The Bizarre World of Radical Climate Science

The Bizarre World of Radical Climate Science

By Norman
Rogers

Imagine that you are a climate scientist and the Earth
is threatened with a climate disaster.  You need to warn the people of Earth and
lobby Earth’s governments.  If you are tired of poring over boring computer
printouts, you may be only too ready to accept this mission of transcendent
importance.

On the other hand, maybe you have lost touch with
reality.  Maybe you have become a true believer fighting a dubious battle.
Maybe you are Dr. James Hansen, high civil servant, recipient of cash awards
from left-wing foundations, and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies.  Hansen was arrested in front of the White House, dressed up to look
like J. Robert Oppenheimer, the 1950s scientific martyr.  Hansen wants CEOs of
energy companies to be prosecuted for
“crimes against humanity.”

When scientists are fanatical believers in a cause,
the authority and credibility that attach to science are turned into political
capital to be spent in pursuit of that cause.

The late Stephen Schneider, Stanford climate
scientist, explained how this works:

To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up
some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of
any doubts one might have.  Each of us has to decide the right balance between
being effective, and being honest.

Global warming catastrophism is convenient for climate
science.  It is simplistic to claim that climate scientists are making up the
global warming scare in order to promote research funding.  But global warming
catastrophism clearly does promote research funding.  So there is a convenient
congruence between catastrophism and the bureaucratic ambitions of
research establishments.

Climate science deals with the energy balance of the
Earth and the behavior of the atmosphere.  This is a very complicated system
involving convection, evaporation, precipitation, clouds, ocean heat storage,
reflection, and emission of radiation, and more.  Although scientific
understanding of the system has advanced, especially with the advent of
computers and satellites, the system is still quite mysterious in important
respects.  It’s not at all clear that climate science will ever advance to a
point where long-range predictions can be trusted, or, as they say, demonstrate
skill.

Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the
atmosphere faster than natural processes can remove it.  As a result,
CO2 has been slowly increasing.  Increasing the proportion of
CO2 in the atmosphere will probably exert a warming influence because
CO2 has an inhibiting effect on the outgoing infrared (heat)
radiation that cools the Earth.  Nearly everyone, skeptic or believer, agrees
with these basic facts.  Another basic fact that the purveyors of global warming
like to keep quiet about is that more CO2 in the atmosphere makes
plants grow much
better
with less water.  That’s because plants in general
struggle to extract the scant CO2 in the air.

What is controversial is how much warming can be
expected and whether the warming will create practical problems.  The evidence
supporting substantial warming (i.e., 3 degrees C) is output from bad computer
models.  It’s said that dogs come to resemble their masters.  Computer models
tend to reflect the aspirations of their creators.

The global warming promoters try to hang all kinds of
supplementary disasters on
their proposed 3-degree warming over a century.  This is even more dubious than
the warming itself.  Some of their claims are absurd, such as the suggestion
that the oceans are going to rise substantially, a claim for which there is zero
credible evidence.
The data has been running against the theories of global warming.  The
atmosphere has failed to warm
since 1998, and, more importantly, the upper ocean has failed to warm
since 2003.

The idea that we are on the verge of a climate
disaster caused by modern civilization is a romantic idea that appeals to people
who have lost traditional religion.  It’s another iteration of the
environmentalist dogma that civilization is ruining the earth.  It’s a Garden of
Eden story.   Anyone can see that the landscape of areas where industry and
technology dominate nature, like Germany or New Jersey, is in far better
condition than the landscape is in most third-world countries — countries that
lack evil industry and that practice the precious local small-scale agriculture
so loved by the ideologues who want remake the economy to prevent global
warming.  The idea that the Earth would be a paradise without civilization is
contradicted by the wild climate swings that we know have taken place in recent
geological time.  Ice sheets a mile thick retreated from much of North America
10,000 years ago.

The reports of the International Panel on Climate
Change (the IPCC) are often taken as the authoritative last word on climate
change.  These reports are are disorganized and unfocused.  As a result, most
people go no further than the introductory Summary for Policy Makers.  If you
dig deep into the reports, solid scientific support for the claims of impending
catastrophe is not there.  Computer models are the shaky foundation of global
warming.  Models from different modeling groups disagree with each other by wide
margins.  As the IPCC admits, the models have serious deficiencies.  The IPCC
uses misleading graphical illustrations to
make it appear that the models can accurately mimic the Earth’s
climate.

