NatGeo Propagandists Defend IPCC Warming Claims

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

The latest IPCC report has been released on global climate change. To everyone’s surprise the report warns of catastrophic global warming on the horizon. Surprise!

 

The IPCC did have to admit the obvious… well kind of… that there has been no warming recently. But just you wait… you’ll see… the earth will start boiling again any day now.

 

Propagandists such as National Geographic online sprung into action highlighting the major IPCC claims as virtually irrefutable proof of warming. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

Here are just the two biggies, with of course my accompanying comments.

 

Before I touch on these points, I would like to correct one thing. Last week I wrote that “climate scientists” had overestimated the Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 emissions by some 30%. Well, I am man enough to admit I was wrong. The overestimation wasn’t by 30%. It was actually some 40%. That’s almost half! Knowing that, how dependable do you think a simulations outcome would be when the data you input is off by almost half? The IPCC scientists are either the dumbest smart guys on earth or criminally negligent. It is the latter and they know it and don’t care… I’m certain of it.

 

But just for fun – let’s go through 2 of their silly claims. read more

Global Warming Lives at the IPCC

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

So the U.N. IPCC high priests of Global Warming are meeting this week. No doubt flying in to Stockholm, Sweden on private pollutant spewing jets.

Despite all data to the contrary, their final report on the scourge of manmade global warming, to be released on Sept. 30 will surely be chock-full of dire predictions of Armageddon unless America reverts to third world status.

Yet some have started to recognize the graffiti on the walls at the “Church of the Burning Planet”, as Larry Bell calls it, that temperatures have been flat to cooling for the past 17 years.

Mr. Bell wrote that of all publications, The New York Times reported on June 6: “The rise in the surface temperature of Earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.” Reporter Justin Gillis went on to admit that the break in temperature increases “highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system”, whereby the lack of warming “is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”

Maybe the New York Times is the harbinger of a global climate shift? Could this be the opening salvo to the eventual shift from the warming hysteria to cooling? They were the first to do a 180 from cooling to warming in 1981, when just 6 years earlier Newsweek had their infamous, “The Ice Age Cometh” cover story that scared the crap out of many. The NYT even published their own article in 1975 entitled “Major cooling may be ahead”. read more

Al’s Global Warming Mega-Church

By: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Yesterday Rush Limbaugh once again spoke of the hoax that is global warming. It’s in the news again, don’t ya know.

 

This is a real pet peeve of mine. I’ve done many articles disclaiming this hoax. As Rush stated, how otherwise brilliant people can just buy into the lie is fascinating.

 

It just shows that it is indeed not science but a religion and for others, it’s the politics of money, power and control.

 

The evidence so clearly shows there is no warming and hasn’t been for over 15 years. Recall the published e-mails of climate “scientists” falsifying and deleting data to achieve the necessary result. Yet the obvious manipulation by these climate hacks seems to hold no sway to the true “warming believers”.

 

The latest revelation of the climate scientists is that there is 95% certainty of global warming and it is man-made.

 

And there you have it. Proof positive! All they have to do is announce it and the religious faithful will just eat it up.

 

Rush said it is especially prevalent with the twenty-something crowd. I agree. I believe they have an ongoing struggle to be relevant and will thus latch onto any feel-good cause. They ask for no data, no proof, and no evidence.

 

And there is plenty of real data out there. There is also plenty of doctored data. That unfortunately is what makes the headlines.

 

For people like Al Gore who have become super rich off the hoax, one needs no proof. His truth is the truth.

 

Yet, as I stated, there is no real science to support their claims. In fact, the unaltered science claims the exact opposite.

 

Just look at the graphs below. This is empirical/scientific data. The unaltered data shows cooling, not warming and that just won’t do.

 

James Hansen worked at NASA’s GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) He is now a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Maybe if you’re lucky, he will be teaching your impressionable children all about global warming. Or at least his made-up version. Below is some of Hansen’s “scientific” handiwork. read more

Save Us From the Warming Hoax

The United States will “do more” before it’s “too late” to prevent “dangerous” global warming, President Obama told Berliners. If Congress won’t act, he will, by regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, increasing subsidies and reducing environmental overview for wind and solar projects on federal lands, and issuing other rules that will adversely affect economic growth and job creation.

