ChristiansUnite Forums

Global Warming Is The Reason For Everything!!


Roy Spencer at TCS Daily, writes of the absence of Atlantic hurrincanes this year:

    Yet, now at mid-August, we have had only three named tropical storms, compared to nine by this date last year. Normally, we would have had one hurricane by now, and we have not had any so far, so by that measure we are actually below normal.

Roy Spencer is not aware that the “below normal” hurricane activity is the result of global warming caused by man and this will cause a crisis of epic proportions.

He goes on to discuss the reason why:

    Hurricanes require warm sea surface temperatures (SSTs), and last year the tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures were running well above normal. Global warming was the explanation given by most ‘experts’ the media interviewed.

Again, the sea surface temperatures were running “well above normal” last year because of global warming caused by man and that caused a crisis of epic proportions.

What is going on right now?

    But now those same regions that had anomalously warm SSTs last year are — gasp! — near normal.

Again, Roy Spencer is clearly not aware that the sea surface temperatures are “near normal” because of global warming caused by man and that is causing a crisis of epic proportions.

Britain hires Gore to advise on 'global warming' 
Report: Climate change will devastate economy on scale of world wars, Depression

 Unchecked global warming will devastate the world economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression, a British government report said Monday, as the country launched a bid to convince doubters that environmentalism and economic growth can coincide.

Britain hired former Vice President Al Gore, who has emerged as a powerful environmental spokesman since his defeat in the 2000 presidential election, to advise the government on climate change _ a clear indication of Prime Minister Tony Blair's dissatisfaction with current U.S. policy.

 Blair, President Bush's top ally in the Iraq war, said unabated climate change would eventually cost the world between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product each year. He called for "bold and decisive action" to cut carbon emissions and stem the worst of the temperature rise.

"It is not in doubt that, if the science is right, the consequences for our planet are literally disastrous," he said. "This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime."

The report emphasized that global warming can only be fought with the cooperation of major countries such as the United States and China, and represents a huge contrast to the Bush administration's wait-and- see global warming policies.

Sir Nicholas Stern, the senior government economist who wrote the report, said that acting now to cut greenhouse gas emissions would cost about 1 percent of global GDP each year. He recommended a "low- carbon global economy" through measures including taxation, regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon trading.

"That is manageable," he said. "We can grow and be green."

Bush kept America _ by far the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming _ out of the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, saying the pact would harm the U.S. economy. The international agreement was reached in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 and expires in 2012.

Blair made his displeasure with U.S. environmental policy clear when he signed an agreement this year with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to develop new technologies to combat the problem. The measure imposed the first emissions cap in the United States on utilities, refineries and manufacturing plants in a bid to curb the gases that scientists blame for warming the Earth.

The prime minister and the report also said that no matter what Britain, the United States and Japan do, the battle against global warming cannot succeed without deciding when and how to control the greenhouse gas emissions by such fast-industrializing giants as China and India.

Stern's 700-page report said evidence showed "that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth."

"Our actions over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century," he said.

The report said at current trends average global temperatures will rise by 3.6 to 5.4 degrees within the next 50 years or so, and the earth will experience several degrees more of warming if emissions continue to grow.

It said such warming could have effects such as melting glaciers, rising sea levels, declining crop yields, drinking water shortages, higher death tolls from malnutrition and heat stress, and widespread outbreaks of malaria and dengue fever. Developing countries often would be the hardest hit.

The report acknowledged that its predictions regarding GDP relied on sparse data about high temperatures and developing countries, and placed monetary values on human health and the environment, "which is conceptually, ethically and empirically very difficult."

Treasury Chief Gordon Brown, who is expected to replace Blair as prime minister next year, said Britain would lead the international effort against climate change, establishing "an economy that is both pro- growth and pro-green." He called for Europe to cut its carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2020 and 60 percent by 2050 _ and Blair's government on Monday said it would propose a British law to that effect.

Under the 1997 Kyoto accord, 35 industrialized nations committed to reducing emissions by an average 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

But Britain is one of only a handful of industrialized nations whose greenhouse gas emissions have fallen in the last decade and a half, the United Nations said Monday.

The U.N. said Germany's emissions dropped 17 percent between 1990 and Britain's by 14 percent and France's by almost 1 percent.

Overall, there was a 2.4 percent rise in emissions by 41 industrialized nations from 2000 to 2004, mostly because former Soviet-bloc countries, whose emissions declined in their economic downturn of the 1990s, increased emissions during the recent four-year period by 4.1 percent.

The British government is considering new "green taxes" on cheap airline flights, fuel and high-emission vehicles.

Gore urges Japan execs to fight 'global warming'
'Our planet now has a fever. And it's not going away'

 Former US vice president and environmental activist Al Gore urged Japanese business leaders to set an example for companies around the world in tackling climate change.

"The business leadership of Japan can lead the way and lead the business community of the world," said Gore.

"Your determination to be a part of the solution can be the key to the world successfully resolving this crisis," he told a gathering of the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren).

Gore, who was in Japan to promote his documentary on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth, said Japanese executives could play a pivotal role in persuading the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol that aims to restrict the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

"The tipping point for the US is influenced by the business community as much as anything," Gore said.

