Phelim McAleer is a journalist. In his capacity as a journalist, he is a skeptic. The role of skeptic – the one who asks the questions, the one who demands answers – is generally a lauded role in modern society. At least .. as long as there’s a Republican on the hot seat. But in climate circles, they have another word, a pejorative term, for skeptics: deniers. The church of global warming has no tolerance for heresy, and even less for probing questions or investigations. And so it is that the journalist Phelim McAleer was denied press credentials for the UN Climate Change Conference taking place in sunny Cancun, Mexico this week. (Certainly a better PR choice than frigid Copenhagen.) (more…)
Archive for November, 2010
Source: Canadian Free Press
By Joseph A Olson
Suzanne Goldenberg, Guardian Newspaper
In the case of Climatology, you must be critical in order to be correct. With the notable exception of the Dr Josef Mengele School of Medicine, there has been no greater failure of science in all of history than the global warming fraud. And Mengele may be given more credit than he deserves.
Even the worst of us can serve as bad examples. Parents might want to use Arnold as proof that a decade of pumping both iron and steroids will atrophy your brain. And a note to the political puppetmasters, it is bad typecasting to place an action figure in a non-fiction environment. (more…)
by Dennis Ambler
James Delingpole has an article posted on Climate Realist, which was also carried by the UK Daily Express, until they were challenged by the University of East Anglia. This the message you now get:
“ARTICLE MISSING: The article you are looking for does not exist. It may have been deleted.”
He was discussing the impact of the released CRU e-mails one year on and had the temerity to criticise the scientists involved and their institution.
James Delingpole: The Public is now so sceptical about global warming.
“In bare detail, Climategate sounds quite dull: the leak, on to the internet, of a large number of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
But the contents of those emails were dynamite. What they showed was that the scientists at the very heart of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) –supposedly the world’s “gold standard” of climate change science – were mired in such incompetence, skulduggery and deceit that you couldn’t trust a word they said. (more…)
Source: Wash Times
By Robert Carter and Paul Driessen
Solution to climate change is planning, not spending
Bjorn Lomborg is avidly courting publicity for his new film, “Cool It.” He correctly observes that public discussion about global warming is largely between two entrenched camps of opinion. He’s also right about our needing a “Plan B” climate policy that defuses the current rancorous and unproductive debate about “the man-made climate problem.”
Mr. Lomborg‘s first camp is inhabited by warming alarmists, supported by the majesty of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Most major institutions in Western society have joined their funereal fugue (and funding pipeline) in supportive chorus.
In the other camp, empiricists (including a majority of independent scientists) argue implacably that we still await actual, factual evidence that our planet is still warming at all – let alone dangerously, let alone because of human carbon dioxide emissions.
Source: Rasmussen Report
Voters are clearly dubious about the size and scope of today’s federal government.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 39% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the federal government currently operates within the limits established by the Constitution of the United States.
Forty-four percent (44%) disagree and say it is not functioning within those limits, while another 17% aren’t sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Earlier surveys have shown that just one-in-five voters believe that the government today has the consent of the governed. Forty-eight percent (48%) see the government as a threat to individual rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are formed to protect certain inalienable rights. (more…)
Source: S&A Digest
On global warming, we do have a position. It is the uber-bunk of our time, the big lie that’s too popular for politicians to ignore. Ironically, today’s big lie is the exact opposite of the last big lie, which was spawned by Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb, a best-selling book of the early 1970s. Ehrlich, a professor at Stanford University, predicted the world’s population would grow too rapidly to be supported by farming, resulting in a mass famine. Ehrlich wrote that in 10 years England would cease to exist because everyone there would starve to death. Part of the drama was the risk of global cooling. (more…)
Source: American Thinker
by Robert Ferguson
The effort to discredit global warming skeptics is warming up globally. Australian blogger Graham Readfearn reports on Naomi Oreskes’ speaking tour of Australia:
As a celebrated historian, Professor Naomi Oreskes is interested in the origin of things – where ideas start from, what drives them and ultimately who propagates them.
Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, has just arrived in Australia on a whistle-stop speaking tour promoting her new book, co-authored with Erik Conway, titled Merchants of Doubt – How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming.
The book, five years in the writing, ultimately concludes that much of the world’s scepticism on climate change – whether that be over the validity or certainty of the science of climate change, its causes or the need to act – is chiefly driven by a paranoid ideological fear of socialism and an unbending faith and belief in free-markets.
Put simply, free-market think-tanks such as the George C Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute, The Science and Public Policy Institute and the Why-Can’t-You-Just-Leave-us-Alone-While-We-Make-Oodles-of-Cash Institute (not a real institute) don’t like industry to have to be held accountable.
