Global warming is in the news once more. Following more calls to change the way we live, to protect the earths resources * and don't get me wrong, I am all for recycling and not wasting as much as we do as a country, but its wrong to make me pay more for doing the right thing, but thats another post for another day * but it seems that until there can be a definitive answer to the questions and scientific data that is being quoted then who do we believe ? And how much more is it going to cost us to come to the conclusion that no one really knows what is actually happening ?

Global Warming Teach-In

Global warming is not a crisis, but it may be creating a crisis of intellectual integrity.

By Jane S. Shaw

March 02, 2009

Last month, college campuses held a “National Teach-in on Global Warming Solutions.” The thrust of the message was that there is a crisis because global temperatures are rising, endangering the world’s future, and humans are to blame.

I agree that there may be a crisis, but I don’t believe that it is a crisis of impending heat; it is, rather, a crisis of intellectual integrity.

First, let me point out something that most people may not realize. Since 1998, there has been no trend in world temperatures, neither up nor down, in spite of population growth, greater resource use, and lots of carbon dioxide production. True, 1998, was the warmest year on record, and we are still in a warm period, but world temperatures are no higher than when today’s college seniors began middle school. The likelihood of the catastrophic effects that gave Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize is weak.

Read more...

Climate models falling outside acceptable scientific boundaries

It seems there is no end to the He said /She said arguments that surround the Global Warming debate, on the one side are those who say we are heading for a man made crisis and it will cost trillions to even try to find a solution and on the other side there are those who say it is Mother Natures doing what she has done since the beginning of time and it is not man made and the research daa being spouted by the media is flawed, so who do we believe ? Where do we get the true facts ? And how much is it going to cost to get those facts ? Interesting article to read and think about

Last month former vice president Al Gore made a well publicized appearance before a Senate committee warning of the dangers of global warming. Lesser known is the appearance of a climatologist before a House subcommittee two weeks later that called into question the models on which anthropogenic [manmade] global warming advocates use to base their assertions on.

http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-Weather-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Climate-models-falling-outside-acceptable-scientific-boundaries

Read more...

Seems Consensus Is Waning

What is the truth, the REAL truth about global warming ? Why is it costing billions to research something that no one can agree on ? And if it is really that much of a problem, in tht it will destroy the whole planet, then why is there no joining of all the forces together, ie the scientists, the enviromentalist etc to work together to try to determine what is needed to be done, and another thing, why are the worlds leaders not pooling their funds together, what is the point of the US researching something that the UK are as well, and why are only these two countries the only ones concerned ? Is it because we are spendthrifts and love to give money to any one and everyone ?

Disinformation is something that I really despise. After looking into the manmade global warming hysteria over the last few months, I am now convinced that this is a movement based upon fabrications. The entire consensus that Al Gore and his cronies tout is totally bogus. It is time that the truth be revealed.

It appears that there will be a gathering this week of credible people who carry a viewpoint that the argument over manmade global warming is not over. These individuals believe the evidence provided to prove "man's destruction of the Earth" is not credible. I tend to follow their reasoning.


http://therevolutionagain.blogspot.com/2009/03/seems-consensus-is-waning.html

Read more...

Global Humor

This might not be in the best taste, but some of these are actually funny, and they all show how the idea od global warming and climate change is something that has NOT been proved, this could end up to be one of the most expensive single research project of the centuary, and the worst thing ....... no matter if you believe in global warming or not, there is not a thing you can do about it.