The CO2 reduction proposals of the global
warming gang are relentlessly ideological and impractical.  CO2-free
nuclear power supplies 80% of France’s electricity and 20% of the electricity in
the U.S.  Nuclear fuel is very cheap, and vast supplies are available.  The real
problem with nuclear is that environmentalist groups have run a hysterical
anti-nuclear campaign for the last 50 years.  A reversal now would be a severe
blow to their credibility.  So, instead of nuclear, the global warming gang
proposes that we use solar power and wind power, technologies that can cost 10
times more
per kilowatt-hour
.
They don’t seem to understand that solar doesn’t work when a cloud blocks the
sun or at night, and wind doesn’t work when the wind isn’t blowing.  As a
consequence, solar and wind need to be backed up by fossil fuel or hydro plants
with spinning generators ready to quickly assume the load of the grid.  People
who are ignorant concerning engineering or science may accept the notion that
wind and solar are realistic sources of electricity.  It is more difficult to
explain why the government is dumping billions of dollars
into these technologies, both in the form of cash and in the form of mandates
that shift the cost to electricity users.

Many scientists may have a predilection for green
fashion — for example, backyard compost heaps, organic food, bicycles, solar
panels, or giant wind turbines.  Nobody cares.  But it is wrong to misuse the
authority and credibility of science to scare the rest of us into embracing the
green lifestyle.

Norman Rogers is a physicist and a
Senior Policy Advisor at the
Heartland
Institute
.  He maintains a website:
www.climateviews.com.

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ Investigation

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ Investigation (Pajamas Media/PJTV Exclusive)

Posted By Charlie Martin On February 23, 2010 @ 2:00 am In . Feature 01, Science, Science & Technology | 216 Comments

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee [1], of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate files has led to a reexamination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 [2] — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail [3] that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

Based on this minority staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company [4] and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas [5] and Virginia [6]) in objecting to the Obama administration’s attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report “strengthens the case” for the Texas and Virginia attorneys general.

Senator Inhofe’s announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved.

The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate files and the subsequent revelations:

  1. The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.
  2. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
  3. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”
  4. They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.

The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:

  1. It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).
  2. It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
  3. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.

If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.

By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.

Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”

The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.

For more of PJM’s most recent Climategate coverage, read Charlie Martin’s “Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here [7].”


Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/

URLs in this post:

[1] Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

[2] would disappear by 2035: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/climategate-imminent-demise-of-glaciers-due-to-a-typo/

[3] London Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0gJqxIRTC

[4] Peabody Energy Company: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129849&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1390960&highlight=#splash

[5] Texas: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=3218

[6] Virginia: http://www.oag.state.va.us/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/21710_Attorney_General%20Petitions%20EPA.html

[7] Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-worlds-biggest-story-everywhere-but-here/

Remember it’s Congress that makes law not the President.

This email came in three parts:
Part 1
In just one year .  Remember the election in 2006?
 Thought you might like to read the following:
 A little over one year ago:

 
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

 
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

 
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

 
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

 Remember it’s Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what’s handed to him.
  Quote of the Day……..‘My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.  I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.’ — Barack Obama

 Part 2:
Taxes…Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.
Taxes under Clinton 1999                   Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K – tax $8,400             Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $14,000          Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250          Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800       Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000       Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750     Married making 125K – tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened.
PART 3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
      Read this:
Boy am I confused.  I have been hammered with the propaganda that it
is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.
I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again
until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them.  I
have included the URL’s for verification of all the following facts.
1.      $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens
each year by state governments.     Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2.      $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs
such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
3.      $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
 4.     $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
 5.      $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the
 American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
6.  $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
7.  30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
 8.  $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &
social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at:
9.  $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused
10.  The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate
that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.  In particular,
 their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
11.  During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens
from Terrorist Countries.  Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin
and mariju ana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report:  http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12.  The National Policy Institute, ‘estimated that the total
cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of  between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’
13.  In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances
back to their countries of origin.
14.  ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million
Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.’
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. 
 
Why are we THAT stupid?
If this doesn’t bother you then just delete the message.  If, on the other
hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you
forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in
Washington, D.C. – five times a week for as long as it takes to restore
some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.

