The Global Warming Hoax

[Harry Tuttle]

I completely agree. Imposter.

What have you done with the real Alex Libman. 

[AL the Inconspicuous]

From Anchorage Daily News -- Chilly politics: Gore ice sculpture back in Fairbanks --

Link: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Two Fairbanks businessmen are still so annoyed by former Vice President Al Gore's stand on global warming that they have commissioned another "Frozen Gore" ice sculpture for display in front of a liquor store.  This year's version features Gore blowing smoke - but only when a truck exhaust is connected.  Businessmen Craig Compeau and Rudy Gavora say they'll commission the sculpture annually until Gore comes to Fairbanks to debate climate change. "Before we start carbon taxing ... let's try and educate ourselves," Compeau said.

The Frozen Gore Web site also has pictures of last year's creation.

Al Gore?  Debate?  Not a chance!  Since when do you have to use your mind to persuade people when you have the guns of government are on your side!


[youtube=425,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qGVfh7FFMXg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qGVfh7FFMXg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[AL the Inconspicuous]

From Stefan Molyneux / FreeDomain Radio YouTube Channel -- Global Warming Skepticism: Interview with Warren Meyer --

[youtube=560,340]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jgKgDCR5KKQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jgKgDCR5KKQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[AL the Inconspicuous]

From Fox News -- U.N. Panel's Glacier-Disaster Claims Melting Away --

The world's most famous climate change expert is in the midst of a massive controversy, as the leading environmental science institute he heads scrambled to explain data it promulgated for a U.N. report.

The world's most famous climate change expert is at the center of a massive controversy as the leading environmental science institute he heads scrambled to explain its assertion that the Himalayan glaciers will melt completely in 25 years.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and director general of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Dehli, India, said this week that the U.N. body was studying how its 2007 report to the United Nations derived information that led to its famous conclusion: that the glaciers will melt by 2035.

Today, the IPCC issued a statement offering regret for the poorly vetted statements. "The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures," the statement says, though it goes short of issuing a full retraction or reprinting the report.

Pachauri told Reuters on Monday that the group was looking into the issue, and planned to "take a position on it in the next two or three days."

The IPCC's 2007 report, simply titled AR4, claimed that "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world, and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

Contacted by FoxNews.com at TERI, officials would not respond to a request for additional comment. IPCC is expected to withdraw the report's claim eventually.

Hundreds of millions of people in India, Pakistan and China would be severely affected if the glaciers were actually to melt. There are some 9,500 Himalayan glaciers.

Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh questioned the findings of the 2007 report during a news conference.

"They are indeed receding and the rate is cause for great concern," Ramesh said of the glaciers. But, he said, the IPCC's 2035 forecast was "not based on an iota of scientific evidence."

One of the key elements in the growing scandal is the revelation that IPCC based some of its public proclamations on non-peer reviewed reports.

"The data, all the data, needs to come to light," says Dr. Jane M. Orient, president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and an outspoken skeptic on climate change.

"Thousands of scientists are capable of assessing it. The only reason to keep it hidden, locked in the clutches of the elite few, is that it decisively disproves their computer models and shows that their draconian emission controls are based on nothing except a lust for power, control and profit."

The IPCC "made a clear and obvious error when it stated that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035," added Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, in an interview.

"The absurdity was obvious to anyone who had studied the scientific literature. This was not an honest mistake. IPCC had been warned about it for a year by many scientists."

A letter just released to the Science Web site underscores the mistake. Written by J. Graham Cogley of the department of geography at Canada's Trent University, it points out that "the claim that Himalayan glaciers may disappear by 2035 ... conflicts with knowledge of glacier-climate relationships, and is wrong."

The dustup is the latest scandal in global warming science, coming after the disclosure of attempts to shade climate-science research findings at the U.K.'s East Anglia University and the failed talks in Copenhagen by environmental policymakers last month.

The IPCC report had indicated that the total area of Himalayan glaciers would shrink from 500,000 square kilometers to 100,000 square kilometers within 25 years. The study cited a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental advocacy group. The WWF study cited a 1999 article in New Scientist magazine that quoted another expert, who speculated that Himalayan glaciers could disappear within forty years.

The speculative comments were not peer reviewed, and other reports have indicated that the glaciers are not retreating abnormally.