Here's good news: George W. Bush says that he is committed to fighting global warming. Yeah, well, he nipped that in the bud, didn't he? ... President Bush says he's really going to buckle down now and fight global warming. As a matter of fact, he announced today he's sending 20,000 troops to the sun" --David Letterman

"According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet." --Jay Leno

"The report on climate change said that humans are very likely making the planet warmer. To which Hillary Clinton said, 'Hey, can't blame me for that one.'" --Jay Leno

"President Bush has a plan. He says that if we need to, we can lower the temperature dramatically just by switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius" --Jimmy Kimmel, on fighting global warming

"Scientists say because of global warming they expect the world's oceans to rise four and a half feet. The scientists say this can mean only one thing: Gary Coleman is going to drown." --Conan O'Brien

"Some good news. Finally, President Bush is going to do something about global warming. He became alarmed when another chunk of ice fell off his mother." --David Letterman

"Has anybody seen the Al Gore movie about global warming and the environment? Well, the Bush administration has seen it and they are very annoyed about the whole thing. As a matter of fact, earlier today, Dick Cheney shot a projectionist. ... One very dramatic scene in the Al Gore global warming movie is when a glacier melts and they find more Al Gore ballots from the election." --David Letterman

"President Bush told reporters he won't see Al Gore's documentary about the threat of global warming. He will not see it. On the other hand, Dick Cheney said he's seen the global warming film five times, and it still cracks him up." --Conan O'Brien

"According to a survey in this week's Time magazine, 85% of Americans think global warming is happening. The other 15% work for the White House." --Jay Leno

"Al Gore has a hit movie called 'An Inconvenient Truth.' I have an inconvenient truth for him: you're still not the president. ... This past weekend, Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' earned more per screen than any film in the country. ... I dare say Gore's movie is the highest grossing PowerPoint presentation in history. ... Global warming: Can we live with it? ... It is time we did something, namely resign ourselves to doing nothing [on screen: Follow Congress' Lead]. ... For instance, when sea levels rise, we'll just build levees [on screen: Worked for New Orleans]" --Stephen Colbert

"Experts say this global warming is serious, and they are predicting now that by the year 2050, we will be out of party ice." --David Letterman

"Former Vice President Al Gore starring in a new documentary about global warming. I believe it's called [Leno snores]. ... The film actually features Al Gore and explores his journey on how he first got interested in temperature change. It started back when he was vice president. He noticed how the temperature would change, like whenever Bill would walk into the room, it would get warm and whenever Hillary walked into the room, it got cold." --Jay Leno

"President Bush said global warming is happening much quicker than he thought, and then his staff pulled him aside and said 'It's just springtime.'" --Jay Leno

"Arnold Schwarzenegger is blaming man for global warming. And today, Al Gore agreed with him. That's so typical. Two cyborgs, 'Oh, let's blame the humans.'" --Jay Leno

"Al Gore is coming out with a movie about global warming called 'An Inconvenient Truth.' It's described as a detailed scientific view of global warming. President Bush said he just saw a film about global warming, 'Ice Age 2; The Meltdown.' He said, 'It's so much better than that boring Al Gore movie.'" --Jay Leno

"Don't kid yourself. Global warming is no joke. Here's how serious global warming has gotten to be in the United States. In this country global warming is so bad, we are now actually starting to warm up to Barry Bonds." --David Letterman

"According to Time magazine, global warming is 33% worse than we thought. You know what that means? Al Gore is one-third more annoying than we thought." --Jay Leno

"They say if the warming trend continues, by 2015 Hillary Clinton might actually thaw out." --Jay Leno, on global warming

"Al Gore announced he is finishing up a new book about global warming and the environment. Yeah, the first chapter talks about how you shouldn't chop down trees to make a book that no one will read." --Conan O'Brien

"We estimate that there are perhaps 20,000 prehistoric hunter-gatherers frozen up in those glaciers. Now, if they simply thaw and wander around, it's not a problem, but if they find a leader -- a Captain Caveman, if you will -- we'll be facing an even more serious problem." --Daily Show correspondent John Hodgman, on the dangers of global warming

"At a press conference yesterday NASA announced that 2005 was the hottest year on record. It is so hot, and global warming is so bad, if the presidential election were held today, Al Gore would still lose." --Jay Leno

"Heating bills this winter are the highest they've been in five years, but President Bush has a plan to combat rising bills. It's called global warming." --Jay Leno

Read more...

The History of Man-Made Global Warming

Many sensible people are understanding that global warming is a myth. With each record setting temperature drop, we are seeing this movement for exactly what it is: a quest for funding in an effort to promote "one government". I am not going to argue that case at this moment. However, here is an excellent article outlining the history of the global warming movement. Read this to find where Al Gore got his start.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

By the way, John Coleman is one of the main founders in the Weather Channel.