U.S. Senate: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Refute “Man-Made” Global Warming

Gore Ducks Questions About Food Crisis, Ethanol and Climate Alarmism

Gore Ducks Questions About Food Crisis, Ethanol and Climate Alarmism

By Noel Sheppard | April 25, 2008 – 10:28 ET

 

A remarkable thing happened Thursday: a press member wanted to ask Nobel Laureate Al Gore about the growing international food crisis and how it relates to ethanol and global warming hysteria.

Not surprisingly, the man who cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate fourteen years ago mandating the use of ethanol wasn’t available, and a spokesman for his hysteria-driving Alliance for Climate Protection declined to comment.

Isn’t that convenient?

Regardless, the good news is that press outlets continue to recognize this unholy connection, and that someone, even at the conservative New York Sun, would deign to report it (emphasis added throughout):

The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels. […]

One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.

“I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels.

Frankly, I believe this is conservative, for I doubt it includes the speculation associated with biofuels. For instance, how much of the current daily futures volume is specifically associated with investor purchases due to ethanol? Maybe more important, how much might such speculative purchases decline if ethanol was taken out of the equation?

But I digress:

It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,” Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. “It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.”

Mr. Senauer said climate change advocates, such as Vice President Gore, need to distance themselves from ethanol to avoid tarnishing the effort against global warming. “Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution. They, in fact, add to the problem. Whether Al Gore has caught up with that, somebody ought to ask him,” the professor said. “There are lots of solutions, real solutions to climate change. We need to get to those.”

Mr. Gore was not available for an interview yesterday on the food crisis, according to his spokeswoman. A spokesman for Mr. Gore’s public campaign to address climate change, the Alliance for Climate Protection, declined to comment for this article.

Isn’t that dandy? The person that cast the deciding vote in 1994 beginning ethanol mandates, who has been traveling the world advocating biofuels, and even admitted in March 2008 to having investments in biofuel companies, wasn’t available to discuss the food crisis and its relationship to ethanol.

Maybe this is why Gore isn’t allowing press members into his speeches.

Regardless, the pressure is mounting, and as more media outlets begin seeking his opinion concerning this matter, it seems a metaphysical certitude he won’t be able to hide forever.

Stay tuned.

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Gore’s Greendom Starving The Poor

http://pointriderrepublican.typepad.com/pr/2008/04/gores-greendom.html

Gore’s Greendom Starving The Poor

As Al Green Gore stands and stares at his salt water tropical fish tanks, people around the world are STARVING because it has become so expensive to send them food.

Al Green thumb is out of touch with everyday reality:

 

“Governments that were quick to switch to biofuels are just as quickly having to think again.

Biofuels were promoted as an effective weapon in the battle against climate change, but some blame the increased demand for them for a world crisis in the cost of food.

Earlier this month a doubling in the price of rice caused riots in Egypt and Haiti, and the World Bank has warned the increased cost of food will push 100-million people deeper into poverty.

But aid groups say that although biofuels have played a part, they’re not the only reason that food prices continue to rise.

Paula Kruger reports.

PAULA KRUGER: It now costs $800-million more to feed the world’s poorest than it did a year ago.

The head of the United Nations World Food Program Josette Sheeran says the rising cost of food is a silent tsunami.

JOSETTE SHEERAN: The price of rice for example has risen from March 3rd at $460 a metric tonne to over $1000 a metric tonne just last week. So in seven weeks we’ve seen a doubling of prices for us to purchase food to fill this cup. This is really a crisis for the world’s most vulnerable.

PAULA KRUGER: The doubling of the price of rice prompted protests and violent riots in Haiti and Egypt earlier this month. There has also been food riots in several other African countries along with Indonesia and the Philippines. The violence is expected to spread as the crisis continues.

But what is causing the massive surge in food prices? New laws have just come into effect in the UK requiring that all petrol and diesel be at least two-and-a-half per cent biofuel. That target is expected to increase to five per cent by 2010 as part of efforts to make transport fuels more environmentally friendly.”

Effects Of Global Food Crisis Being Felt In GTA With High Prices

Biofuels contributing to food crisis

High Food Prices: A Silent Tsunami, Affecting Every Continent

Rising food prices a global threat

Going green on an UNPROVEN THEORY of global warming is GUTTING THE POOR.

Which threat is immediate and killing people as I write?

Starvation because of the price of biofuels or global warming?

People are DYING daily because of the price of wheat, rice and other assorted grains as Al Gore and global warming cult followers stare at tropical fish and push a THEORY.