"Most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is two to three feet per year, and most are far lower," Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of the department of geology at Western Washington University, told FoxNews.com.

Pachauri, the IPCC chief, is under attack on another front, as well, as newspaper reports in India have commented repeatedly on his reportedly lavish lifestyle. TERI receives funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, both of which did not respond to requests for comment from FoxNews.com. Reports indicate that there also are concerns in the United Kingdom surrounding 10 million British pounds in funding for TERI, and questions about TERI's objectivity.

"It's about time that somebody started following the money trail to the big interests that want to prosper from the green regime, while the rest of the economy is crushed," Orient told FoxNews.com. "It's not as though the amount were a trickle."

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Drudge Report headlines update:

• UN scientist admits unverified data used for politics...

• India, China won't sign Copenhagen Accord...

• Calls for UN climate chief to resign...

• Scientists using 'selective temperature data'...

• Scientists create model of monster 'Frankenstorm'...

• PEW: Global warming ranks dead last as concern for Americans...

• TRIPS TO COPENHAGEN COST OVER $1,000,000...

[Cognitive Dissident]

From Stefan Molyneux / FreeDomain Radio YouTube Channel -- Global Warming Skepticism: Interview with Warren Meyer --

[youtube=560,340]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jgKgDCR5KKQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jgKgDCR5KKQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

That was outstanding...much less "preachy" than most of his other stuff.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Drudge Report headlines update:

• South blanketed with ice, snow; mid-Atlantic next...

• UN panel based claims about disappearing ice from student's dissertation!

• Climate chief knew about glacier flaws...

• BIN LADEN'S 'GLOBAL WARMING' RANT...

And, from National Times (Australia) -- Facts conveniently brushed over by the global warming fanatics --

Here are 10 anti-commandments, 10 selected facts about global warming which have been largely ignored amid the orthodoxies to which we are subjected every day. All these anti-commandments are either true or backed by scientific opinion. All can also be hotly contested.

1.  The pin-up species of global warming, the polar bear, is increasing in number, not decreasing.

2.  The US President, Barack Obama, supports building nuclear power plants.

Last week, in his State of the Union address, he said: ''To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.''

3.  The Copenhagen climate conference descended into farce.

The low point of the gridlock and posturing at Copenhagen came with the appearance by the socialist dictator of Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, whose anti-capitalist diatribe drew a cheering ovation from thousands of left-wing ideologues.

4.  The reputation of the chief United Nations scientist on global warming is in disrepair.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is being investigated for financial irregularities, conflicts of interest and scientific distortion. He has already admitted publishing false data.

5. The supposed scientific consensus of the IPCC has been challenged by numerous distinguished scientists.

6.  The politicisation of science leads to a heavy price being paid in poor countries.

After Western environmentalists succeeded in banning or suppressing the use of the pesticide DDT, the rate of death by malaria rose into the millions. Some scholars estimate the death toll at 20 million or more, most of them children.

7.  The biofuels industry has exacerbated world hunger.

Diverting huge amounts of grain crops (as distinct from sugar cane) to biofuels has contributed to a rise in world food prices, felt acutely in the poorest nations.

8.  The Kyoto Protocol has proved meaningless.

Global carbon emissions are significantly higher today than they were when the Kyoto Protocol was introduced.

9.  The United Nations global carbon emissions reduction target is a massively costly mirage.

10.  Kevin Rudd's political bluff on emissions trading has been exposed.

The Prime Minister intimated he would go to the people in an early election if his carbon emissions trading legislation was rejected. He won't. The electorate has shifted.

None of these anti-commandments question the salient negative link between humanity and the environment: that we are an omnivorous, rapacious species which has done enormous damage to the world's environment.

Nor do they question the warming of the planet.

What they do question is the morphing of science with ideology, the most pernicious byproduct of the global warming debate. All these anti-commandments were brought into focus this past week by the visit of the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, better known as Lord Christopher Monckton, journalist by trade, mathematician by training, provocateur by inclination.

Last Wednesday a conference room at the Sheraton on the Park was filled to overflowing, all 800 seats sold with a standing-room only crowd at the back, to see the Sydney public appearance of Monckton, a former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher. At the end of his presentation he received a sustained standing ovation.

