBC “Nightly News” Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle’s CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
More “big news” as of this writing was about the couple who managed to crash the White House state dinner on Tuesday night, as well as the annual Black Friday shopping crush.

And of course there was the very important Tiger Woods car accident story that the world awaited with breathless anticipation. They did note that Fox was on the story, but of course the MSM doesn’t consider Fox to be a legitimate news network.

An amusing (and enlightening) video of interviews with some major environmental organization spokespersons on this issue can be seen at Pajamas TV. The interpretation of these interviews could be called ‘total denial’.

This is definitely going to put a crimp in the ‘science is settled’ position of the global warming crowd and is certainly going to inject new life into the global warming sceptics.

But what is even more damaging is what this type of scandal does to the scientific community. Scientists are supposed to look at facts and once that is done, look at more facts. And if the data doesn’t support their initial conclusions then the conclusions need to me adjusted. That is why I have never understood the ‘science is settled’ argument by proponents of global warming. Real science is never settled.

But this looks to be a bunch of people calling themselves scientists who have predetermined a solution and then have fudged the data to ‘prove’ that conclusion. This is not science based on facts and their honest presentation. This is science driven by an agenda.

How can we believe anything they say from this point on.

The high cost of green power

August 28, 2009

The B.C. government, in its August 25th Speech from the Throne, reiterated its intent to press forward with alternative power sources.

This government will implement an aggressive strategy to turn the challenge of climate change to our citizens’ economic advantage.

Green energy will be a cornerstone of British Columbia’s climate action plan.

Electricity self-sufficiency and clean, renewable power generation will be integral to our effort to fight global warming.

The BC Utilities Commission will receive specific direction.

Phasing out Burrard Thermal is a critical component of B.C.’s greenhouse gas reduction strategy.

Further, this government will capitalize on the world’s desire and need for clean energy, for the benefit of all British Columbians.

Whether it is the development of Site C, run-of-river hydro power, wind, tidal, solar, geothermal, or bioenergy and biomass — British Columbia will take every step necessary to become a clean energy powerhouse, as indicated in the BC Energy Plan.

Government will use the means at its disposal to maximize our province’s potential for the good of our workers, our communities, our province and the planet.

While these forms of power require greater investment, in the long run, they will produce exponentially higher economic returns to our province, environmental benefits to our planet and jobs throughout British Columbia.

I wonder when it will come back and bite us on our financial asses as it apparently has done in Ontario.

Today it became public that Hydro One has asked the Ontario Energy Board for permission to raise the cost of distribution to all Ontario customers an average of 9.5% in 2010 and 13.3% in 2011 to cover $266 million dollars in costs relating to their four year Green Energy Plan for 2010 to 2014. By 2011 the impact of this $266 million will be an average increase of 24.3% over two years on the delivery portion of every Ontarian’s hydro bill. Because each public utility is a customer of Hydro One, it doesn’t matter who sells you your electricity – this impacts you.

Between the provincial government driving up our gasoline prices to discourage us from driving and the very real possibility of our power costs rising as the province pushes for alternative energy sources, B.C. could become an increasingly expensive place to live.

A Canada Day Gift From Premier Gordon Campbell

July 1, 2009

B.C. received its long awaited Canada Day gift from Premier Campbell today: An additional 1.2 cent per litre tax on gasoline. Today – July 1st – gas at the pumps jumped from $1.059 to $1.072 per litre, the extra penny – I presume – being GST.

All this supposedly done to reduce B.C.’s carbon footprint.

But what a crock. As I see it, it is just another way to get the government’s hand deeper into my pocket and as for it being a tax neutral system, that certainly remains to be seen. This money is going directly into the black hole of general revenue and once government has your money in hand, they are notoriously stingy about giving any of it back.

I like this from the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation:

People pay taxes so government can provide essential services, not to be manipulated in some social engineering experiment. Heating our homes and driving our cars are already expensive enough. It’s time for government to eliminate the carbon tax and stop creating more worries for families who are already concerned about jobs, the economy and their future wellbeing.

So thanks again Premier Campbell for the gift that keeps on giving.

Still stinking winter!

March 9, 2009

It is Sunday March 8th and it was -10 centigrade this morning. It snowed again yesterday. My golf course had planned (optimistically) to open on March 13th but has now succumbed to reality and left their planned opening up to the vagaries of nature.