"And the Japanese business community can have a powerful influence on the shaping of opinions within the US business community," he added.

Gore said an unusually warm winter in Japan and cherry blossoms in the US capital three months early were worrying portents.

"Our planet now has a fever. And it's not going away," he said. "We have a moral obligation to those coming after us."

Japan is a frontrunner in energy-efficient technologies. Earlier Monday its Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced a two billion dollar aid package to help Asian nations develop energy-saving technology at a summit in the Philippines.

He had to go to Japan now because he can't convince anyone of global warming in the U.S. at the moment.

"California citrus faces losses from cold snap"

"Death toll grows as path of ice storm widens"

 ;D

This global warming here in Oklahoma has given us one of the most harsh winters in many years. Winters in Oklahoma are usually in the 30s and 40s, so these teens and wind chills of less than zero aren't much fun.

Who knows, maybe Al Gore will say that global warming is responsible for all of these winter storms. Regardless, I think that Al needs SERIOUS COUNSELING.   ;D

You have Gore pretty well pegged. He has in fact said the weird weather we are getting is because of global warming.

Of course all the global warming advocates deny that the entire world was a tropical climate not long ago. If they did recognize that they may recognize the fact that the world is recovering from a catastrophic condition (global flood).

Global warming to swamp Florida?
Some scientists doubt research behind dire scenarios in U.N. report

 A much-debated U.N. report on climate change to be released today raises the specter of rising sea levels and hurricanes that could eventually swamp much of South Florida.

One official this week even suggested the Bahamas could be under water by 2030.

 Dozens of scientists and government experts from 113 countries edited the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. It is considered by most in the scientific community to be the comprehensive document on climate change, one that could influence government and industrial policy worldwide.

Specifically, experts are looking at predictions of sea level rise over the next 50 years from 2 feet to 10 feet.

A rise of 10 feet could swamp the state's highly populated coastline and send salt water spilling into the freshwater Everglades, said a leading South Florida-based scientist.

"It's an outlying estimate, but a 10-foot rise is within the realm of possibility," said Stephen P. Leatherman, director of the International Hurricane Research Center at Florida International University. "If that happens, not only do you have rising water to the east, but you have saltwater encroachment in the Everglades. It essentially becomes part of the ocean to the west of us.

"At that point, forget about Everglades restoration ... Most of this area is maybe 10 feet above sea level, so if you're talking about a 10-foot rise, and rising tide on top of that, then it's all over."

It would be inconceivable that construction could easily adapt to such a rise, Leatherman said.

"To preserve places like Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, you'd be building high sea walls like they have in New Orleans, and that wouldn't help during storms," he said.

But critics of efforts to mandate industrial controls on carbon emissions, thought to be a leading cause of the warming, are not likely to be silenced by the report.

"This is ... an advocacy group for controls on carbon emissions," said Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a leading clearinghouse for challenges to the science behind global warming. "We haven't seen the science they're drawing on in this report, and we're not going to see it tomorrow.

"There're over 10,000 reports that come out in any year on climate change ... Our own scientists have raised questions about the data they've seen from the IPCC."

Over the past century, sea levels have risen one foot, but that rate has doubled in the last two decades, alarming climate scientists. They are especially concerned by recent evidence that shows huge areas of ice disappearing for the first time in centuries in the Arctic and Antarctica.

The melting ice raises sea levels and, with global warming, water gets hotter and expands.

Scientists involved in the IPCC are trying to incorporate concerns that their early drafts underestimate how much the sea level will rise by 2100 because they cannot predict how much ice will melt from Greenland and Antarctica.

In early drafts, scientists predicted a sea level rise of no more than 23 inches by 2100, but that does not include massive ice sheet melts that have been measured over the past few years.

Still, Leatherman says he's cautious about the projections. A pioneering researcher in sea-level rise who has been involved with IPCC reports for three decades, Leatherman said that the more likely scenario is that South Floridians will face a massive effort to stave off beach erosion from moderate rises of 2 to 3 feet.

"It basically means instead of putting enough sand down to fight off a foot, you've got to put much more sand down to keep beaches with a 2-foot rise," he said.

"That's what's going to happen because nobody's going to let prime real estate like the Diplomat Hotel in Hollywood just collapse in the water."

The report also will say global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those that hit South Florida in 2004 and 2005. The panel approved language saying an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming.

Supreme Court's global warming ruling decried as 'politically correct'

A prominent climate-change expert says the Supreme Court's recent ruling in favor of efforts to curb global warming was a classic example of judicial activism. He feels the court's decision, which allows environmental groups to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for refusing to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles, is not only a threat to the auto industry but also to the future of the American economy.



The Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. In its 5-4 ruling, the high court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate so-called greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says the ruling has no immediate practical implications, but rather has political ones. "This Supreme Court decision," he explains, "now will cause many people in business and industry -- many of whom have been calling for global warming legislation anyway because they hope to get rich off of it by raising energy prices -- many of them now who have been opposed will say, 'Well, we need to short-circuit the EPA process, and we need Congress to give us some kind of system to regulate emissions that we can actually live with, not some crazy thing dreamed up by EPA."