Monckton is the embodiment of English aristocratic eccentricity. His presentations are a combination of stand-up comedy, evangelical preaching and fierce debating. Almost every argument he makes can be contested, but given the enormity of the multi-trillion-dollars that governments expect taxpayers to expend on combating global warming, the process needs to be subject to brutal interrogation, scrutiny and scepticism. And Monckton was brutal, especially about the media, referring to ''all this bed-wetting stuff on the ABC and the BBC''.

There has also been a monumental political failure surrounding the global warming debate. Those who would have to pay for most of the massive government expenditures proposed, the taxpayers of the West, are beginning to go into open revolt at the prospect.

Last week the Herald reported that Monckton told a large lie while in Sydney.

On Tuesday it reported: ''He said with a straight face on the Alan Jones radio program that he had been awarded the Nobel, a claim Jones did not question.''

The Herald repeated the accusation on Thursday. It was repeated a third time in a commentary in Saturday's Herald.

In 2007 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the former US vice-president Al Gore. The prize committee, in citing its selection of the IPCC, said: ''Through the IPCC … thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of [global] warming.''

Thousands of people were thus collectively and anonymously part of the prize process.

So what lie did Monckton tell about the prize? Despite the gravity of the accusation, the Herald never published the offending remark. Here, for the record, is what he actually said:

Monckton: ''I found out on the day of publication of the 2007 [IPCC report] that they'd multiplied, by 10, the observed contribution to sea-level rise of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet. By 10! I got in touch with them and said, 'You will correct this.' And two days later, furtively, on the website, no publicity, they simply relabelled, recalculated and corrected the table they'd got wrong.''

Alan Jones: ''But this report won a Nobel Prize!''

Monckton: ''Yes. Exactly. And I am also a Nobel Prize winner because I made a correction. I'm part of the process that got the Nobel Prize. Do I deserve it? No. Do they deserve it? No. The thing is a joke.''

[AL the Inconspicuous]

I just came across something that made the hairs on my head stand up - a major poll gauging the public opinion on Global Warming phrased its question as:  "Do you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures, or not?"

Wow...  Not only is that sentence grammatically incorrect, it is unquestionable blatant mis-framing of the question - "heads I win, tails you lose"!  There's no way anyone would honestly claim to disbelieve that infinite amounts of carbon dioxide and other unnamed gases over an indefinite period of time will eventually fuck things up!  But that has nothing to do with what we're dealing with here on Earth!

The relevant way to phrase this question would be...  "Do you believe sufficient scientific proof has been presented to conclude that:  (1) human activity is causing a change in the Earth climate, ruling out all natural explanations,  AND  (2) that this change is significant,  AND  (3) that this change is harmful,  AND  (4) that this change wouldn't correct itself automatically as humanity moves to more cost-effective technologies,  AND  (5) that global government regulation is the best way to deal with this problem,  AND  (6) that the side-effects of imposing a global government will not do more harm than good?"

And the factual answer to that is NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, and NO!

[anarchir]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-makes-trees-grow-at-fastest-rate-for-200-years-1886342.html

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Yeah, a fine example disproving element #3 of the above question.

I recently brought up a similar point about CO2 being plant-food on the FSP forum:

The GW alarmists typically acknowledge that over 95% of total CO2 emissions are non-anthropogenic, but they say the 1-5% that is is throwing the global equilibrium out of whack.  That's kind of silly because CO2 is only 0.0387% of the atmosphere.  Increasing it to 0.0389% for a few decades is not the end of the world - earth has experienced increases many orders of magnitude higher in the past.  The burden of proof remains in their field, where it has been for decades, and they only thing they've managed to prove so far is their capacity for violence and deceit!

Furthermore, the human race needs CO2 to grow more plants, since thanks to human stewardship the amount of plant biomass is expected to increase tremendously as we irrigate the deserts and other areas with relatively little rainfall, farm seaweed, build multistory greenhouses and massive floating cornfields on seas and oceans, etc, etc, etc.  The one thing that Earth is good for is farming - all pollution-producing activities can eventually be moved to space!