Global warming is a THEORY, NOT FACT.

It has been discredited by a number of scientists and no one can hear them over the global warming CULT screams.

And people are STARVING TO DEATH over a Global Gorey Theory.

A global warming movie showing a detaching iceberg was a STYROFOAM FAKE.

People starving TODAY is a FACT.

A top weather scientist in my state was demoted by our democratic governor for debunking global green geeks….

Now go figure.

SCIENCE magazine: ethanol bad for environment

SCIENCE magazine: ethanol bad for environment

Big science is starting to agree that ethanol production is hurting, not helping the environment. According to an article in today’s Washington Post by Steven Mufson entitled “Global Food Crisis; Siphoning Off Corn to Fuel Our Cars  ”

 

“Although ethanol was once promoted as a way to slow climate change, a study published in Science magazine Feb. 29 concluded that greenhouse-gas emissions from corn and even cellulosic ethanol “exceed or match those from fossil fuels and therefore produce no greenhouse benefits.” By encouraging an expansion of acreage, the study added, the use of U.S. cropland for ethanol could make climate conditions dramatically worse. And the runoff from increased use of fertilizers on expanded acreage would compound damage to waterways all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.” [Emphasis added]

SCIENCE MAGAZINE is the official publication of the American Association of the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/, a peer-reviewed academic journal with very high scientific prestige equivalent to NATURE, so Al Gore cannot claim it is under the control of the evil oil industry.
 

In addition the Post article reports:

 

“Development specialists have also joined the fray. “While many are worrying about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs, and it is getting more and more difficult every day,” World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick said in a recent speech.”

 

Al Gore should stop starving the worlds’ poor with government-induced famines in the name of his fears for possible climate disaster 100 year hence.  The worlds’ poor are suffering at his hands today.  NO STARVATION FOR FUEL!

Global Warming: The Left’s Latest War on the Family

Global Warming: The Left’s Latest War on the Family

By Don Feder
GrassTopsUSA.com | 4/29/2008

Procreation is killing the planet, and traditional religion is to blame, Global-Warming cultists insist.

First the industrial revolution had to go. Then it was to the wall with oil company executives, those malignant Carbon Interests. Next, SUVs were declared enemies of the planet.

Now, the left’s attention has shifted back to its perennial targets — large families and “patriarchal” religion.

In a commentary in the April 21st edition of USA TODAY (“Might our religion be killing us?”), Oliver “Buzz” Thomas quotes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a tool of the global village idiots at the United Nations — to the effect that Global Warming, caused by CO2 emissions, will lead to “drought, starvation and species extinction.” (Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies… rivers and seas boiling… forty years of darkness… dogs and cats living together!)

The culprits are religions that oppose birth control and abortion and instruct us regarding fructification and multiplication. Thomas even names names: “Now, consider the Roman Catholic Church’s continued opposition to modern birth control or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ (i.e. Mormons) encouragement of large families… . Many Orthodox Jews and some Muslims also eschew birth control.”

Only “some Muslims”? Bet Planned Parenthood isn’t doing a land-office business in Mecca.

These benighted faiths are literally drowning us in kids, causing CO2-levels to rise, the hole in the ozone-layer to grow, and polar bears to float away on break-away chunks of the rapidly shrinking Arctic ice cap.

But, what can you expect from churches mired in a literal reading of Scriptures? Thomas asks. “I recognize that religious organizations tend to be conservative institutions. Their continued opposition to equal rights for woman and gays is a good example.”

By failing to ordain women and opposing abortion and homosexual marriage, conservative denominations prove their resistance to progress and human rights, Buzz sneers.

Said reactionary tendencies also are evident in their callous disregard for the environment. (For the left, the quintessential spiritual experience would be an abortion performed at a same-sex marriage ceremony, while transgendered ushers throw condoms instead of confetti, and bridesmaids confiscate handguns from passersby.)

Says Thomas: “In the interest of preserving our planet and our species, shouldn’t religious organizations be encouraging smaller families? Do our spiritual leaders need additional divine revelation to realize that our current doctrines — which threaten to take the entire world down with us — have become ethically and theologically questionable?”

Welcome to the Church of Choice — services performed by the Reverend Rodham, Sundays at 9 and 11.

For 200 years, the left has been fixated on an imaginary overpopulation crisis.  In 1798, Thomas Malthus warned that wars, famine and plagues were needed to reduce the “surplus population” else we would soon inhabit Planet SRO.

