AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming or Aberrant Gigantic Weaseling

Here's Some More on the Climate Fraud, Oh and The Truth

Marc Sheppard writing for the American Thinker today write about Phil Jones of the Hockey Stick Graph fraud with reports of BBC Q&A with the man himself here.  Well, maybe the planet hasn't been warming for the last 15 years.

Next from Times Online, an article based on research by many scientists concludes that much of the data used to prove AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is flawed and unreliable.  Seems that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says the evidence that the world is warming was “unequivocal”.  Not so, say many scientists including Canada's own Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada.   Seems the climate data is polluted.  He and Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic have looked in to the locations of the weather stations that the AGW clowns are relying on to make their trumped up predictions.

 They found that some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.  Some examples overseas include the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets, and in Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport, built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.  Hmmm!! Makes you wonder what else they have up their sleeves to prove their point.  When you know the answer already, do the facts matter much?  Apparently not.

And Mona Charen at NRO National Review Online has an article about "Liberals and the Scientific Method".

As she notes: "It isn’t the snow outside that has discredited global warming.  It’s the chill the warmists have imposed on scientific inquiry. They are acting as enforcers of orthodoxy, not seekers of truth."

Of course, today since this is an issue raised by the liberals, they have their conclusion, and facts are not important, if they do not support the conclusions.  Don't try to kid me into believing that this strategy is not enticing to the conservatives as it suits them as well.

Are You Sick of Global Warming Lies Yet?

ClimateGate: You Should Be Steamed

Dr. Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, and was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008 wrote this outlook piece published on January 2, 2010 in the Houston Chronicle.

Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”

If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.

Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.

But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.

Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.

What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic, a  la Al Gore.

Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.

Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.

The revelation of Climategate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth's temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.

Finally, someone produces a summary that I can understand, without gobbledy gook.  Dr. Frank has reason to know of what he speaks.  The most interesting comment is the one about the failure of the models that are part of the settled science to predict that the last 10 years were years of global cooling, while accurate beyond any reasonable doubt over 100 years.

Makes me wonder!! How about you?

The settled science, that has proven to not only not be settled, but to not even be science has yielded a prestigious award as found over here at AlterX Media Group. The award For Outstanding Adherence To Dogma is the new 2010 HUYA Award. The picture of the award should help you figure out the acronym.  It has been given to Al Gore, and the picture of the trophy says it all. Runners Up for the award included Liberal Democrats, Main Stream Media, and Sheeple.

Nice Summary, and boffo award.  I wonder if there is an awards ceremony.

H/t Catholic Dialogue

Lord Monckton on Hopenchangen

I Mean Copenhagen

So, if Lord Monckton knows of where he speaks, then the draft treaty, that to the best of my knowledge remains as such after the recent meetings (though only time will tell), calls for a form of One World government, all based on faulty science. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Watch very closely.

HMMMM!!

Lord Monckton on Global Warming

Not Al Gore, and That's the Best News

Lord Christopher Monckton is the former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher, and as such has every bit as much right as Al Gore to have theories on Global Warming, if there is such a thing. It is very hard to get to hear what he has to say, since it is contrary to "accepted science", even though the accepted science is unproven, and in fact erroneous in many areas.

I am a fan of using resources wisely. I am not a fan of Global Warming as a religion, nor as an end times prediction. Anyway, here is what Lord Monckton had to say when given an hour on the Michael Coren show to discuss his thoughts.

By the way, Al Gore has never agreed to debate Lord Monckton, though he has been invited often. But, let Lord Monckton explain that to you as well. Listen to all 5 parts and hear another viewpoint, if you dare.