Space is where solar energy begins to make actual economic sense, where raw materials (i.e. asteroids) are much easier to mine without much gravity getting in your way, where transporting those materials is cheaper with zero air resistance, where massive nuclear power plants and robotized factories can be built without putting any residential neighborhoods in danger, etc, etc, etc.  I bet that if free markets are just allowed to work then by the end of this century we'll actually have to import CO2 back to Earth just to fertilize our crops!

[anarchir]

Yeah, a fine example disproving element #3 of the above question.

I recently brought up a similar point about CO2 being plant-food on the FSP forum:

The GW alarmists typically acknowledge that over 95% of total CO2 emissions are non-anthropogenic, but they say the 1-5% that is is throwing the global equilibrium out of whack.  That's kind of silly because CO2 is only 0.0387% of the atmosphere.  Increasing it to 0.0389% for a few decades is not the end of the world - earth has experienced increases many orders of magnitude higher in the past.  The burden of proof remains in their field, where it has been for decades, and they only thing they've managed to prove so far is their capacity for violence and deceit!

Furthermore, the human race needs CO2 to grow more plants, since thanks to human stewardship the amount of plant biomass is expected to increase tremendously as we irrigate the deserts and other areas with relatively little rainfall, farm seaweed, build multistory greenhouses and massive floating cornfields on seas and oceans, etc, etc, etc.  The one thing that Earth is good for is farming - all pollution-producing activities can eventually be moved to space!

Space is where solar energy begins to make actual economic sense, where raw materials (i.e. asteroids) are much easier to mine without much gravity getting in your way, where transporting those materials is cheaper with zero air resistance, where massive nuclear power plants and robotized factories can be built without putting any residential neighborhoods in danger, etc, etc, etc.  I bet that if free markets are just allowed to work then by the end of this century we'll actually have to import CO2 back to Earth just to fertilize our crops!

Factories will almost certainly be moved to space at some point, sooner if we manage a space elevator. The zero-gravity and no want of space for the factory floor, storage, etc. (also the possible lack of regulations ) will cut down significantly on costs.  Thats not even including the involvement of other planets/moons/asteroids. The freedom of movement in space can make machines more efficient, the environment of space is supposed to be good for developing medical technology, etc etc etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_manufacturing
http://www.panix.com/userdirs/kingdon/space/manuf.html

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Drudge Report headlines update:

• PAPER: The great global warming collapse...

• Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy; Half the country below sea level?

• India to 'pull out' of UN global warming panel; 'Cannot rely'...

Also:

• U.N. Climate Chief: Critics Should Rub Their Faces With Asbestos

• Utah Passes Resolution Against Global Warming  [VIDEO]

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BVm5-6H_sH4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BVm5-6H_sH4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Drudge Report headlines update:

• RFK, Jr. 15 months ago: Global warming means no snow or cold in DC...

• ICE AGE: WEST WING NEARLY BURIED IN SNOW...

• Cop Freaks Out Over Snowball Fight; Waves Gun...

• CLIMATE SCANDAL PROFESSOR: I THOUGHT OF KILLING MYSELF...

[AL the Inconspicuous]

• Blizzard Rearranges Announcement of Feds New Global Warming Office...

And, the Audi Super Bowl ad, in case you missed it:

[youtube=560,350]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ml54UuAoLSo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ml54UuAoLSo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

They'll of course spin it as being aimed at right-wingers, but it seems to me that the water temperature just went up by another degree and the froggies didn't notice...  I guess the next AWD Coupe I buy will have to be hand-built by agorists in New Hampshire... 

[AL the Inconspicuous]

From Fox News -- Harvard Hometown Plans Coercive Taxes, Veganism to Stop Climate 'Emergency' --

Congestion pricing to reduce car travel. Elimination of curbside parking. A carbon tax "of some kind," not to mention taxes on plastic and paper bags. Advocating vegetarianism and veganism, complete with "Meatless or Vegan Mondays." Those are just some of the proposals put forth by the Cambridge Climate Congress, an entity created in May 2009 to respond to the "climate emergency" plaguing the Massachusetts city.

Going green will not be optional in Cambridge, Mass., if the Cambridge Climate Congress has its way. It will be mandatory.

There will be congestion pricing to reduce car travel. Curbside parking will be eliminated. There will be a carbon tax "of some kind," not to mention taxes on plastic and paper bags. And the Massachusetts city, home of Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will advocate vegetarianism and veganism, complete with "Meatless or Vegan Mondays."