In his 1969 book, “The Population Bomb” (the prequel to “An Inconvenient Truth”), Paul Ehrlich forecast worldwide famine by 1975. Natural resources would be severely depleted and arable land exhausted in a futile effort to keep up with the population explosion. Soon, we would be reduced to eating each other — like Democratic presidential candidates in late April of an election year.

That none of these doomsday scenarios came to pass is irrelevant to the left. Hysteria is the only way to propagate their creed. The Today Show’s Matt Lauer insists: “The stark reality is that there are too many of us. And we consume too much… The solutions are not a secret: control population, recycle, reduce consumption.” Spoken like a TV personality feigning an idea.

How many people are too many? They never tell us.  As Dr. Jacqueline Kasun  noted in “The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population Control” (1998), humans occupy 1% to 3% of the earth’s land surface.

A decade ago, all 5.8 billion of us could have fit in the state of Texas, with each having 1,269 square feet of living-space — the equivalent of a ranch house.

Since 1900, the world’s population has quadrupled, while the planet’s GDP has increased between 20 and 40 times.

In 1960, India had to import food to deal with periodic famines. Today, with twice the population it had then, India is a net food exporter. Worldwide, half as many people die of starvation today as in 1900, even though we have four times as many people. Those who starve to death now are mostly victims of government-engineered famine.

A 1990 report of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that by employing what were then the most up-to-date technologies, the earth could yield enough to feed 30 to 35 billion.

So, we’re not running out of food or space. How about natural resources? In 1948, the world’s oil reserves were estimated at around 600 billion barrels. By 2000, the estimate was revised slightly upward — to 3 trillion barrels. The actual figure is anyone’s guess.

Having failed with the foregoing, the left now has hit on what it believes to be the ultimate strategy to advance population control — Global Warming. Families are about to feel the blade of the guillotine in the coming Green Terror.

In May, 2007, an outfit called the Optimum Population Trust warned that if the British didn’t voluntarily limit population size, it would be up to the state to force them to be environmentally conscious in the bedroom. (FYI, in the U.K., the birth rate is well-below replacement level.) The Trust warned that the average lifetime “carbon footprint” of a child born in Britain was the equivalent of 620 roundtrip flights between London and New York.

Last December, Barry Walters, an associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia, urged the government in Canberra to levy a $5,000 “baby tax” and an annual $800 “carbon tax,” for each addition child born to a family with two children. All of the left’s crusades begin with proselytizing and end in coercion.

“Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society,” Walters writes. The left is incapable of viewing individuals as anything other than polluters, never as producers or innovators — let alone seeing them in spiritual terms, as manifestations of God’s goodness.

Global Warming is the left’s perfect storm — a force to demolish faith, family and freedom. There’s no area of our lives that can’t be invaded — taxed, controlled, regulated or obliterated — in the name of serving and protecting the planet.

Unlike food production and oil reserves, the myth of man-made Global Warming is resistant to factual analysis. The left treats it as revealed truth and skeptics are scorned as heretics and  troglodytes — the scientific equivalent of Holocaust-deniers. Al Gore, the movement’s P.T. Barnum-cum-Grand Inquisitor, compares them to the cranks who believe the earth is flat.

If Global Warming didn’t exist, the left would have to invent it. In fact, they did. As Nigel Calder, former editor of the British magazine New Scientist explains: “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicized in favor of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the study as the effect of the study of greenhouse gasses. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers.”

Still, the evidence is there for those not blinded by dogma. Al Gore’s brain is melting faster than the Arctic ice cap, which is making a spectacular comeback.

A February 18, 2008 story in the London Daily Express notes that Arctic ice levels, which had shrunk from 13 million to 4 million sq. km., between January and October 2007, are now almost back to their original levels. In the meantime, according to the paper, “Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.”

In New England, I spent much of the past winter shoveling Global Warming.

The entire Northern Hemisphere experienced the coldest winter in decades. Again, from the Daily Express: “Even the Middle East saw snow, with Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman and northern Saudi Arabia reporting the heaviest falls in years and below zero temperatures. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people.”

So many inconvenient facts contradict the Church of Global Warming. In the United States, the 10 hottest years on record were all in the 1920s and 1930s. (Those Model A Fords have wide carbon tire-tracks.) Temperatures rose between 1910 and 1945, fell from 1945 to 1975, and rose again for the next 20 years — which bears no relationship to the production of greenhouse gasses.