I refuse to shovel my driveway anymore. Winter is supposed to be over and I refuse to acknowledge its existence.

And if anyone approaches me to tell me of the evils of global warming they are at serious risk of being struck squarely between the eyes.

And that’s the truth.

Do as I say and not as I do

January 19, 2009

In line with my previous post on CO2 and climate change:

Team Obama says reducing the carbon-dioxide emissions that result from burning fossil fuels will be a priority, and some careless talk suggests his EPA will eschew carrots for the punitive stick of regulation and taxes. Now the good people over at the Institute for Liberty have punched back with a carbon-footprint estimate for the Obama inauguration itself.

Using data from the EPA, environmentalist organizations, and various news accounts, the group estimates more than 500 million pounds of CO2 will be released during the four-day inaugural festivities. Among the offenders:

  • The 600 private jets expected to fly visitors to and from the event will produce 25,320,000 pounds of CO2.
  • Personal vehicles could account for 262,483,200 pounds of CO2.
  • The horses in the parade will produce more than 400 pounds of CO2.

And if you don’t have an idea what a pound of CO2 really means, consider this: The average household would take 57,598 years to produce as much CO2 as Obama’s inauguration.

It’s much easier to talk the talk than to walk the walk. Politics prevails.

Thanks to Small Dead Animals for the pointer.

The Truth Shall Make You Free (or merely confused)

January 19, 2009

I would really like to know the truth – or at a minimum the facts – about climate change and endangered polar bears and the world as we know it going to hell in an overheated handbasket.

Is arctic ice still receding or is it now recovering? It seems to depend on who and what you read.

To begin with, there have been reports that sea ice is now at the same level  as 1979. This is apparently misleading, as it speaks to global ice and not specifically to the ice patterns in the arctic.

Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N. Hemisphere reduction.

So arctic ice hasn’t returned to 1979 levels. In fact the National Snow and Ice Data Centre reports that the average arctic sea ice in December 2008 was 320,000 sq. miles less than the 1979 to 2000 December average, On the positive side it is 54,000 sq.miles larger than it was in December 2007. This compares to the total area covered by some amount of ice of 4.84 million sq. miles.

One year certainly doesn’t make a trend but at least it may slow down the apocalyptic predictions of total disaster.

The volume of Arctic sea ice at the end of last summer was half what it was four years ago and that the Greenland ice sheet lost almost 19bn tonnes of its volume – more than ever before.

“The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the US government’s Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

And Nasa climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

He added: “The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming. Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines.”

A curiosity is the fact that the antarctic ice has been increasing while the arctic ice has been going in the opposite direction.  Intuitively this would make you question the theories and predictions on the decline of  arctic ice, but of course there are theories to support the tie-in.

A study reported on here says:

The findings, published in the March 1 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate, show that although the total ice coverage of the southern ocean has not changed significantly over the last 20 years, the El Niño and its related Southern Oscillation appear to affect regional ice distributions. The oscillation is a recurring warming and cooling of the surface ocean in the central and eastern Pacific. El Niño refers to the warm phase of the oscillation.

“Understanding the connection between the Southern Oscillation and southern ocean climate and the sea ice cover will substantially improve our understanding of global climate,” said Dr. Ron Kwok, a senior research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “Our study concludes that the southern ocean’s climate and ice cover is somehow connected to climate in the tropical latitudes. While we don’t know yet the cause-and-effect relationship between the two, we do know the changes in sea ice cover cannot be explained by local climate variations alone and are instead linked to larger scale climate phenomena.”

If you say so, but it sounds a bit loosey-goosey to me and my cynical side kicks in when I see scientists trying to force a theory to coincide with what they want to prove although a short article here simplifies the explanation.

The other question of course is whether CO2 concentrations are really what raised global temperatures temperatures in the first place.  There are those who believe that the recent global warming was actually caused by heavy sunspot activity and with it having reached its lowest level in decades we are about to see a cooling trend. Of course there is strong opposition to this theory.

To confuse things even more, even though global temperatures have decreased and even if they continue to decrease, the global warming theorists say that it is only a false hope.