Read more...

Irony for Gore

Al Gore is scheduled in front of John Kerry's committee in the Senate on Wednesday in Washington, DC. The irony of the situation is that there is a winter storm watch for the DC area with snow and possible ice accumulation. (see here)

Of course, the global warming alarmists say that the extreme winter we are experiencing is due to man-made global warming. Well, a couple more years of climate like this and we will uncover this hoax for what it is.

Next up, the search for Santa Claus.

Read more...

Global Warming Well

Read more...

Global Warming: Political Cause

The only consensus with the Global Warming debate is that the science seems to have left the house. This issue is now a matter of politics as opposed to a forum for scientific debate. Recently, I came across an article that verified my suspicions about this subject.

James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is a long time proponent of man-made global warming. He was one of the first scientists to appear before Congress, doing so in 1988. At that time, he alerted them of the dire nature of the impending warming. He was basing his conclusions on the 10 year swing from the late 70s towards a warming. Remember, we experienced a cooling trend from the mid 1940's through up until that time. His analysis was certainly heard by a sitting Senator, Al Gore.

Hansen's credentials would make you believe he is someone to listen to. He has a high powered position (warning sign #1) with the government that allows his access to all the latest data collection devices known to man. However, we find that his conclusions are marred by his associations. In the past I wrote that it is not in the American Cancer Institute's best interest to cure cancer. Well, it is not in Hansen's interest to correctly analyze the data. This article sums up what many have long believed.

I find the easiest way to get to the truth is to follow the money. This usually reveals which "side someone's bread is buttered on". For Hansen, it is a liberal agenda that is pushing his results. How is that so? Because they are the ones lining his pockets with millions of dollars. To me, this proves a lack of neutrality in this matter.

Notice who his supporters are: George Soros who provided him with $720,000 for legal and marketing advice; Teresa Heinz Kerry, with of noted liberal John Kerry, who's foundation awarded Hansen $250,00 and let him split a $1 million prize. Right there is a cool (not warm) $1.5 million to this one individual. Do you think he is going to give up this gravy train by asserting that the data now says something different? Obviously not.

One of the major arguments that man-made global warming advocates levy against those who claim proof dispelling this idea is that their conclusions are biased based upon funding. We often hear how the oil companies are paying for these "scientific" studies the same way the tobacco industry paid for studies concluding that smoking was not hazardous to one's health.

This seems like a valid argument. However, further research reveals that ExxonMobil paid $18 million in climate change studies over a period covering 1997-2996. That averages out to under $2 million spent per year to all those doing research. Yet, Hansen received almost that same amount from 3 sources. Obviously, if the research is flawed by those who are funded by the oil companies, then Hansen's conclusions are fabrications also since he is paid by liberal organizations seeking to promote their agenda. This is just one more instance where the American people are being misled by individuals in the government.

Therefore, the next time you hear someone spewing their nonsense about the consensus on man-made global warming, remember the flaw in their argument. And, bet the ranch that they will point to some data put out by GISS. We can now say this facet of the government is an arm for the George Soros political machine.

Read more...

Global Warming-The Pacific Might Disagree

My investigation into this interesting topic is revealing how misled we are by those in power. I find it ironic that when one begins to study a particular topic, it seems information (or disinformation) is presented at every turn. This is no exception. I just saw a show on the history channel which goes contrary to much of what is being presented of late. While I will admit not knowing how old the program was, it certainly follows the argument that there is "consensus" over the global warming debate. My research is showing me this is far from true. If anything, the debate is only heating up.

We all remember from our high school science days that the oceans have a lot to do with the weather we experience. These bodies of water cover 75% of the Earth's surface. They have the ability to create, destroy, spawn tornadoes, and have an effect on hurricanes. What I learned is they also release and capture enormous amounts of carbon dioxide. To say that it is an important component in the climate we experience is an understatement.