Indeed, his Environmental Protection Agency is already devising new rules that will sharply curtail carbon dioxide emissions, by regulating thousands of facilities that use hydrocarbon energy – and thus ultimately almost everything Americans make, grow, ship, eat, and do.

However, the manmade global warming “disasters” exist only in computer models and assertions by scientists who are addicted to billions in government Climate Armageddon grants. Moreover, the “preventative measures” are far worse than the disasters EPA claims to be preventing.

Even the most diehard alarmists have finally recognized that average global temperatures have hardly budged since 1997, even as atmospheric levels of plant-fertilizing CO2 climbed steadily. For many areas, the past winter was among the coldest in decades; the USA and Britain just recorded one of their coldest springs on record; and satellite data show that Earth has actually cooled slightly since 2002.

Continue Reading

NASA Makes Another Useless Global Warming Prediction

Junk Science: A new NASA study says global warming could “increase the risk for extreme rainfall and drought.” We’ve heard this sort of threat many times before and, no, there’s nothing to see here.

According to NASA: “Analysis of computer simulations from 14 climate models indicates wet regions of the world, will see increases in heavy precipitation because of warming resulting from projected increases in carbon dioxide levels. Arid land areas outside the tropics and many regions with moderate rainfall could become drier.”

How about that? Heavy rain in soggy regions and drought in the parched ones.

Pardon us if we don’t get too excited about this. If it happens, the world will deal with it. But there’s a good chance this forecast will end up like many of the other global-warming predictions of doom.

Who can forget that acclaimed 2007 film made by Al Gore, in which the former vice president and failed 2000 White House candidate said sea levels would rise by 20 feet “in the near future” due to man-made global warming? So, if we might employ today’s vernacular, how’s that working out for you, Al?

Not so good, he’d say if he were honest. The “near future” has come and gone, and the sea has not risen 20 feet, or 10 feet or even a single foot. No coastal city has become the new Atlantis and no beach resorts have been overrun by the ocean.

Years before Gore made his blustery prediction, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that man-made warming would increase sea levels from 11.8 inches to 39.4 inches by 2100. Eleven years later, in 2001, it revised its prediction. The new range was 3.5 inches to 34.6 inches.

Another revision, this one in 2007, put the range between 7.1 inches and 23.2 inches, again by 2100.

Continue Reading

Eco-Terrorists New Film

“Greedy Lying Bastards” follows “An Inconvenient Truth” in the climate change  alarmism documentary film genre. The difference is this film lacked Al Gore’s  name to give it momentum, although it has gotten some help  from CNN.
The film is the creation of former eco-terrorist Craig  Rosebraugh and actress Daryl Hannah of “Splash,” “Kill Bill” and “Bladerunner” among others. The film made a mere $45,000 its March 8 opening weekend,  according to Box  Office Mojo, which rated it the 400th movie of the past 365 days, and the  46th movie its March 8 opening weekend.

The documentary says it “investigates the reason behind stalled efforts to  tackle climate change despite consensus in the scientific community that it is  not only a reality but also a growing problem that is placing us on the bring of  disaster,” according to the official website. The trailer, website and reviews  for the film all make it out to be a collage of tried and true lefty climate  change claims, complete with storm footage and villainization of the Koch  brothers and the oil industry.
The Los Angeles Times said that “longtime  followers of this hyper-partisan topic may not find much terribly new or  revealing here.” After an initial limited showing, the film was released in more  theatres on March 29.
Rosebraugh, the film’s director, has been an  outspoken activist for both the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation  Front, both of which are classified as domestic terror groups by the FBI. In a  press release on both groups, the FBI stated that “eco-terrorists and animal  rights extremists are one of the most serious domestic terrorism threats in the  U.S. today.”
One of the movie’s main targets is U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe,  R-Okla. Inhofe told The Tulsa World that he was not surprised that the film  targeted him, and he was proud of it on March 28. Inhofe was formerly the  ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. An  outspoken conservative, Inhofe was also a winner of the Family Research  Council’s “True Blue” award for a consistent conservative voting record.