Oreskes spoke to the ABC’s Lateline program on this brand of scepticism which also drove shoulder-shrugs over acid rain, tobacco smoke and ozone depletion.
Says Oreskes, “It’s part of this whole ideological program of challenging any science that could lead to government regulation, because it’s part of an ideological conviction that all regulation is bad, that any time the government steps in to ‘protect’ us from harm, that we’re on the slippery slope to socialism, and this the ideology that you see underlying a kind of almost paranoid anti-communism. So even after the Cold War is over, these people are seeing reds under the bed.”
Has Oreskes’ snarky book indulged what Freud called “projection”? It is certainly demonstrable that her book’s “carbon footprint” and “greed” slams on skeptics are so filled with hypocrisy they “stink on ice.”
But this has to be the topper:
The book, five years in the writing, ultimately concludes that much of the world’s scepticism on climate change – whether that be over the validity or certainty of the science of climate change, its causes or the need to act – is chiefly driven by a paranoid ideological fear of socialism[.]
by Joanne Nova
The Australian published Bjorn Lomborg: A Rational Take On Warming last week.
It was self-contradictory, baseless name-calling from a formerly sensible writer.
The only rational response to climate change is to use empirical, observable evidence. Rational people can point to results from 28 million radiosondes, 6000 boreholes, 30 years of satellites, 3000 ARGO ocean diving thermometers, raw data from thousands of surface thermometers, as well 800 peer reviewed references which include studies of corals, caves, pollen grains, ocean floor sediments, ice cores, and diatoms.
Lomborg is happy to call these people names, but irrationally doesn’t appear to have read their arguments. His method of quoting scientific studies, which was so successful on other topics, has come unstuck on climate science. He doesn’t realize that the US government poured $79 billion dollars into demonstrating one theory, but next to nothing to research, audit, or question that theory. He’s been tripped up by the skewing effect of monopolistic funding.
Far from being rational or scientific, he accepts the opinions of the Scientific Gods at the IPCC, and ignores the empirical evidence. It’s a step back to the stone age. In a rational world — when the evidence disagrees with the opinions — scientists toss out the fake Gods and go with the data. (more…)
by Dennis Ambler
It is interesting that the global warming industry often likens people who question the warming agenda to those who challenge the black and white, cause and effect view of tobacco and cancer and the junk science often used by the anti-tobacco zealots. (I am not denying that smoking can cause cancer but obviously everyone who smokes does not get cancer, otherwise smoking would be a self eliminating activity. Disclaimer: I have never smoked and hate the smell of stale tobacco, but I do not deny the rights of smokers to enjoy their own choice of recreation)
The UN are now applying the tactics of global warming to the rights of people over the globe to enjoy their own pleasures. Here are some familiar phrases:
- “delegates failed to reach consensus “
- “they were still working toward the treaty’s long-held goal”
- “Delegates were still struggling to find language…….on which they could agree before a final session
- “We are not there yet and time is running out. But I am optimistic,”
- “Philip Morris and the tobacco growers’ lobby say identifying and restricting additives would cost millions of jobs and harm emerging economies around the world.”
- Public health officials countered that tobacco producers can switch to other crops, (alternative fuels?) and said millions of lives could be saved by reducing smoking.
Of course the WHO is yet another arm of the UN, with its own army of bureaucrats intent on global control: (more…)
by Dennis Ambler
Myles Allen is at it again… this nonsense produced a temperature range of 2-11 deg C last time. Now he’s trying to predict extreme weather and attribute it to AGW. He’s the one who “proved” the 2003 European heatwave was caused by anthropogenic CO2.
Don’t put your PC on stand-by, run it full blast, 24 hours a day and save the planet!
The Guardian reports that “From today, anyone with a computer and internet access can be part of a huge, pioneering climate change experiment, probing the controversial question of whether extreme weather events will become more or less common as the world warms.
By running advanced climate models while their PCs are idle, participants will estimate how often heatwaves, floods and hurricanes will strike in the next few decades. The initiative will also indicate how much of the blame for these events can be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans.
The weatherathome.net project breaks new ground for the world’s biggest climate forecasting experiment, climateprediction.net, which has run nearly 92m years of climate modelling since September 2003, and delivered world-leading research published in journals such as Nature and used in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s landmark 2007 report.
The key to the new project is its use for the first time of regional climate models, which can create realistic weather predictions, showing temperature, winds, rain and snow.