Recently, Don Easterbrook, professor at Western Washington University, stated that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode, virtually ensuring us of 20-30 years of global cooling. This announcement was made by NASA and is right on schedule with past PDO changes. In addition, this is not an oddity that masks the global warming trend. (read the full article and get the links here)

So, what the heck does this all mean? And how come this announcement was not all over the front page of the major publications? You would think that a shift in climate, considering all the attention it received, would be big news. Yet, nobody is reporting this. Why not?

This tells me we have moved beyond a question of science to one that is now political. Nevertheless, as shown by the NASA research, the largest body of water is now in a cooling mode. I would say this would have a major impact on the climate.

Regardless, there is historical evidence that the PDO establishes the pattern of warming and cooling of the planet. The first part of last century saw a warming until the mid 40s which coincided with a warming of the Pacific. Then, it switched to cool and ended around the time of the Newsweek cover titled "Global Cooling". And, since that time, we were in a warming period until the end of the last century. Again, it should be no surprise that we saw a leveling of the temperature since 1998 with a decrease in the last 2 years.

According to Professor Easterbrook, we will see this trend continue until the middle of this century. This is in opposition to all the global warming theories that exist. Al Gore tells us the consensus is in. Perhaps he ought to check with the Pacific first. It seems that one is going astray.

Read more...

How is this so Al Gore?

Where is Al Gore to answer this for us? He is the self-appointed global warming expert and now it seems one of the foundations for that argument is fanishing. The alarmists like to point to the disappearing sea ice as proof that global warming is occurring. Oops. Evidently, nature did not follow the argument deciding to increase the sea ice this year. In fact, it is now at the same level it was in 1979.

This all leads me to believe that we are once again being lied to by those in power. Al Gore, ex of the Senate and the Clinton administration, excelled as a politician. Therefore, he is a professional liar. To compound the issue, my research tells me that he pocketed at least $100 million off this hoax. Obviously, he has incentive to keep it going.

Satellite studies show that the recent expansion during the last quarter of 2008 in the sea ice left it at a comparable level to the end of 1979. (read here for full article). According to the story, sea ice is a better indicator of the warming/cooling trend than the anchored ice sheets since it is transient, thus responds faster to change. Therefore, since the ice grew, this reflects a cooling. That is contrary to Al Gore and his cronies.

Of course, we will hear them proclaim that this is all part of it. Over the last few weeks, I really have studied all I could about this issue. While not being a scientist, I read the works of more than I can recall. At first glance there looks like equally qualified people on both sides of the issues. This statement is in direct contrast to those who support global warming. They claim there is "consensus" among all scientists. Common sense dictates this is a false claim since it is impossible to get more than 5 people to agree what type of coffee pot to buy. Consensus does not exist.

So, why are we being lied to? One word: MONEY. Global warming research is a profitable business. Trillions of dollars were spent on research, funding, and other activities to promote this concept. Sadly, from what I can tell, the science does not back up the hypothesis. Man has nothing to do with global warming.

Getting back to the article, I do find the last line interesting:

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.

Here is another example where the government leaders decided to take the will into their hands over the wishes of the experts. I wonder who the people would believe: corrupt politicians or experts on polar bears. Certainly the Senators from Georgia and Florida know what is happening with the polar bear population. Perhaps it is time to delist the polar bears since the sea ice is expanding. Their home is now safe.

What do you say Al Gore?

Read more...

Global Warming Debate Over?

We all heard Al Gore spews his garbage about the science regarding man-made global warming being "beyond consensus". To him, the science is clear. The only question I have is "who are these scientists that Al Gore is talking to?". It seems that his surveys were conducted with politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and old hippies. The true "scientists" are having a dispute about the validity of the global warming theory.

Christopher Booker writes in the Telegraph that 2008 witnessed the end of the debate over this subject (here). It seems that the true science is revealing that the Earth entered a cooling period. The absurd claims that the "alarmists" made regarding global warming simply are incorrect. This became a political issue more than a scientific issue of the past few decades. Science shows that the planet naturally goes through cycles and this time period is no different.