Continue Reading

Climate Changers

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The following are excerpts from an article in the British publication, The Economist, written Nov. 2008. That’s just 5 years ago. I know in seems a lot longer considering our current state of affairs in this country:

The Economist “The most important year for climate change since 2001, when the Kyoto protocol (which set targets for cutting carbon-dioxide emissions) was agreed, will be 2009… The first period of the protocol runs out in 2012. The deal to replace it is supposed to be done at the United Nations’ Climate Change conference in Copenhagen…”

 “No deal means that mankind gives up on trying to save the planet.”

 

Wow, really? Is the planet in that much danger? It must be. These men of science wouldn’t overstate a problem, or create one, just to score political points and extract money from us?

It continues:

 “The rich world (especially America) needs to commit itself to legally enforceable carbon-emissions reductions… The rich world, which has been responsible for most emissions so far and recognises that it needs to pay up… The Clean Development Mechanism, which was set up under Kyoto to allow rich countries to buy carbon credits from poor countries that have cut their emission, does that already, but is probably not robust enough to do the job on the scale needed.”

 kyoto protocol

I was shocked, and I’m sure you as well, to see America singled out. I was also surprised to read that carbon credit purchasing isn’t solving the problem. Huh.

They seemed to be quite pleased at the arrival of “The One”:

 “What happens in Washington is most important. Progress on climate change is much likelier under the new administration than the old, for the new one is committed to introducing mandatory federal carbon-emissions cuts through a cap-and-trade scheme…”

 

So what’s the big deal? That was old news. Nothing has changed. The eco-weenies will never change, you say. No matter what happens they will never change their tune on climate change or man-caused global warming.

Well, not so fast. It seems that actual science may be catching up to the hysteria. I know, dare to dream, but in a March 30 article in the very same publication, the folks at The Economist seem to report honestly of the un-changing climate:

 “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar… And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

 

This must have killed Hansen to even utter these words, for he is dishonest climate change whore, and that’s being kind.

Continuing:

 “Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise… If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.”

 Climate Graph

“The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion.”

 

No, of course not. The only deluded people have been us man-caused climate change deniers. And it’s funny that they are always surprised when nothing happens. Kind of exactly as we’ve been predicting for years.

The article continues:

 “…an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.”

 

Ruh Ro Reorge. The earth is cleaning itself?! The profound significance could be that as nothing continues to happen, it’s already getting harder to keep beating that same old world apocalypse drum.

The rest of the article is rather long and boring with explanations of new climate modelling, sprinkled with a lot of what-ifs, in an attempt to further the global warming cause.

Although we on the reasonable side of this argument can be slightly heartened by this quasi-admission, this battle is far from over. These folks will not go down without a fight. They have far too much to lose.

We may, in the long run, win this war against the climate weenies, and heh, as the world economy crumbles and we all go the way of Cyprus, no one will worry about man-made climate change.

Global Warming…Not

We’re Still Being Screwed Even Though ‘Global Warming’ Stopped 15 Years Ago

by:

The chart below is what global warming looks like folks. Non-existent for the last 15+ years. Zero. Nada. Zilch. (Before that, in the ’70′s, it was all about the “Coming Ice Age” and where did that go?) All the while the developing world has been cranking up carbon use for manufacturing.

And in the meantime? We have energy starvation policies stuffed down our throats. And a President, in the debate, going on and on about “Green Jobs,” which are either non-existent also…or are causing bankruptcy eruptions all over the place. Not to mention the dire straights he is putting people in with regard to the energy they need to survive.

Excuse the unladylike word in my title, but the entire Al Gorebasm insanity is causing nothing but draconian, opportunistic, tyrannical thievery and controls over our very daily lives to the point of stark raving global madness.