Before this ruling, Ebell asserts, it was going to be difficult for the Democrat-led Congress to pass comprehensive legislation that limits energy use, raises energy prices, and rations energy. But now, he says, the Supreme Court has fueled the efforts of those who are pushing for mandatory caps on carbon emissions.

According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute official, the high court's liberal justices have bought into the politically correct hype surrounding global warming and have "vastly expanded" the regulatory powers of the executive branch. "They decided what the outcome should be, and then they figured out what legal reasoning they could cobble together to get that outcome," he asserts. "And I think that's the opposite of what legal reasoning should be."

Ideally, legal reasoning "should follow the best arguments for what the law is and then let the outcome be determined by that," Ebell contends. "But I think they did it just the opposite way, and they got the politically correct conclusion," he says.

In rendering their decision, Ebell adds, the Supreme Court justices have basically said Congress did not know that by passing the Clean Air Act it was giving the EPA regulatory authority over everything in the air -- or, as dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia put it, "anything from frisbies to flatulence."

Stars are on board for a college tour on global warming

By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Sheryl Crow may want to soak up the sun, but she thinks the planet is soaking up too much of it.

On Monday, the popular singer and environmental activist Laurie David began a 13-day, 10-stop tour of southern U.S. colleges to raise awareness of global warming among students.

The tour began in Dallas at Southern Methodist University and continues today in College Station on the campus of Texas A&M University. David said the tour's starting point, which will travel from Texas to Washington, D.C. aboard a biofuel-powered bus, is symbolic.

"Texas is the No. 1 emitter of carbon dioxide," said David, who was one of the producers of former Vice President Al Gore's Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth. "It's the perfect place to start our tour and highlight the problem."

Celebrities take up cause
The "Stop Global Warming College Tour" is part of a rising tide of celebrities — from Leonardo DiCaprio to John Travolta — who have taken up the cause of global warming, calling for regulatory action to limit the human production of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide.

The free, 90-minute event will include remarks by David, a short performance by Crow, clips from An Inconvenient Truth, clips from comedians and a dialogue with participants.

A good-natured protest is anticipated in College Station today as some students planned to hold a "Global Warming Pool Party" by Rudder Fountain on A&M's campus.

One of the protest organizers who will be wearing a bathing suit and bouncing a beach ball is David Bellow a 22-year-old senior majoring in political science who said he remains unconvinced that humans are the major cause of Earth's rising thermostat.

"I really don't agree with celebrities going around telling us not to drive our SUVs when they have 15,000 square-foot mansions and fly in private jets," Bellow said.

Simple message
David and Crow said they are not coming to Texas to place blame, but to offer students ideas on how to become part of the solution.

"I kind of came into this as a normal person who didn't know all the facts, but was very disturbed by what's going on," Crow said. "The thing is, for me, I suffered that panic of, what can I do as one person? I think by speaking out I can represent that large population."

The pair's message is simple: Everyone can do his or her part to curb global warming. If you drive an SUV, that's OK, David said. Just make your next vehicle is a hybrid-SUV, which emits far fewer greenhouse gases. Or replace your lightbulbs with compact fluorescent lightbulbs, which use considerably less power than conventional bulbs.

At the tour's end on April 22, Earth Day, Crow and David will call on the federal government to put an immediate freeze on carbon dioxide emissions in this country, followed by sharp reductions in coming years.

Expressing doubts
The state's climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon, who also is a professor of meteorology at Texas A&M, said he doesn't expect too many students to be swayed by tonight's tour stop.

"The tour will be most effective in reaching those students who regard global warming as a major problem and want to do something about it, because it will bring like-minded students together and suggest ways of taking action," he said. "But the average student is more concerned about the exam tomorrow than the temperature 100 years from now."

Stars are on board for a college tour on global warming (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4700405.html)

Hmmmmm, I wonder why they won't talk about glacier growth in Iceland.

Hurricane Forecaster Blasts Al Gore Over Global Warming

Written by: Elaine McKewon

The 2007 National Hurricane Conference ended in New Orleans on Friday with its principal speaker unleashing a fiery indictment of former Vice-President and environmental activist Al Gore, climate change science and the mainstream media.

On the same day that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report, professor of atmospheric science William Gray, a hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University, dismissed the scientific consensus that global warming is a real problem, that it is caused by human activity and that it will lead to more intense storms like Hurricane Katrina.

His speech made headlines around the world and overshadowed a week of courses and workshops on advances in disaster management, public preparedness education and emergency communication systems.

“You’ve heard a lot of foolishness over the last couple years,” said Dr Gray. “I think the whole human-induced greenhouse gas thing is a red herring … I see climate change as due to the ocean circulation pattern.” He believes the earth has been in a natural warming cycle for 30 years owing to fluctuations in ocean currents and that temperatures will cool down in another five to ten years as the currents shift again.

He singled out Mr Gore as a “gross alarmist” and said: “He’s one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he’s doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

Yet the latter charge is one that Dr Gray has had to increasingly defend because his theories on climate change have isolated him in the scientific community. He might have problems receiving government grants to conduct his research, and his views are rejected by the overwhelming majority of his peers. His conference speeches are notable for their quotes from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and science fiction author Michael Crichton, while lacking in references to scientific research.