The global climate models divide the world into 150km squares, whereas the regional models use 50km or 25km squares.”
I have a comment in there as “cardigan”, based on my SPPI paper from September http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/extreme_weather_extreme_claims.html
My comment was #16. Whether it will stay or be removed is another matter. [It has been removed] (more…)
Source: UK Telegraph
by Christopher Booker
Nothing more poignantly reflects the collapse of the great global warming scare than the decision of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, the largest in the world, to stop trading in “carbon” – buying and selling the right of businesses to continue emitting CO2.
A few years back, when the climate scare was still at its height, and it seemed the world might agree the Copenhagen Treaty and the US Congress might pass a “cap and trade” bill, it was claimed that the Chicago Exchange would be at the centre of a global market worth $10 trillion a year, and that “carbon” would be among the most valuable commodities on earth, worth more per ton than most metals. Today, after the collapse of Copenhagen and the cap and trade bill, the carbon price, at five cents a ton, is as low as it can get without being worthless.
Here in Britain, as the first snows fall, heralding what may be our fourth cold winter in a row, it is time we addressed one of the most glaring political “disconnects” in our sadly misgoverned country.
Next Friday is the first anniversary of the leaking of the “Climategate” emails – the correspondence of a small group of scientists at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). By exposing their manipulation of data and suppression of dissent, these called their reputation as disinterested scientists seriously into question. But that was only the first in a series of events that, in the past year, saw the climate scare going off the rails. (more…)
by Dennis Ambler
Interesting piece from Delingpole, especially his end paragraph.
For people like Hulme, the science of “Climate Change” is a means to an end – and that end is advancing the goals of the liberal Left through ever more involved and constrictive policy-making.
Translate Hulme’s speech from academese into plain English and what it actually means is something like this: “All right. You rumbled us on Climate Change. But that’s OK. There’s always ocean acidification. And biodiversity. And whatever urgent crisis we dream up next…”
Like the Bourbons, the watermelons of the global green movement have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from Climategate. For them, AGW has never been about science or objective truth. It has always been just a pretext.
This week marks the anniversary of Climategate but even though I helped break and name the story I’m certainly not celebrating. That’s because, despite the marked shift it effected in public opinion, its effect on public policy-making has been close to zilch.
For chapter and verse on the horrifying disjunct between what all sane, informed people know about “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (ie, it’s a crock) and what our governments are doing in response (ie, “Nyah nyah. Not listening. We’re going to go ahead with our crazy tax, regulation and wind farm schemes anyway”) I refer you to this superb summary by M’Learned Friend Booker. (more…)
by Paul Driessen
What am I missing? There must be some aspect of our insane energy policies that I fail to appreciate.
“We the People” just booted a boatload of spendthrifts out of Congress, after they helped engineer a $1.3 trillion deficit on America’s FY-2010 budget and balloon our cumulative national debt to $13.7 trillion.
The “bipartisan White House deficit reduction panel” chimed in with a 50-page draft proposal, offering suggestions for $3.8 trillion in future budgetary savings. The proposal targets $100 billion in Defense Department weapons programs, healthcare benefits and overseas bases. It also proposes a $13-billion cutback in the federal workforce and lining out $400 million in unnecessary printing costs. And yet, amazingly, not even this independent commission was willing to eliminate the $6-billion sacred cow of annual ethanol subsidies. The current 45-cents-per-gallon tax credit for blending ethanol into gasoline automatically expires December 31, as does the 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. So all senators and congressmen need to do is nothing, and beleaguered taxpayers will save six billion bucks. (more…)
Road to Nowhere: Lomborg’s $250 Billion Throw for Renewables a Step Back for the ‘Skeptical Environmentalist’Saturday, November 13th, 2010
Source: The Master Resource
by Jon Boone
At a time when energy realists need to take the high ground, corporations are bringing us low. Some of this is old fashioned rent-seeking; some greenwashing; and some just political correctness (as if California was the world).
For weeks, Siemens has been running full-page ads for wind technology. Last week Chevron and Weyerhauser, in full-page ads, agree “IT’S TIME OIL COMPANIES GET BEHIND THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY.”
The same slush is coming from GE, AES, BP, Shell, NRG, and a legion of corporations whose fundamental commodity is fossil fuel.
Do these multinationals really believe that wind and solar will put a dent in their fossil fuel market share? Or is something else afoot? One should note that nowhere does this renewable ballyhoo from today’s energy goliaths mention a word about saving the world from the devastation of climate change wrought by the consequences of fossil fuel use, although this was the tack Ken Lay took to steer Enron’s aggressive renewables course. (more…)