In an open letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (December 13, 2007), 100 eminent scientists from all over the world observed: “It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity throughout the ages. … The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climate influences of human produced carbon-dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis.”

Not only is there no reliable evidence that reducing CO2 emissions will affect climate change, the signers note, but “because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.”

Not that human suffering ever stopped the left. It wants and needs man-made Global Warming as a way to counter what it considers the most potent threats to its agenda — faith and family.

The left must have its scapegoat. This is absolutely essential. For Marx it was the bourgeoisie. For the ’60s New Left, it was America — spelled with a “k.” White males are the villains of multiculturalism. Now, it’s babies and retrograde churches that are destroying the planet. The environment has assumed the role of the proletariat, the Third World and racial minorities in earlier models of damnation and salvation.

In particular, the left cringes at the thought of Catholics, evangelicals, Orthodox Jews and Mormons having lots of children — passing their misogynistic, homophobic, species-centric, suicidally archaic worldview to the next generation.

The left has always worried about the reproductive patterns of certain people. As Jonah Goldberg explains in his book “Liberal Fascism,” from the beginning, racial eugenics was a project of the left — or progressives, as they called themselves then and now.

H.G. Wells, a hero of pre-World War II progressivism (a socialist who wrote science fiction, much like Al Gore), said that in order for humankind to move to the sunny uplands of utopia, “swarms of black and brown, and dirty (lower class) white and yellow people”  would have to be discouraged from breeding — or physically eliminated. Moreover, Goldberg explains, “The foremost institution combating eugenics around the world was the Catholic Church.”

For those like Oliver “Buzz” Thomas (perpetrator of the aforesaid USA TODAY commentary), hordes of rapidly multiplying Catholics, Mormons, evangelicals and Orthodox Jews have taken the place of “swarms of black and brown, and dirty white and yellow peoples.”

The irony here is that, unlike Global Warming, rapidly declining birthrates is a reality, not a theory. Worldwide, in 1970, the average woman had 6 children. Today, that average is only 2.8, with further declines forecast.

If current trends continue, by 2050, the world will hold 248 million fewer children under 5 years of age than it does today. The crisis which will confront us in this century isn’t overpopulation, but a birth-dearth leading to population decline. When it comes to maintaining civilization, people are the one indispensable element.

By heeding His words and having large families, those reactionary believers indicted by Green Jacobins are doing God’s work, as well as humanity’s.

In his USA TODAY diatribe Thomas writes: “Population growth hits hardest in poor nations, and, as poverty increases, public health declines. I am quite certain that God is not the author of human misery, but by preaching against birth control at the same time we are preaching against abortion, it seems that we are making God out as cruel, a buffoon or both.” Thomas believes the word of God is negotiable — and must be constantly reinterpreted so as not make him “cruel, a buffoon or both.”

Buzz has it backward. Poor countries are often rich in natural resources but lacking in human capital. By encouraging or forcing emerging nations to limit their population, Global Warming hysterics are dooming them to perpetual poverty.

God, on the other hand, tells us that children are the true source of prosperity as well as happiness.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: Do we listen to God or a guy called Buzz? Hmmm, tough decision.

This column originally appeared on GrassTopsUSA.com and appears here with the author’s permission.


Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.

Global Warming? An Open Letter to John McCain

 

Published: April 28, 2008

Global Warming? An Open Letter to John McCain

Raymond S. Kraft


 

Dear Mr. McCain

 

It seems that some leading Republicans such as yourself, Newt Gingrich, and even President Bush, have accepted the premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming – that man is spewing millions of tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere each year, and that this is causing an unprecedented rise in earth’s temperature that threatens us all. And, if we spend enough money to reduce CO2 emissions, we can change it.

 

I urge you to reconsider. More than 19,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to protest the Kyoto accord, and declare their opposition to the theory that man’s CO2 emissions are causing Global Warming (the Global Warming Petition at http://www.oism.org/pproject/). Written and sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, the Petition reads:

 

Global Warming Petition

 

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

 

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases, is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of Earth’s climate. Morever, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide [willl] produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” 

 

There is certainly no “consensus.”  The IPCC Report on Global Warming (2007) from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that it was “reviewed” by 600 authors from 40 countries, and over 620 experts and governments. The 19,000 scientists who have signed the Global Warming Petition outnumber those who have “reviewed” the IPCC report by more than 15 to 1.