Critics have said that Dr Gray has not allowed his claims about global warming to be evaluated by the scientific community.  Dr Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Palm Beach Post that the merits of scientific theories must be tested by being published in leading journals such as Science and Nature, yet “I have not seen any refered publications written by Bill Gray on this topic during the last few years. Research scientists conduct their exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature and at professional conferences, not through the media.”

Dr Gray also took aim at the news media for reporting the IPCC’s findings, and suggested that the scientific consensus only gets coverage because it “makes a hell of a good story”. On the other hand, media ethics experts insist that it is incumbent on journalists to report evidence-based scientific findings while treating untested fringe theories with caution, which is especially important when science meets politics.

Journalist and author Chris Mooney, who has written extensively on science in politics, has argued in the Columbia Journalism Review that “… scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism. At the very least, journalists covering science-based policy debates should familiarize themselves with this professional proving ground, learn what it says about the relative merits of competing claims, and balance their reports accordingly.”

Hurricane Forecaster Blasts Al Gore Over Global Warming (http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Weather/Storm/Hurricane_Forecaster_Blasts_Al_Gore_Over_Global_Warming__3375.asp)

Hurricane forecaster says Al Gore does 'great disservice' with film about global warming

Last Update: Apr 7, 2007 5:44 PM

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has helped fuel media attention on global warming.

Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly "dug (his) heels in" even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.

Hurricane forecaster says Al Gore does 'great disservice' with film about global warming (http://www.nbc15online.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=ed6154e0-c2ed-445d-956d-28c2782239c7&rss=217)

Are the Global Warming Zealots Walking the Walk on Prevention or Just Blowing Hot Air?

Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2007
By: Joseph C. Phillips,

The other day, while returning home from a morning of running errands, my fourth grade son lamented that we were harming the environment by driving. I offered to pull the car over and let him walk home lest he cause any more damage. He thought about it a moment, then responded that since I was going that way anyway he may as well keep riding. My son is no fool.

Don’t misunderstand. I may have my doubts about manmade global warming, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about the environment, nor does it mean I am not open to information. I love clean water and fresh air as much as anyone. I am educating myself everyday. I also recognize, however, that there are trade-offs in life, and I am honest in admitting that there is a price I am just not willing to pay.  One of the primary reasons I am a skeptic is that those preaching impending doom the loudest don’t seem honest about the sacrifices they are willing to make.

Put aside the fact that, for believers in manmade global warming, alternative energy sources do not include nuclear power or that those that question the global warming dogma are shouted down and threatened with Nuremberg-type tribunals. Put aside as well that I am old enough to remember the global cooling hysteria of the 1970’s. The truth is that, like my fourth grader, devotees of manmade global warming are great at talking the talk, but when it comes to actually getting out of the car and walking the no-carbon-footprint walk, they prefer gestures like government control of industry and inventing a new market where one can purchase (and trade) environmental salvation through carbon credits.

Former vice president Al Gore, for instance, one of the chief priests of the new global warming religion, is using electricity as if, well, as if it were truly going out of style. While working tirelessly to warn all of us about the coming Armageddon, he is consuming 20 times the electricity of the average American home. In his defense, he claims that because he is purchasing carbon credits (from a company he owns), he is actually carbon neutral. Nice work if you can get it! Next time you are pulled over for driving while under the influence, calmly inform the officer that while you don’t deny drinking like a fish, you took the precaution of purchasing blood alcohol credits so your level is actually less than the breathalyzer test indicated. In less tony neighborhoods, this is known as a street con.

If you want to know the real costs of a carbon neutral lifestyle, take a gander at a young couple from New York City in the midst of a year-long experiment to live a carbon-neutral life. They burn beeswax candles instead of light bulbs, eat mashed carrots with homemade vinegar, purchase no new clothing, do not use elevators and -- most unfortunately, for my tastes anyway -- use no toilet paper. In short, they are living a pre-industrial lifestyle.

Other than this young couple, I am aware of no one willing to follow them back to the 19th century.  And even this couple hasn’t gone all the way.  They still use a computer, which runs on electricity and plan to publish a book, which will no doubt be made of paper.

I don’t mind my son lecturing me about global warming, even while he and his brothers leave every light in the house burning. In the long run, we all benefit from the conversation. However, if the doomsayers are correct, the cost of reversing the evil of global warming is much higher than the most ardent among them is willing to pay. It is certainly higher than I am willing to pay.

I am putting the listening world on notice: I don’t care how hot it gets; I am not giving up toilet paper!

Are the Global Warming Zealots Walking the Walk on Prevention or Just Blowing Hot Air? (http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/phillips410)

I'm with this guy............ ;D ;D

LOL...true.  Global warming sure hasn't lowered my heating bill this year  Its April 14, and the windchill here in Texas is 27-F.  Perhaps when the penguins start lining the shores of Miami Beach, and the polar bears are eating the environmentalists, they will come to their senses. 

Naww .....

lol...yeah your probably right!  Wouldn't change a thing

In other words.... Let me use my celebrity status to make it seem like I am representing a large population....that large population is of course college kids that come out to a free concert.  What self respecting college kid is going to turn down a free concert....honestly they would attend the concert even if the main goal was NAMBLA.