One of the interesting areas that Lord Monckton disputes is that of the computer models. Anyone worth their salt has followed the Hockey Stick model kafuffle, and discovered that figures don't lie, liars figure, and have done so here. Lord Monckton disputes the computer models that most earthlings are taking as gospel. Having spent much of my professional career building computer models for business purposes, I can attest to the fact that when I produced a model, because it came from a computer, it was believed, as though from the hand of God. I certainly never modeled the earth and global warming, either successfully or unsuccessfully. That makes the only difference between me and the global warming scientists the fact that I have never gotten it wrong, only because I have not done it.

Anyway, on to Lord Monckton.

Did Elizabeth May Send Him This Idea?

Your Parents F*cked Up The Planet

That's what the Green party says. It might have had an impact on the vote count in the last 4 by-elections. I wonder. 2,800 out of 95,000 cast ain't much.

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert says it this way, with tongue in cheek, and a sense of humour.

Jim Prentice Gets It Right

National Post Editorial Board Says So, So So It Is Sorta

The National Post Editorial Board is not a scientific group, so they can be excused for enthusiasm that is good, even if its wrong. Heck, Al Gore was enthusiastic, even if out of his tree, and despite his funky science, he did make us more aware that our environment needs our protection.

On their Editorial Board web presence today, they had this to say:

The Earth is warming, and human activity is likely to blame. Climates are changing across the world, including in Canada’s far north. In other parts of the world, some crops will fail, some species will be pressed to extinction and some low-lying territories will be flooded.

Well, not so fast there. This is far from settled science as I noted a couple of weeks ago here.Of course, so did an early commenter Daystrom to this item:

NP, you're as guilty as the unquestioning acolytes in swallowing the nonsense that passes as settled science these days. Is the earth warming? Not in the past 10 years. Human activity is likely to blame? England warmed 4 degrees from 1700-1735 whilst the earth warmed 1 degree in the 20th century - small problem here - the 4 degrees warming was before a little thing called the Industrial Revolution, you know machines, gases and stuff. Climates are changing - Greenland's glaciers have gotten thicker not thinner. Unless you mean low lying areas like the Big Easy circa 2005, the oceans have risen at most 8 inches the past century. Why, the Goracle is so concerned that he bought an oceanfront condo in San Francisco.

But as the editorial goes on to say, after a shaky start, that Copenhagen is about a money swapping agenda that Canada does not plan to partake of. It seems we intend to stand up to the whack jobs in charge of blaming industrialized nations for something that nature does mostly on its own:

But this parade of horribles cannot be used to justify any form or remedial action. Many of the proposals put forth by environmentalists would do little to stop global warming, and would simply act as transfer-payment schemes from rich countries to poor ones. As Terence Corcoran has written at great length and with great frequency in the Financial Post, many activists are exploiting concern over climate change to justify the creation of state-managed “green economies” — socialism with a Gaian face.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice is to be commended for opposing this agenda. Mr. Prentice will head Canada’s delegation to the Copenhagen conference on climate change next month and says categorically that Canada will not sign any agreements that force painful adjustments on Western countries while major polluters such as China, India and Brazil go free.

In doing so, Canada is calling the bluff of Big Green and its army of unquestioning acolytes, who conveniently overlook the fact that developing countries are responsible for almost all of the world’s growth in carbon dioxide emissions.

It is all about green, that's true. But what it is really about is transferring my green to your bank, so you can be green too. The idea makes me green with envy, or green as in bilious. This sounds so much like Elizabeth May blaming the kids of Canada' parents for F*cking up the planet. What a bunch of folderal. How's that for a cool word to describe what's going on. Folderal means: ornamental objects of no great value. Works for me.

The Europeans who have lost their minds, as much as they have lost their way, want the haves to globally pay $100 billion (that's $100,000,000,000) annually from petty cash to help developing countries adjust to this fake climate change. For those of us in Canada, it amounts to $3,000,000,000 each and every year to this wonderful cause.

As the editorial goes on to say:

Mr. Prentice treats (this proposal) with the skepticism it deserves. If that attitude makes us the target of eco-extremists and their well-oiled propaganda machine, he says, “bring it on.”