Those are just some of the proposals put forth by the Congress, which was created in May 2009 to respond to the "climate emergency" plaguing Cambridge. Once the Congress settles on its recommendations, they will submitted to the City Council.

"This emergency is created by the growth of local greenhouse gas emissions despite the urgent warnings of climate scientists that substantial reductions are needed in order to reduce the risk of disastrous changes to our climate," the Climate Congress reported in proposals issued on Jan. 23. "This proposal is made in the belief that an effective local response is, if anything, made more urgent by so far inadequate global agreements and federal policies for emissions reductions. It is made in the belief that our City should lead by example."

Click here to see the Climate Congress recommendations.  [PDF]

While the group's proposals remain a work in a progress, some experts say the potential measures it advocates are "heavy-handed" and incongruous. But others say the city just might be onto something, particularly if the taxes associated with the plan are used to make buildings and transportation more efficient.

Dr. Ken Green, a resident scholar on environment and energy at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington-based think tank, said he found an "overall redundancy" in the proposals, specifically regarding a carbon-based tax coupled with congestion pricing, increased parking meter rates and parking tickets.

"That's just a revenue-raiser for the city," said Green. "There's an overall incoherence of having a carbon tax and three or four indirect taxes."

To best reduce emissions in the near-term, Green suggested a revenue-neutral carbon tax, meaning that little -- if any -- of the funds raised would be retained by municipal government. The vast majority under such a plan would be returned to the public.

"It creates an incentive to become more energy efficient to either avoid the tax or keep as much of any rebate as possible," Green said. "But if they do the [carbon] tax, they should get rid of almost all of the other things. If the point is to put a price on carbon, pick one price, make it transparent and then get rid of the other regulations, which end up overpricing carbon. So if you had your carbon tax, you don't need your congestion pricing because people are already paying the tax in their gasoline."

Green also said the proposal to ban the production and distribution of plastic bags and bottled water in city limits is as "heavy-handed as government can get" and questioned Cambridge's proposal to institute disincentives for the purchase of non-regional food.

"Trying to grow something out of season in a greenhouse locally may produce more greenhouse gas emissions than having the same food shipped in from a place where it grows naturally," he said. "Studies do not come down uniformly on the side that local is better."

But Richard Rood, a professor of atmospheric, oceanic, and space sciences at the University of Michigan, praised Cambridge's proposal to create a "temperate zone" program, in which building are neither heated nor cooled during the fall and spring.

"That is a place where you might make a difference," said Rood, who writes a blog for Weather Underground.

He also praised the city's proposal to advocate vegetarianism and veganism.

"From a climate point of view, eating less meat would have a climate impact," said Rood, citing increased deforestation, methane production, fertilizer use and greenhouse gases associated with maintaining that land. "Eating less meat is for the environment in many ways.

Regarding the possibility of a carbon tax, Rood, who supports such a move on a national level, said the impact on a city level would be "fairly small." The real positive effect, he said, would be if the plan caught on in other cities if successful.

"In general, if you look at how policy develops, it often starts on regional and local scales and then advances forward," he said. "Cambridge is full of really smart people, so you know, it has the potential."

It still remains to be seen, however, how these proposals will be received by Cambridge residents. Cambridge City Councilor Sam Seidel, who spoke to FoxNews.com after riding his bicycle to his office, said that remains the key unanswered question.

"The challenge in broadest terms is to figure out what makes sense, what doable, but all of that in the context of how much ground we have to cover," he said. "We have to be realistic on what we're going to be able to accomplish."

Seidel said the Climate Congress will next meet on March 6, at which point the next steps regarding the 20-page proposal will be decided. Any success in slashing greenhouse gas emissions will hinge on individual efforts, he said.

"It's my own view that while governmental action is going to be an important part of any successes we're going to have, individual citizens are also going to have to take individual ownership and responsibility for their own actions," he said. "It's only by working together that we're going to see the necessary reductions that climate scientists have been calling for."

Asked if the proposal amounted to a series of taxes, Seidel said, "The goal of truly, accurately evaluating the cost of our decisions is an important part of greenhouse gas emissions reductions, it's really pointing out to people what their choices imply."