How about bananas?? ;D ;D ;D

Penguins, Bananas, makes no difference.......lol

Group Calls for Population Control to Stop Global Warming
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
April 18, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Ahead of Earth Day on Sunday, an advocacy group warned that the United States is ignoring "the most crucial factor in reducing global warming" -- population control.

"Human population growth is the paramount environmental issue," Ric Oberlink, a spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, told Cybercast News Service.

"Global warming is a very serious problem, but it is a subset of the overpopulation problem," he said.

Oberlink argued that an increase in the emission of "greenhouse gases" -- carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for climate change -- is a result of human activity, "like most environmental problems."

Although one part of the equation is what people do, he said, the other part is how many there are.

"If we had half as many people, we wouldn't have much of a climatic warming problem," argued Oberlink.

"Many have noted the disproportionate impact of America on greenhouse emissions and rightly called for reduced emissions. But it's hypocritical to say that the problem is that Americans consume too much and then say it doesn't matter how many Americans there are."

According to the population group, Americans are "by far the most voracious consumers and the greatest producers of greenhouse gases per capita of any nation on earth."

And the U.S. population, it says, "has been doubling every 40 years and is headed for one billion before the end of this century."

"No matter how clever and inventive human technology can be, it will be overwhelmed by the explosive multiplication of unrelenting population growth," asserted Randy Alcorn, a senior writing fellow at Californians for Population Stabilization.

"While it may be beneficial to replace incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs, it would be more effective towards salvaging the planet to turn on light bulbs in minds darkened by political expediency and religious dogma," he said.

"Those who surrender reason to religious and political doctrine and push the rubble of their misguided convictions into the path of prudent population reduction policies are complicit in condemning an entire planet to doom," said Alcorn.

Oberlink criticized environmental groups for not addressing population growth.

"Today, major environmental groups seldom discuss population growth," he said. "They have become increasingly politically correct and increasingly ineffective in protecting the environment.

"It's easier to single out targets like Big Oil and Big Detroit instead of calling for changes in personal behavior or taking on a tough issue like population growth with its concomitant connection to volatile issues like immigration or access to birth control," Oberlink said.

Environmental Defense, the World Resources Institute and the Union of Concerned Scientists did not respond to invitations to react to the criticism of green campaign groups.

But pro-family organizations take issue with the population control arguments.

"While there is growing consensus that the earth is warming slightly, there is no consensus that humans are the main cause," the Family Research Council said in a statement.

"Those pushing global warming are proposing a radical agenda as the solution to a problem that is not yet fully understood," it said.

"In part, this solution calls for population control, which is code for abortions, condom distribution and mass sterilization," said the FRC.

Group Calls for Population Control to Stop Global Warming (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070418a.html)

This is the moment the eugenisists have been waiting for.... :'(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

It is also one more reason for the pro-abortionists to substantiate their actions. It is full of garbage just as the whole global warming garbage is. The hottest recorded temperatures in history came at a time when the earth's population was significantly smaller than it is today and technology was far from today's CO2 emitters.

These people need to get a life, a life with God.

AMEN

Another Amen!

The Global Warming Jihad

by Butler Shaffer


In my college days, I was introduced to a book, written in 1841 by Charles Mackay. Titled Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, it remains a worthwhile chronicle – at least through the mid-nineteenth century – of some of the consequences of mankind’s periodic collapses into mass-mindedness. If Mackay was around today, he would be able to devote a chapter to the emergence of the latest secular religion: environmentalism.

It is a common mistake for people to assume that religious faith and fervor are qualities to be found only within institutionally-structured churches with formal doctrines and rituals. They are to be found, in varying degrees, within all belief systems, be they secular or theistic in nature. The polar opposite philosophies of Marxism and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism – both of which openly condemned traditional religion – are, themselves, grounded in a faith in various central propositions. True-believers of these doctrines who voiced doubt as to any of the underlying premises, have been subjected to purges as enthusiastically conducted as medieval trials for heresy.

I am a strong defender of the processes of scientific inquiry. And yet, I am aware that most scientists cling to a faith in conclusions that have been widely accepted within their respective communities, and angrily react against any heresies – however well-documented and reasoned – that arise from skeptical minds. When British biologist Rupert Sheldrake’s book, A New Science of Life, was published, the science journal, Nature, editorially described it as “a book for burning?” Nor did most members of the scientific world openly embrace the views of the brilliant science philosopher, Paul Feyerabend, who challenged the idea that there was “a” scientific method. He was of the view that a variety of strategies – including luck, accidents, dream interpretation, fraud, mistakes, and intuition – had played major roles in scientific discoveries. He advocated a theoretical anarchism in the search for truth, believing that such an approach was more consistent with human nature than was adherence to rigid rules of inquiry.

I am equally a defender of speculative thinking, wherein emotions, intuitive insights, and an awareness of the need for inner, spiritual expression, inform our empirically-based searches for “truth” about ourselves and the world in which we live. We spend far too little time examining the epistemological basis for our thinking. The question “how do we know what we know” is rarely taken up even by the more intelligent among us. Most of us prefer the leisurely approach to understanding; relying upon self-styled “experts,” or the outcome of public opinion polls, to advise us of the opinions we are to embrace.