It is about time someone declared that the emperor has no clothes, and Canadians should be proud that Mr. Prentice has done so.

One commenter Robert McClelland opined as follows:

Congratulations to the National Post for finally accepting the reality on global warming and its cause. Now the Post needs to work on accepting that the industrialized world created the problem and should be the one shouldering most of the responsibility for correcting it.

$3 billion is not much of a burden for Canada especially when that money can be put to good use solving more than one problem. For example, building solar power generating stations in Africa will help reduce ghg emissions and help provide the energy Africans need to raise their standard of living which will reduce poverty. Reduced poverty in Africa will then open up new markets for our goods and services. A three for one deal.

What a comment. Too bad NP started with that idiotic first paragraph. Now we have bandwagon jumpers seeing what they think is the light of day, but it's really a fast approaching freight train in the tunnel of unsettled science.

That $3,000,000,000 per year "not much of a burden" is about $100 per person in Canada each year after taxes. Not gigantic, but it sure does not get my vote. If we believe in Mr. McClelland's 3 for 1 deal, then the last thing we need is more bureaucracy in the way of getting the money to them.

With all the government hands in the till in this one, how much of the $100,000,000,000 a year do you think would get to where it is allegedly needed? My bet on that one, is not enough to make a difference, even if one can be made. I suggest Mr. McClelland go to Africa on his dime, ie. put his own money where his mouth is, and help build some solar generating stations if he believes in this cause. If he can make a good case for it, I am prepared to donate some of my own money to the cause, and maybe even go over and help him.

Just Sayin.

Musing on CO2 Emissions

Wondering

Tonight on the local news was an article that I only partially caught. In it the news reader referenced a new book out about the carbon footprints of animals, or more appropriately the carbon fartprints of animals.

I was laughing too hard to take it seriously, and missed most of it, but I'm OK, didn't really hurt myself. The floor is soft, and I missed the coffee table narrowly, in a gale of laughter.

It seems that animal flatulence is a serious problem for climate change phobes. I have a friend who can clear a room, and often does. If they find out, whoever they are, they'll probably want him tested, and maybe put down.

Apparently, 2 pet hamsters have the same carbon fartprint as a plasma television set. Well, we don't have pet hamsters, and don't even own a plasma TV. We are a little behind in the technology of entertainment, so are we better than 2 hamsters, or do the old TVs break wind like 4 hamsters, or even more? Inquiring minds are asking.

Now, in fairness to hamsters, Dan Fink worked on a way to make his hamster carbon neutral as it were. Skippy is a Syrian hamster, and was selected because of his energy and nocturnal habit of running on his wheel all fricking night long. Fink, being no fink, tried many things but eventually succeeded, sort of. As reported here:

Finally, after Fink glued 14 magnets to a steel ring and fashioned two coils out of 30-gauge wire, he mounted the whole contraption on Skippy's cage. He then hooked up two LED lights to the alternator. Together, they shone bright enough for Fink to find the bathroom in the dead of night. And even though the little rodent was voltage-deficient, "he had torque to spare," Fink says, so he added another light, and another, the resistance increasing with each new load. He got up to six lights before Skippy showed any fatigue.

No report on the impact that the magnets and exposure to electromagnetic fields are having on Skippy yet.

But, there is some question about cow farting, and how to reduce it. It seems that animals, of which cows are a big one, both individually and collectively, contribute 30% of the methane in the atmosphere. Also, the international meat industry, as a whole, or as a hole, produces 18% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. See this blog item here.

Ronald Reagan who was my kind of US President, because he made no pretensions about the fact that he was an actor and not a really good one, unlike others who are just bad actors, but deny it, apparently had thoughts on global warming years ago as referenced in the blog item linked above:

About 30 percent of the methane in the atmosphere results from microbial action in animals' digestive tracts. This prompted Ronald Reagan's dismissive comment that humans couldn't be held accountable for global-warming gases (of which methane is the most potent), because the most significant source is bovine flatulence.