We saw no climate change from 1997-2007 when we witnessed a cooling period. This erased any gains in planetary temperature since the end of the 1800s (about 7 degree C). The planet is now the same as it was 110 years ago. At the same time, the polar ice caps recouped most of the mass lost during the warming period of the last 30 years. Since 2006, a mass the size of Texas was added to these sensational sights. Finally, the Pacific Ocean has now entered it cooling phase which oceanologists have shown to trend in 25-30 year time frames. It just so happens that we are ending a warming phase that started in the mid 1970s.

So where does this leave us? We are stuck with a President and political leaders who are 100% behind this myth. They are ready to commit billions to fighting something that does not exist. In fact, the trend is the opposite direction. People are starving and Obama wants to put a "cap and trade" on everything. What a jackass!!! The politics continue to screw the American people who are stuck footing the bill for this.

Money is driving this entire venture. In the next year, the UN will spend over $40 billion on global warming related programs and research. This means a lot of people are being funded by this farce. Do you think they are going to disprove something that provides their paycheck? Not likely. Have you ever wondered why the American Cancer Society never cured cancer despite millions of dollars spent on research? Because it is not in their best interest.

We are going to see the same garbage out of the global alarmist that we witnessed the last few years. Al Gore will stand up and tell us how wrong we are to use regular light bulbs while he flies around on a private jet. Our government, and those around the world, are going to spend billions in an exercise that amounts to trying to "prove Santa Clause". However, we will see more science revealing exactly how inaccurate the alarmists are.

The only thing I can say is to bring a sweater: the next few decades are going to get colder.

Read more...

Tobacco Like Hoax

In my last post, I opened up the can of worms about the global warming debate (yes contrary to what you heard there is still a debate). Therefore, I will go on this tangent a while and give the Federal government a break for a while. Rest easy, I will hammer them if anything important arises. In the meantime, this subject will go nicely with Christmas.

I came across this article which talked about the money ExxonMobil paid to fund research to study Global Cooling. The idea is that there is a tobacco-like campaign of disinformation put forth by the oil companies to discredit the science showing the merits of man-made global warming. Simply, the accusation is that ExxonMobil is paying for it's "scientists" to research a predetermined conclusion. The tobacco companies pulled this stunt for decades with false reports of "scientific study" which proved that smoking was not bad for your health. Of course, this is untrue.

So, according to the accusations, the oil companies are pulling the same stunt. Or are they? On the surface this argument makes sense. However, further insight reveals that perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye.

Here is an article with a link to the report:

http://ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

This is the part of that article that struck me as odd.

"According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

Does this make sense to anyone else? According to the accusations, the revelation of man-made global warming as a result of emissions of carbon dioxide is attacking the lifeline of the oil companies. With this knowledge, legislature needs to follow which will create more friendly alternatives to the planet. This means that these companies are literally fighting for their survival.

This is where the argument goes awry: don't you think that if a company was faced with it's extinction, it would throw all resources at it. I mean, wouldn't you commit all your earnings for a year to save the company and ensure future operations? Most would do that. However, ExxonMobil committed $16 million over 8 years (an average of $2 million a year). This sounds like a lot until you consider their profit last quarter was over $10 billion. Not exactly the type of numbers you would expect for a company facing its demise.

Now that we know what this oil company spent, I wanted to learn what the global warming proponents got. It seems that the US government's annual budget for global warming research is $45 billion. That is a large difference when compared to the money spent by ExxonMobil. Seems to me that a lot more people are supported by the presence of global warming than the other side. Maybe it pays better to go along with this idea.

What is interesting is that I write this while the Northeast is getting hammered with a tremendous snow storm. We saw snow in Malibu and Las Vegas yesterday. Research showed that 2007 was the coldest in the last 120 years and this year might surpass it. The article I just referenced was written in January 2007. It appears that Dr. McCarthy was right that the facts would prevail. Two years later, warming is not on everyone's mind. And, ExxonMobil is not in the fight for their lives based upon the research money they spent.

Read more...