The snow storms and freezing temperatures across the country aren’t just a one off, but the winters of the past few years have actually been getting colder. The world’s average global temperature has fallen for the past four years, and 2008 was the coldest since 2000. The British Met Office has released figures that the show the earth’s average for 2008 was 14.3 C , which is 0.14 C below the average temperature for 2001 – 2007. Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has also released figures with similar results. So what’s going on? Is global warming dead? No such luck, say meteorologists. The climatic variations are caused by La Niña, which is characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It is the mirror image of the El Niño climate cycle. According to researchers at Kiel University, these natural variations will mask any warming from climate change until about 2015. After that, temperatures rises will start to accelerate.

So even if it starts to get colder it is going to get warmer. You can’t bloody win at this game.

The worrisome part of this whole equation (at least to me) is that global warming has reached the status of becoming a quasi-religion. People who question it are compared to holocaust deniers. The agendas of many environmental groups as well as the reputations and livelihoods of politicians and scientists are tied in so strongly to the global warming bandwagon that you wonder if any new information that legitimately challenged the current science would ever see the light of day.

The final question is that even if climate change has been accelerated by CO2 excess can we do anything to reduce it or even slow it down?

There are theories for reduction, such as adding lime to the oceans, or adding marine life to to floating icebergs, neither of which is probably practical.

However, a word of caution.

1. Reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is not the same as stabilising them. Carbon rationing is about trying to stabilise CO2 concentrations. Carbon rationing is about doing as little further harm to the planet as possible.

2. There is currently no known mechanism for reducing atmospheric CO2. Every molecule of CO2 that we add to the atmosphere will stay there on average for 30,000 years.

3. Attempts at reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, particularly those put forward by James Hansen (explained below) involve dangerous experiments at planetary engineering, which have the potential to accelerate and intensify the climate and extinction crisis which we are facing.(my emphasis)

4. There is just a chance that, in decades to come, somebody might invent an efficient way of air capture of CO2 which won’t use vast amounts of energy, nor require vast areas of land. As James Hansen and the IPCC report state, such technology does not currently exist and is a long way off, if it ever will work. This is why James Hansen has not incorporated it into his proposals.

It seems to me that the only indisputable fact is that there is nothing constant in nature and that includes the global climate. The earth warms and it cools. Whether we started it or are just helping it along is moot. Better global warming – at least within reasonable boundaries – rather than global cooling. I simply question whether we have the ability to change the process or if we can whether we can do so without causing even more problems.

The End of Global Warming?

January 4, 2009

When I read this I wondered if the ‘settled science’ of global warming has turned the corner.

You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.

Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that “the science is in.” Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

The problem is, so many businesses, politicians and academics, to say nothing of the general public, have bought into the global warming scenario that to admit that the the world isn’t going to burn up in an apocalyptic flash of light would only show that they had been bamboozled from the very beginning.

How does a politician who has built his platform on carbon credits or carbon taxes admit that he has bought into a sham. Or the academic who has acquired some measure of professional respectability through his scientific papers on the coming horror of unremitting climate change.

As the arctic ice expands and the Polar bears thrive will they be able to recant? Or are we too far down the road to change our direction?

Hopefully not or we may end up at the mercy of those so-called scientists, who admittedly don’t know what is actually happening with climate,  but who are willing to promote extreme ‘solutions’ with side effects that we cannot even presume to guess.

An emergency “Plan B” using the latest technology is needed to save the world from dangerous climate change, according to a poll of leading scientists carried out by The Independent. The collective international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has meant that an alternative to merely curbing emissions may become necessary.

The plan would involve highly controversial proposals to lower global temperatures artificially through daringly ambitious schemes that either reduce sunlight levels by man-made means or take CO2 out of the air. This “geoengineering” approach – including schemes such as fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms – would have been dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but is now being seen by the majority of scientists we surveyed as a viable emergency backup plan that could save the planet from the worst effects of climate change, at least until deep cuts are made in CO2 emissions.

The term ‘mad scientist’ does come to mind.

If it turns out, as I believe it will, that the global warming catastrophe thesis is another hysterical sham, such as the global cooling predictions in the 1970s and the world famine predictions for the 1970s and 1980s, then the greatest resistance will come from the extreme environmental activists who have used the issue as a whip to drive their political agenda world-wide.

Probably the only way to convince the world would be if it were to snow in Las Vegas.