Nowhere is this tendency more evident than in the current secular faith in the causes of, and cures for, global warming. Many who eagerly attack the theistically-based religious views of others, have erected their own temporal icons and composed an alternative set of catechisms in furtherance of their creed. The rest of us are expected to accept, without any heretical doubts, that the prophesies of some scientists reflect a core of certainty within the scientific community as firmly grounded as the heliocentric cosmology. Those scientists who doubt the revealed faith, we are told, are but a handful of ignoramuses at such places as Backwater College or Boll Weevil State.

Perhaps it is the lawyer-side of me that insists upon people presenting evidence for their allegedly empirical statements. Using such a standard has led me to conclude that the Earth is, indeed, currently undergoing global warming; and that it has undergone fluctuations between periods of “cooling” and “warming” since long before humans appeared on the planet. Indeed, astronomers report that other planets – particularly Mars – are experiencing similar climate changes as those of Earth. Unless the apostles of the global warming orthodoxy are prepared to lay the blame for Mars’ increased temperatures and melting ice caps on a transmigration of human-generated entropic wastes, factual evidence would suggest looking beyond Earth, itself, for explanations.

My interest in the study of “chaos” and complexity also reminds me that complex systems are influenced by far too many variables of unknown and incalculable factors to permit reliable predictions. Nowhere is this more evident than in efforts to predict local weather. Indeed, the study of chaos was precipitated when MIT professor, Edward Lorenz, used computers to experiment with weather forecasting in the early 1960s. Lorenz discovered what all of us who have tried to make long-term plans for picnics have learned: predicting the weather is quite unreliable beyond two to three days time. There are simply too many unknown and unknowable factors influencing the weather.

This fact, alone, renders ludicrous a statement offered by Dr. Heidi Cullen, the climate expert at The Weather Channel. Directing her attention to the differences of opinion over the causes of global warming, Dr. Cullen has reportedly proposed that meteorologists who deviate from the established orthodoxy of human-caused global warming should be defrocked of their American Meteorological Association indicia of expertise. The global-warming faith is grounded in the illusion that a system of such immeasurable complexity – hence, variability – as climate, can nonetheless be rendered predictable over centuries of time. What a remarkable presumption, coming from one whose profession cannot accurately predict next week’s weather, but who insists upon a sufficient omniscience regarding the causal factors that reach across the millennia to warrant purging those who disagree with her opinions.

Not to be overlooked in his efforts to ferret out heresies, the governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, wants to remove George Taylor from his present position as “State Climatologist.” Taylor – a prolific writer on weather and climate – uttered the blasphemy that “most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations.” Those who believe that there is a separation of “religion” and “state” in America confuse form over substance.

Our culture has been so dominated by scientism that there is a tendency to equate scientific conclusions with objective reality. In his “uncertainty principle,” Werner Heisenberg advised us of the fact that the observer is an integral part of what is being observed. The myth of the “impartial” and “objective” observer is no longer taken seriously by thoughtful people. I may be most sincere in my efforts to cut through appearances and get to the core of an important “truth,” but it remains my choice as to what to study, and it is my thinking that sets up the inquiry and evaluates my observations. We are unavoidably a part of what we are studying.

Cont'd next post

One way in which confusion arises from this interplay is found in the oft-used tool of “modeling.” Using prior learning – which the study of complexity reminds us is inherently limited – scientists will create models that seek to extrapolate present conditions into the future. One of the better-known examples of this practice was found in Thomas Malthus’ theory that because food supplies can only increase arithmetically, while population increases geometrically, massive starvation was the ultimate fate of mankind unless other population-restricting forces intervened. That such a view failed to account for the unpredicted capacity of technology to expand food production, has not diminished faith in the capacity of scientists to create models that presage the future.

But models do not equate with empirical evidence. As Heisenberg’s principle warns us, models can do no more than project a present limited understanding into the future. Even apart from a consideration as to the causes of global warming – about which there is a decided debate amongst reputable scientists, no matter how much foot-stomping to the contrary – model-building provides no more than a possible theory to be tested against reality. Those who wish to explore this topic in more detail are invited to read the recent book of two geologists – Orrin Pilkey and Linda Pilkey-Jarvis – titled Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future. The authors illustrate the absurd reaches of this faith in modeling in referring to a federal court decision that required assurances of safety for the disposal of radioactive wastes that extended from 300,000 to 1 million years into the future! The idea that modern-day models can predict outcomes 1 million years hence – a capacity that would have to anticipate earthquakes, plate tectonics, climate changes, the Earth being hit by asteroids, and/or solar eruptions – is a power that would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of people who fashioned themselves capable of such a task.

Ah, but such omniscient capacities are precisely what the global-warming faithful imagine themselves to possess. Unlike most traditional religions that have historically been content to function without the strong arm of the state behind them, the global warmingists want to turn theirs into a state religion. In the very nature of human beings as producers of carbon dioxide, they have found an “original sin” to be eradicated. (Forget that plants – the foundation upon which all of life depends – are as dependent upon our carbon dioxide as we are upon the oxygen they provide.) I suspect that their version of the “Ten Commandments” greatly exceeds that number.