As contemporary critics noted, however, Reagan overlooked the fact that animal husbandry has vastly increased the number of cattle, making cow farts very much a human-influenced commodity.

I frankly don't know what to make of it, but do not intend to fret or lose sleep. I just find it interesting, because next they (them again) will realise that trees and other plants are big contributors to CO2 emissions, during their life cycle and also when they decay.

I think that I will just put on my tin foil hat, and wait for The Visitors.

Climate Change - Fact, Fiction or Human Right

The Young Are Clamouring

I am not a global warming, climate change freak. We recycle, use those funny light bulbs, drive fuel efficient cars that we keep tuned, and leave our RV parked most of the time to conserve. We do other stuff too, in hopes that there will be a planet left for our grandchildren. But, I am not certain that there is any settled science about this issue either.

But, some of the rhetoric is starting to get to me.

Deborah Gyapong attended the Fill The Hill demonstration at the Parliament Buildings on the weekend. I wonder if it was more Fool on the Hill. She has this to say about it.
Deborah Gyapong: Fill the Hill demonstration on Climate Change

There she heard this pearl of wisdom.

One of the speakers said, "We don't want government to tell us to change our light bulbs. WE WANT GOVERNMENT TO CHANGE OUR LIVES."

That one was definitely a Fool on the Hill. The government has been changing our lives for ever. If it worked we would not be calling for more of it now, would we?

Now, over in Nova News today is an article titled "Wolfville student part of Canadian delegation for climate change". Thea Whitman, the grad student of the article went out on a limb with this quote:

Climate change has shown itself to be far more than an environmental issue: it’s a human rights issue. The consequences of climate change are already affecting livelihoods of people around the world, Whitman says, including Canada’s vulnerable northern communities.

So, now this unsettled science, and it is every bit that, is also a Human Right. Fortunately, she is over on the right coast, and maybe Barb Hall, who can make anything a human right will not hear it. The last thing that Barb needs is a new windmill to tilt at, because her boss, Dolton McGuff thinks that her sh?t doesn't stink. Now that's climate change for you.

I love the energy of our young people. This generation is going to cure all the ills of the world, just like we were going to, and likely with the same success we had. Too bad, they like us are being lied to.

I don't want to curb their enthusiasm, because that is an energy that should be used for good. Of course, climate change stuff like Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" are considered gospel, even if Gore himself doesn't live it. Opinions or science that does not support the principles of Inconvenient Truth is the actual inconvenient truth.

Take for example the Wall Street Journal report here claiming factually that the earth's temperatures have been going down for 12 years, reporting on the BBC item here.

There, of course is other scientific evidence that says that there is a lot of smoke and mirrors in this whole climate change thing, that the sun and not CO2 is the big determinant of temperature. Duh, never saw that one coming. And, of course the facts that 95% of all CO2 emissions are not man made, but from nature.

I am not in the least in favour of polluting our environment. Heck, I'll wear a CO2 catcher in my
underwear if it will help, and on that topic, I have read that cow flatulence is a big contributor to CO2 in the air. And I know that their sh?t stinks. I've spent enough time on dairy farms to know that.

But, let's think before we speak, and find out the truth. I think we are being lied to.

Irena Sendler - A Real Life Hero

This Is A True Story

There recently was a reported death of a 98 year-old lady named Irena Sendler.

During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an 'ulterior motive' ... She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German.) Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack, (for larger kids..) She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.

During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. She was caught, and the Nazi's broke both her legs, arms and beat her severely. Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it and reunited the family. Most had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.

In 2007, Irena was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize ... She was not selected.

Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming.

Here's more on a real hero.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. I am putting this here as part of a memorial, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and/or humiliated with the German and Russian people looking the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iraq , Iran, and others claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it's imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because there are others who would like to do it again.

Lest We Forget.

Global Warming

Is The Truth Inconvenient Or Is There More?