You have been sold down the proverbial river. Sent over the cliff. Robbed blind. And screwed…totally. Americans are supposed to be smarter than this. I want to believe Americans are smarter than this. But every day, in America, bureaucrats, planners, non-profits, corporations, and politicians are spending their time, and energy, and your money, to capture you…not carbon, but you…..into their schemes of control. None of that has one whit to do with some conjured up fiction that you are causing the global temperatures to rise. You aren’t. You never did. But they won’t let a little thing like the truth stop them from their central control of your energy use.

Some food for thought:

“Industries are already leaving Germany, and more will soon follow. The loss of energy and jobs will damage the German economy almost as much as the exploding cost of new infrastructure required to deal with the intermittent unreliables. And the cost — THE COST!!! Hundreds of thousands of lower class workers in Germany already cannot afford to pay their skyrocketing power bills. That number will only grow larger.”

From the Telegraph – UK

“The shift to renewable energy is also taking a toll on family budgets. On Monday Germany’s electrical grid operators announced that a special tax levied on consumers to finance subsidies for green energy would increase by almost 50 per cent.”

The EU is going straight down the road to serfdom….again, I might add. (Note Spain’s 17%+ unemployment after converting to a “Green” economy. Throw in a little Greece, Italy, and the rest…and what do you have?) How many times in history have European nations been sucked into the central planning models of either Monarchs or Dictators. I thought we fought and won a revolution to get out of that mold of ignorance.

Townhall Finance asks,

“Remember last summer- and the summer before that, and the summer before that- when droughts and tornadoes were pinned to global warming by a compliant media? Or when we were told that 100 million people would die in the next twenty minutes, or twenty years- is there really a difference?- because of global warming? And that of course women and children would bear the brunt of those deaths? Or last year when we were told about the wave of Polar Bear cannibals terrorizing the animal kingdom in the great white north?”

Too bad Candy Crowley never got to the Global Warming issue in the debate. Too bad….
If Romney and Ryan have the facts on this, we might be saved from the economic devastation that Europe is facing right now. God bless them both.

Global Warming Causes Everything

By Michelle Malkin

Good news: The Waldo Canyon fire, which forced 32,000 residents (including our family) to flee, claimed two lives and destroyed 347 homes, is now 100 percent contained. Bad news: Radical environmentalists won’t stop blowing hot air about this year’s infernal season across the West.

Al Gore slithered out of the political morgue to bemoan nationwide heat records and pimp his new “Climate Reality Project,” which blames global warming for the wildfire outbreak. NBC meteorologist Doug Kammerer asserted: “If we did not have global warming, we wouldn’t see this.” Agriculture Department Undersecretary Harris Sherman, who oversees the Forest Service, claimed to the Washington Post: “The climate is changing, and these fires are a very strong indicator of that.”

And the Associated Press (or rather, the Activist Press) lit the fear-mongering torch with an eco-propaganda piece titled “U.S. summer is what ‘global warming will look like.'”

The problem is that the actual conclusions of scientists included in AP’s screed don’t back up the apocalyptic headline. As the reporter acknowledges under that panicky banner:

“Scientifically linking individual weather events to climate change takes intensive study, complicated mathematics, computer models and lots of time. Sometimes it isn’t caused by global warming. Weather is always variable; freak things happen.”

So, this U.S. summer may or may not really look like “what global warming looks like.” Kinda. Sorta. Possibly. Possibly not.

Furthermore, the AP reporter concedes, the “global” nature of the warming and its supposed catastrophic events have “been local. Europe, Asia and Africa aren’t having similar disasters now, although they’ve had their own extreme events in recent years.”

A more hedging headline would have been journalistically responsible, but Chicken Little-ism better serves the global warming blame-ologists’ agenda.

More inconvenient truths: As The Washington Times noted, the National Climatic Data Center shows that “Colorado has actually seen its average temperature drop slightly from 1998 to 2011, when data is collected only from rural stations and not those that have been urbanized since 1900.”

Radical green efforts to block logging and timber sales in national forests since the 1990s are the real culprits. Wildlife mitigation experts point to incompetent forest management and militant opposition to thinning the timber fuel supply.