Nor can we overlook the aura of sainthood in which its spiritual leader, Al Gore, has been enshrouded. There is little questioning, among the faithful, of his reportedly raking in anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 per lecture – and reportedly receiving a $250,000 speaking fee in Saudi Arabia – nor of the enormous energy costs of maintaining his mansion in Tennessee. It is enough that he is the anointed one, a role he played to perfection when, at the Academy Awards, people were eager to touch the man. I was surprised that young mothers didn’t bring their babies to the stage to be blessed by him.

When I voice my own doubts – grounded in the dissenting opinions offered by many hundreds of scientists as to the human causes of global warming – I receive the standard response: “have you seen Al Gore’s film?” Donald Miller had an excellent article a few weeks ago surveying the literature of opposition to the established dogma. I e-mailed his article to a global warmingist colleague of mine, who responded that Prof. Miller only taught in a medical school. “And a political hack like Al Gore is credible?,” I asked.

The religious nature of the global warming cult also finds expression in the purchase of “carbon offsets,” with which to compensate for excessive CO2 production. This practice has been likened, by some, to the medieval church practice of selling “indulgences.” And like many other religions, this emerging sect has its own version of an apocalypse, with mankind facing a cosmic cataclysm unless we humans end our sinful ways and embrace the secular theology.

To understand the roots of this new religion, one need only go back to the earlier gospel from whence these true believers migrated. It is no coincidence, I believe, that the environmental cult arose at about the same time that the earlier faith in state economic planning was unable to withstand the pragmatic power of the marketplace as the generator of material well-being. Environmentalism provided an alternative vehicle for those whose principal ambition lay in controlling the lives and property of their fellow humans. There was some initial uncertainty expressed over whether we faced an incipient global “cooling” or “warming,” but there was no absence of faith in their underlying cause: to extend coercive control over all of humanity. If you doubt this assessment, consider the common interventionist mindset that has driven both socialist and environmental planners.

As regular readers of my articles may recall, I am a confirmed agnostic when it comes to other people’s cosmologies and earthly utopias, treating all with an energized skepticism. I believe that each of us has a deep need for spiritual experiences, and as long as men and women are content to search their souls and the world about them for their vision without brandishing weapons to compel my adherence to their views, I eagerly support their liberty to pursue such inquiries. I regard it as my contribution to the atmosphere of mutual tolerance upon which free and peaceful societies depend.

I begin to get uneasy, however, when the drum-beating and flag-waving herald a new crusade in which my family and the rest of mankind are to be conscripted. The same fear-mongering that caused most Americans to believe that unseen, sinister forces sought to destroy America with imaginary “weapons of mass destruction,” is now being employed to convince all of humanity of an even deadlier specter: mankind itself. It is time for childish minds to give up their fears of bogeymen, and to stop worshipping those who have nothing more to offer us than a pack of new and improved scarecrows!

 The Global Warming Jihad (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer152.html#)

Global Warming; The Other Side

Mark your calendars!!

Next Wednesday (May 2nd) on Glenn Beck (Headline News), he will be devoting his entire show to the other side of "An Inconvenient Truth". He's on at 6:00 pm central time.

On his show tonight, a couple kids emailed him saying their school is making all the kids watch this movie but are not presenting the other side of the story. If you have kids experiencing the same thing, you may want to consider watching/recording this so they can have ammo to combat this slanted view should that have to do a paper on this.

Here is an email from the Glenn Beck show.

"Exposed: Climate of Fear

Here in New York City we’ve had about 4 nice, sunny days in a row and already I hear people complaining about the heat. “Man, what happened to spring…it’s as hot as summer” ... "I actually had to put the air conditioner on last night…in April!” It’s official--we’ve become a nation of whiners and complainers.

I mean, yes—people who live and work in New York City are a unique variety of cry babies, but still. What happened to the strength and stamina of our grandparents and their grandparents? What about the Americans who settled the West and had to make the month’s long journey across the country fighting off disease and Indian attacks? Something tells me you didn’t hear a lot of talk along the wagon trail about it being, “not so much the heat, but the humidity.”

So I say enjoy this delightful weather and all the mild sweatiness that goes along with it. Face it, if me and my multiple chins can take it, so can you. And don’t blame “global warming!” If you haven’t heard me yammer on about how it’s more science fiction than science fact, be sure to tune in on May 2nd for our next big TV special…“Exposed: Climate of Fear.” We do a lot more than just make fun of the perennially fat and occasionally bearded Al Gore (but don’t worry—there’s still plenty of that!)."

Global warming skeptic hopes to diffuse senators' alarm over melting in Greenland

Melting ice on the arctic island of Greenland poses no threat to the earth, says a U.S. congressional staffer. He hopes to convince his fellow travelers of that this weekend during a journey northward.



Marc Morano, a spokesman for Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), will be traveling on Senator Barbara Boxer's (D-California) global warming trip to Greenland. Senator Boxer will be heading the congressional "fact-finding" trip to ostensibly see first-hand the alleged effects of manmade global warming on Greenland and how it is going to theoretically cause catastrophic sea-level rise in New York, Florida, and other coastal areas. Several senators from the Environment and Public Works Committee that she chairs will also join Boxer, as will Morano -- a global-warming skeptic.