I did my research early, when Al Gore was being declared a prophet, and frankly I was not very popular with my family, so I shut up about it. Here was the former Veep of the US, touting his "Inconvenient Truth" to one and all, and besides he got a Nobel Prize for it too.

But, it was Inconvenient, and much of it was true, but it was not "the" Truth. The science was not all there, and still is not, yet it had a lot of merit to it, and got people thinking beyond their own domain, and that's a good thing, right?

I am very much in favour of proper conservation of our resources, and Inconvenient Truth got a lot of people thinking that way, and for that it should be lauded. We, particularly in North America have been pigs about what we consume, and I was ashamed of my own behaviour over the years, so we chose to do something about it. We conserve as best we can, in our power consumption, and in our fuel consumption. We throw out very little trash, set back out thermostats, and look for ways to make our house more efficient. Is it enough? I don't know, so I am always on the lookout for ways to improve.

That doesn't mean that I jump on every band wagon as it goes on by.

So, here is a view about Climate Change, and our response to it that is worthy of watching. It is produced by the Cornwall Alliance which is:

a coalition of clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics, and policy experts committed to bringing a balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development. The Cornwall Alliance fully supports the principles espoused in the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, and is seeking to promote those principles in the discussion of various public policy issues including population and poverty, food, energy, water, endangered species, habitat, and other related topics.

What was missing from Inconvenient Truth, and the follow on, was the concept of Stewardship of the planet, and all its resources, especially human resources. The Cornwall Alliance speaks to that, and for that alone is worthy of a listen.

But, just a little fact about Global Warming for those who are interested in facts, not fear. "The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history." Read about that here. H/t to Small Dead Animals.

Feelings - Nothing More than Feelings

HRCs Decide Based on Feelings. Facts Not so Much

In a world gone mad, the truth is becoming inconvenient, unless Al Gore wants to use his version of it and Inconvenient Truth as a title, which is not really the truth, to tell us about Global Warming, which is not really good science anyway.

But Feelings. Ay that's the rub.

So, I set out when I started this blog to try and get at the truth, because that is what I have been seeking in the last number of years, having started to wake up from living my life in delusion like we all do, and wanting something better. But, as I dig deeper, I find more people in denial, trying even harder than I am to seek the truth, to keep it buried. Because it is ... inconvenient.

I was shocked to read Simon Fothergill's statements in the Lemire case on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada that Human Rights legislation in Canada is all about feelings, not the truth. I thought: "Are you out of your mind, Sir?" But, as I ponder what he was saying, I wonder if he is maybe from the AG's perspective trying to wake us all up to the lunacy of the legislation that the AG's office has to oversee to some extent, and might be even trying to distance themselves from intentionally or inadvertently.

I "feel" as a Christian that I am being discriminated against. I am personally offended that pro choice activists can speak so hatefully about those who speak on behalf of the unborn children in this country and the world. I "feel" hurt and saddened that Darren Lund and Rob Wells could persecute with the state's help in Alberta and Canada my friends Stephen Boissoin and Fr. Alphonse de Valk who are doing their best to bring the truth as they understand it out into the light of day so we can talk about it, think about it, agree or disagree, and live our lives as we did before, or maybe seek to do something different.

I ask, how come Darren Lund and Rob Wells are allowed to wage war against Christians by filing frivolous claims with HRCs against law abiding Christians who are using our Human Rights to express deeply held religious beliefs based on the Holy Bible? - Because their feelings are hurt. Not really, because their personal feelings were not hurt. They do not have to be. They can act on their own. They just have to contend that somebody's feelings might get hurt even in the future. If that is not frivolous, what is?

Then why do the HRCs actually put men of God like Fr. de Valk and Pastor Boisson through years of hell while investigating this nonsense at their own expense? - Because that is their mandate currently, and that is the problem. That should not be their mandate. There is a very important mandate for them. This ain't it.