 

The illustrations below are from www.GlobalWarmingArt.com, a website created to graphically illustrate the evidence for Global Warming Theory, and since they were created by proponents of Global Warming Theory, I will adopt them, and stipulate to their accuracy, and explain very simply why this evidence produced by the Global Warming proponents proves them wrong.

 

The Global Warming theorists always point to rises in temperature (by fractions of a degree) within the last 200 years, or the last 1,000 years, but such a small sample of climate history is not historically representative, and is not a large enough data set to be scientifically meaningful. It’s cherry-picking the evidence. To be intellectually honest, we must look at all the evidence we have, not just a small fraction of it. To be scientifically meaningful, we must look to the long history of climate changes, as shown in the six illustrations below.

 

Exhibit 1. Holocene Temperature Variations: The IPCC Is Wrong

 

Here we see that the present Warm Era (the Holocene) began almost 12,000 years ago. It peaked circa 8,000 years ago at 1.5 degrees above the baseline, a full 1 degree warmer than now, at the beginning of what climatologists call the Holocene Optimum.

 

According to the IPCC Report on Global Warming, rising CO2 causes Global Warming, and CO2 now is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. If this were true, then it would be warmer now than at any time in the last 650,000 years. But it is not.  8,000 years ago, CO2 was 120 parts per million lower than now, and the climate was warmer than now.  Now, CO2 is higher, but the climate is cooler. Thus we know that the IPCC’s global warming theory is false. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is wrong. Openly and obviously wrong. Clearly and conspicuously wrong. Irrefutably wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We also know that prior to 12,000 years ago, sea level was 400 feet lower than now. Most of that water was bound up in vast glaciers on the northern continents, in some places as much as three miles deep. From 12,000 to 6,000 years ago, there was so much glacial melting that sea levels rose 400 feet to their present level. That is, before the present era of Global Warming began, 12,000 years ago, sea level was 400 feet lower than now. 

 

Before Global Warming began, twelve thousand years ago, you could walk from Alaska to Siberia on the Bering Land Bridge, or Beringia, a thousand miles of dry land, north to south, as large as Australia, now under the cold ocean of the north Pacific, the Bering Sea. You could walk from England to France on dry land under what is now the English Channel.

 

Exhibit 2. The Surface Temperature Record

 

Here we see the recent trend line rising 1/2 degree (0.5 degrees) from 1980 to present, with temperature spiking circa 1998 to 0.7 degrees above the 1980 benchmark, and cooler since then. One half a degree. In San Francisco, the temperature can rise or fall by half a degree in a minute. And, for most of us, a half degree change in temperature is too small to notice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 3. Reconstructed Temperatures: Last 1,000 Years

 

While this looks fairly “dramatic,” this is only because the scale of the graph is so narrow. It is only 1.6 degrees from the bottom to the top of the chart, barely enough climate change for most of us to feel. From the benchmark of 0 at 1,000 CE (for Common Era, or AD, as we used to say, one thousand years ago), the chart only shows a range of 0.6 degrees up, and 1 degree down.  Since 1,000 years ago, global temperature fell 0.9 degrees to the bottom of the Little Ice Age, four hundred years ago, and then it began rising, and has risen about 1.3 degrees to reach 0.4 degrees above the benchmark of 0 from 1,000 years ago. Thus, we see that our climate today is a trivial 0.4 degrees warmer than it was 1,000 years ago, before the Little Ice Age.  Less than one-half of one degree.  And a full degree cooler than at the peak of the Holocene Optimum, eight thousand years ago (Exhibit 2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 4. Ice Age Temperature Changes

 

Let’s look at some more history. Over the last 450,000 years we see five episodes of “Global Warming” above the 0 baseline. The previous four eras of Global Warming, approximately 120,000 years, 240,000 years, 330,000 years, and 400,000 years before now, were warmer than now, with very long intervening ice ages much cooler than now. The next ice age will be disastrous for agriculture in the northern half of the northern hemisphere. And, unless the long natural cycle of global warming and ice ages is somehow broken, the coming of the next ice age is a matter of when, not if. Perhaps we should be grateful for Global Warming while we have it.

