AP Global Warming Cult Propaganda Debunked

James O’Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate
variability and the oceans, said that global climate change is very important for the
country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy
decisions. But he said he worries that scientists and policymakers are rushing to make
changes based on bad science.

“Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world,” O’Brien said. “But
everything that’s attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming.”

He took issue with the AP article’s assertion that melting Arctic ice will cause global
sea levels to rise.

“When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is
floating ice, because it’s displacing water,” O’Brien said. “When the ice melts, sea level
actually goes down. I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some
ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it [melt]. After the ice melts,
the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”

If you're interested, read more here.

Draper Resident Longs for Divine Revelation On Immorality of Bearing Children

This forum letter appeared yesterday in the online version of the Salt Lake Tribune:

I usually don't listen to men in robes and funny hats, but today the Vatican decreed that polluting the planet is a sin. High fives for stating the obvious. Since the leading causes of pollution are overpopulation and undereducation, are we likely to see a change in the Catholic Church's policies on birth control? Without following through with a plan of action, this edict rings hollow.

Meanwhile, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tries to control every aspect of our lives except for the ones that truly matter. Anyone who has tried to breathe in the Salt Lake Valley this winter knows that pollution is choking us to death. I hope the new Mormon prophet might soon have a divine revelation that it is immoral to bring more than two or three kids into a dangerously overpopulated world.

Todd Ouzts
Draper

It was followed by literally dozens of comments, some agreeing, others disagreeing or taking issue with the obvious Catholic and Mormon-bashing. I added my comment, which was addressed to the original letter rather than a response to all the other comments. Here's my response:

Mr. Ouzts seems to have the idea that religious and moral codes are empty and false, and that human life is meaningless. When God becomes a nihilist, then we'll hear about that longed for revelation about the immorality of multiplying and replenishing the earth.

Latter-Day Saints view the planet as the earthly abode for God's spirit children during mortality. Naturally it makes sense to take care of the earth, and it's part of our mortal stewardship to do so, not only for ourselves but for future generations. The phrase "multiplying and replenishing the earth" isn't only about procreation, it's about renewing resources and using them wisely. But let's do it sensibly, not in such a way that we bring back the dark ages, or destroy our economy, or doom millions in developing countries to darkness, poverty and despair. Climate change alarmism is a nihilistic creed, and much more harm will come from it than good.

If you're interested in reading the entire comment thread, go here.

We Can Barely Predict the Weather--Yet We Want to Control the Climate?

From a report published in the Canada Free Press:


Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
________________________________

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
_________________________________

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: "The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate." Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

So--we can barely predict the weather 5 days out, and we want to control the climate. We'll bring back the Dark Ages before that happens.

GLOBAL WARMING--It's Not About Saving the Planet.

The “Anthropogenic Climate Change ” movement is not about saving the planet from catastrophic pollution and disaster. It’s about political power and redistribution of wealth. It’s a socialist scam. What it will do is bring an end to industrial progress and prosperity, create massive worldwide poverty and therefore a (perceived) need for more socialist programs. It’s at it’s heart nihilistic. It’s in no way beneficial to mankind or the planet.


BALI, Indonesia – A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent "a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations."

"Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs," Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled "A Global CO2 Tax." Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm.

Schwank said at least "$10-$40 billion dollars per year" could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the "polluters pay principle."

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to "contribute significantly more to this global fund," Schwank explained. He also added, "It is very essential to tax coal."

The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled "Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation." The report stated there was an "urgent need" for a global tax in order for "damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world."

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would "flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund" to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.


But others are raising their voices in opposition to a global tax, claiming that it's futile.

However, ideas like a global tax and the overall UN climate agenda met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists wrote, "The IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." The scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sent the December 13 letter to the UN Secretary-General.

Others let it slip what it's really all about: redistribution of wealth.

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources," said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

This is incredible bald faced insanity. Read the whole thing. And check out all the links.

NASA Report: Arctic Ice Melt Resulted From Natural Causes; Anthropormorphic Climate Change Not Mentioned. Media Yawns, Ignores Report.

Sunset Over the Arctic

photo by Jimmy Harbeck

NASA has published a report detailing results of a study indicating the reason for the remarkable Arctic ice melt in recent years is probably due to natural causes. Conspicuous in it’s absence is any mention of Anthropomorphic Climate Change®.

Also conspicuous in it’s absence is any mainstream media coverage of the report.

A team led by Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., studied trends in Arctic perennial ice cover by combining data from NASA's Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat) satellite with a computing model based on observations of sea ice drift from the International Arctic Buoy Programme. QuikScat can identify and map different classes of sea ice, including older, thicker perennial ice and younger, thinner seasonal ice.

Between winter 2005 and winter 2007, the perennial ice shrunk by an area the size of Texas and California combined.



Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

Naturally, since this study doesn’t fit the narrative, neither you nor I have seen any mention of this reported in the mainstream media. It’s worth reading the whole thing. And thanks to Newsbusters for the link.

Anthropogenic Global Warming; Scientific Hypothesis, Not Ideological Dogma

Jeff Jacoby, a Boston Globe columnist, has written part two of his column on anthropogenic global warming. Here’s a link to the Jewish World Review. From the column:

Take the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unlike its previous report in 2001, which foresaw a possible rise in sea levels over the next century of around 3 feet, the new report cuts that figure in half, to about 17 inches. Why the revision? "Mainly because of improved information," the IPCC notes in the fine print. It goes on to note that even its latest estimate involves some guesswork: "Understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood." The science is getting better, but it's far from settled.

So, basically, the science is getting better and we’re learning more and more all the time. And the prospect that we can actually do something about climate change is still very much in doubt.

It’s well worth reading the whole thing. And here’s a link to part 1.

Anthropogenic Global Warming: Solid and Settled Science or Politicized Ideological Dogma?

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist who wants to know why anthropogenic global warming propagandists [my term] are so intemperate. From his recent column:

Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation. Yet when it comes to global warming, dissent is treated as heresy -- as a pernicious belief whose exponents must be shamed, shunned, or silenced.
Newsweek is hardly the only offender. At the Live Earth concert in New Jersey last month, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. denounced climate-change skeptics as "corporate toadies" for "villainous" enemies of America and the human race. "This is treason," he shouted, "and we need to start treating them now as traitors."
Some environmentalists and commentators have suggested that global-warming "denial" be made a crime, much as Holocaust denial is in some countries. Others have proposed that climate-change dissidents be prosecuted in Nuremberg-style trials. The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen has suggested that television meteorologists be stripped of their American Meteorological Society certification if they dare to question predictions of catastrophic global warming.

When Marlo Lewis, a scientist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote an article opposing Congressionally imposed hard limits on carbon-dioxide emissions until technology exists to produce energy that doesn’t rely on carbon-dioxide, he was vilified and threatened by the President of the American Council on Renewable Energy thusly:

Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America.

Mr. Jacoby concludes:

The interesting and complicated phenomenon of climate change is still being figured out, and as much as those determined to turn it into a crusade of good vs. evil may insist otherwise, the issue of global warming isn't a closed book. Smearing those who buck the "scientific consensus" as traitors, toadies, or enemies of humankind may be emotionally satisfying and even professionally lucrative. It is also indefensible, hyperbolic bullying.

Clearly, global warming propagandists aren’t responding to skepticism with scientific argument but with slander and threats. This looks more like bigotry than solid scientific endeavor. I don’t think it should have a place at the table when we’re having a public policy debate. But that’s just me.