Another symptom of green obstructionism: widespread bark beetle infestations. The U.S. Forest Service itself reported last year:

“During the last part of the 20th century, widespread treatments in lodgepole pine stands that would have created age class diversity, enhanced the vigor of remaining trees, and improved stand resiliency to drought or insect attack — such as timber harvest and thinning — lacked public acceptance. Proposals for such practices were routinely appealed and litigated, constraining the ability of the Forest Service to manage what had become large expanses of even-aged stands susceptible to a bark beetle outbreak.”

Capitulation to lawsuit-happy green thugs, in others, undermined “public acceptance” of common sense, biodiversity-preserving and lifesaving timber harvest and thinning practices.

Local, state and federal officials offered effusive praise for my fellow Colorado Springs residents who engaged in preventive mitigation efforts in their neighborhoods. The government flacks said it made a life-and-death difference. Yet, litigious environmental groups have sabotaged such mitigation efforts at the national level — in effect, creating an explosive tinderbox out of the West.

Stoking global warming alarms may make for titillating headlines and posh Al Gore confabs. But it’s a human blame avoidance strategy rooted in ideological extremism and flaming idiocy.

The Threat of Global Warming…Deniers

By:

In 2006, then climate change enthusiast James Lovelock believed that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” The 92-year-old scientist is now in the recanting phase of his life. He admits that some of the language in his 2006 book Revenge of Gaia had been over the top. He admits that if he were writing today he would be more cautious.

It’s a little late now that laws are being implemented to curtail what was said to be “scientific fact.”

More than a century ago, John William Draper made the unsupported claim that scientific “opinions on every subject are continually liable to modification, from the irresistible advance of human knowledge.”[1] This wasn’t true then and it’s not true today.

In reality, scientists for any number of reasons often oppose many new scientific theories. There is continued scientific debate over the causes or even the reality of human-caused global warming, whether oil is a “fossil” fuel or a renewable abiotic resource, [2] the medical benefits of embryonic stem-cells, and much more. A lot of it has to do with grant money.

These debates can be downright hostile as charges and counter charges are lobbed from scientific strongholds where the claim is made that there is no room for debate. Consider the Inquisition-like reaction to those who question the certainty of global warming:

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism [over global warming] have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.

Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. . . . In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.[3]

Some have gone so far as to propose that “global warming deniers” are aiding and abetting a global holocaust and should be prosecuted. Australian columnist Margo Kingston “has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial.’ ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial,’ she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offense. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming . . . Holocaust.’”[4] These arguments are being made by those within the secular scientific community. Follow the money. 

There’s a new Inquisition in operation. If you don’t hold to the agreed-upon theories, then you will not be hired, and if you already have a position, there is a good chance you will lose it if you express your opinion, especially if that opinion goes against a theory that might jeopardize money that flows from government grants. Stephen Jay Gould has written: “The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.”[5] Scientists are just like everybody else. They want the same things.

We shouldn’t be surprised that climate scientists might fudge the evidence to keep the grant money coming in. Who’s really getting harmed? Anyway, the kids need new shoes and an investment portfolio so they can get into the best universities to learn how to game the system.

Gary Sutton, writing in an online article for Forbes, makes the point:

You can’t blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed’s mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work [6].

Of course, they can be blamed when they claim that they are doing real science, there is no contrary evidence, and what contrary evidence they do find they suppress it. So the next time someone dogmatically asserts that the majority of scientists believe in Global Warming, ask your antagonist how much grant money he’s getting?

Notes:

1.       John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1875), vi. []

2.      Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith, Black Gold Stranglehold (Nashville, TN: WND Books, 2005). []

3.      Richard Lindsen, “Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence,” The Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2006): www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 []

4.      Brendan O’Neill, “Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech” (October 6, 2006): www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/ []

5.      Stephen Jay Gould, “In the Mind of the Beholder,” Natural History (February 1994), 103:14. []

Gary Sutton, “The Fiction of Climate Science,” Forbes.com (December 4, 2009). []