 

It won’t last forever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In order to be credible science, Global Warming Theory must explain (a) what caused the last 5 eras of Global Warming, and (b) what caused the last 5 eras of Global Cooling. If it does not do so it is not good science, but merely opinion, merely speculation, an unproven hypothesis, that would not be admissible as evidence in any court under the Federal Rules of Evidence.  To my knowledge, it does not do so.

 

To be admissible evidence in court, scientific evidence must be “generally accepted in the scientific community,” as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 570 (1993). Otherwise it is deemed too speculative and unproven to be reliable, and therefore inadmissible. Since there are many thousands of scientists who reject Global Warming Theory, it cannot be seen as “generally accepted science.” It is highly disputed science, a highly disputed, unproven theory. It is my opinion that this theory, and the crystal-ball computer models that purport to predict the future, the future of global climate changes, are not admissible as evidence to prove that they are true, unless they can first be proven to be “generally accepted science.”

 

Are we to base national climate and energy policy on a theory that is not even sufficiently proven and accepted to be admissible as evidence at trial, in a judicial proceeding, in a court of law?

 

If we were to do a computer model of future climate changes based on extrapolations and inductions from historic patterns and cycles of climate change, it would very likely tell us that the earth will soon enter another long era of Global Cooling, another periodic Ice Age.

 

Exhibit 5. Five Million Years of Climate Change

 

Looking back five million years, we see that (a) there have been dozens of cycles of  global warming and global cooling over the past five million years, (b) the swings between the extremes of global warming and global cooling in each cycle have been growing more dramatic, and (c) there has been a steady long-term cooling trend over the last five million yearsEarth’s climate, in the long trend, is growing colder, not warmer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 6. Sixty Five Million Years of Climate Change

 

Here we see (below) that over 65 million years global temperature has risen and then fallen dramatically from the Eocene Optimum, some 50 million years ago, not in a straight line, but in a general, long term cooling trend. Unless this long trend is somehow reversed, the earth is slowly cooling, not warming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus it becomes clear that:

 

(a) The present era of Global Warming (the Holocene Era) began some 12,000 years ago, long before human civilization or modern technology.  It was warmest circa 8,000 years ago, and has been slowly getting cooler every since, with some short term warming cycles, but a long term cooling trend.

 

(b) The present era of Global Warming is right on schedule in the long cycle of Global Warming and Global Cooling approximately every 120,000 years.

 

(c) The present Global Warming is cooler than each of the four previous warm eras, and the climate has been on a long-term cooling trend since the Eocene Optimum, some 50 million years ago.

 

(d) We see per the IPCC report that CO2 is higher now than in the last 650,000 years, yet during that time there have been at least four (4) eras of Global Warming with temperatures higher than now.

 

This fact conclusively disproves the hypothesis that rising CO2 causes global warming.  If the premise that CO2 causes global warming were true, then the climate now would be warmer than at any other time in the last 650,000 years.

 

But it is not.

 

Let us also note that the CO2 rise from 280 ppm (parts per million) to 380 ppm at stated in the IPCC Report is a rise from a mere 0.028% of the atmosphere to a mere 0.038% of the atmosphere. Our atmosphere is more than 99.9% nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, and less than 0.1% everything else. At 380 ppm, or 0.038%, CO2 is less than 4% of 1% of the atmosphere.

 

Over the last 100 years, the increase in CO2 has been a trivial 0.01% of the atmosphere, or 1% of 1% of atmospheric composition, one part in ten thousand. To visualize this, imagine that you have a swimming pool that holds 10,000 gallons of water. Then you add one gallon. That is how much atmospheric CO2 has increased in the last 100 years, according to the IPCC. Not much.

 

The earth’s climate has been changing continuously for millions of years, as far back as we can reconstruct it, and doubtless long before that, for as long as the earth has had a climate to change. Nature changes continuously everywhere we look. Nothing in nature stays the same.  Our contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is truly trivial, less than one part in ten thousand, less than 1% of 1% – even if we assume that all of the CO2 increase in the last 100 years has been due to us, which may not be true. Has it been proven?

 

Before the United States makes enormous changes in public policy and spends hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars to “stop climate change,” don’t you think we should demand some pretty convincing proof that the climate change we see is not natural? Is the climate change we see really man-made, and can we really change it? Or is it the unchangeable natural cycle of Global Warming and Global Cooling?

 

 

Scientist: Earth Cooling, Not Warming