Morano says in a pre-briefing for the trip that the two scientists selected by the Democratic majority acknowledged all temperature changes and glacial melting in Greenland is within natural climate variability.

"In fact, the scientist at this meeting admitted that [in] the 1920s and 1930s the temperature warmed up as fast or faster than it currently is -- in that there is nothing at the moment to be alarmed about Greenland. It all comes down to unproven computer models of the future and how much you believe them," explains Morano.

The congressional staffer also makes note that a top U.N. scientist recently said half of the variables in the U.N. computer models are unknown. Morano points out that Greenland is contributing "almost undetectable amounts to sea-level rise." He also points out that Antarctica is actually reducing sea-level rise, so that in a sense Antarctica and Greenland balance each other out.

"Also keep in mind that during the Middle Ages Greenland was named Greenland because it was green. The Vikings settled it -- and that was long before the age of [the] SUV or coal-powered electric plant(s)," observes Morano.

Other observations by Morano include that the trip will not be an eco-friendly one. The delegation will be flying a large military plane to Greenland, then chartering a plane, helicopters, and then a boat out in a fjord, and reversing that to return home.

Morano also makes arguments that Greenland is actually gaining ice in its interior but losing ice on the exterior, which is essentially how a glacier grows.

The enemies of free speech are on the march
Start thinking the way we order you to--or else


The president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) has written a threatening letter to a scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) warning him to stop publicly criticizing the theory that global warming is a threat to the planet, or risk the end of his reputation.

Implicit in the message: Shut up or you will be destroyed.

The threat

A July 13 letter from ACORE President Michael T. Eckhart to Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis did not mince words:

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Eckhart graciously wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and a charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

CEI does not dispute the existence of climate change. However, it differs sharply from the enviro alarmist community (such as ACORE) as to the causes and the imminence of the threat.

In a hearing July 26, Senator James Inhofe, ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, confronted Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson with the letter. ACORE is an EPA member.

Johnson replied that statements like this "are of concern to me," and promised to look into the matter.

Senator Inhofe, who has taken his share of flak for his intrepid exposures of the "global warming," fraud knows firsthand the backlash from those who don't want to hear any dissent. His colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer — the new chairman of the committee — gaveled him down when the Oklahoma senator tried to pose a question to the alarmist-in-chief Al Gore. After all, Mr. Gore has arrogantly proclaimed "the debate is over," so woe be unto anyone daring to (gasp!) question him.

Just a private little note, senator

Eckhart wrote Inhofe a letter the next day complaining that his threatening letter was just "private jousting" and that "[n]one of this was intended for the public." Further, Eckhart protested, "I am embarrassed to have the private e-mail given to the public, and wish your staff had inquired with me before conducting a hearing."

We will not go into detail here as to whether a direct threat in writing qualifies as "a degree of private jousting." Nor will we elaborate on the widespread understanding that when you commit anything to paper or e-mail, you should do so on the assumption that it may be made public. Someone from the "Harvard community" ought to be smart enough to understand that.

Moreover, Myron Ebell — CEI's Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy — tells me that Eckhart has previously written or otherwise communicated with CEI concerning this matter ever since Lewis bested him in a TV debate on global warming, and this may be what really sticks in his craw. He defines Eckhart's letter to Lewis as "essentially blackmail." Lewis firmly believes what he says and, adds the CEI director, "has the facts to back it up."

Union of Concerned Propagandists

The most active group seeking to stifle dissent on global warming is the infamous Union of Concerned Scientists, whose findings are reliably of the "we're-all-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket" variety. As Ebell charged in an article he co-authored for Capital Research Center, UCS has for almost four decades "manipulated the high reputation of 'science' to serve the low ends of politics."

Concerned about what?

Last year, UCS launched an all-out attack on Exxon Mobil for its contributions to so-called "front groups" who oppose Al Gore's alarmist agenda. In so doing, the political attack dogs disguised as "scientists" compared Exxon to the cigarette companies.

The federal government spends $2 billion (with a b) each year on its Climate Science Change program. Exxon's annual contribution expenditure of $2 million (with an m) is chicken feed by comparison.

Aside from that, what is the real issue that causes the UCS to be "concerned?" Perhaps it is "concerned" that — an all-too-willing media echo chamber notwithstanding — the public may come to realize that UCS's scientific credentials, to put it charitably, are rather thin. It gets its money from powerful anti-free enterprise foundations and from Hollywood stars who apparently believe their celebrity status bestows upon them the gift of genius.

The UCS has a long history of alarmism, not only on global warming, but other issues as well, always in sync with extreme anti-growth environmentalism. It is highly partisan, and its senior staff is made up of politically liberal policy wonks from Washington more than the scientific community. You want to be a "concerned scientist?" They'll be happy to take your money. Just send them $35 and you're in.

The big guns weigh in

Last year, Senators John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) wrote an open letter to Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson urging him to end his company's support of "climate change denial front groups." Further, they warned that "an American scientific group" would soon be attacking Exxon for its contributions.

You get one guess as to the name of that "scientific group." (No coaching from the audience, please). Since UCS has open membership, for all we know, any of its "concerned scientists" could be an off-the street nut case or worse, let alone a properly-credentialed "scientist."

Thus, not for the first time has the Stalinist mentality infected the hallowed halls of the United States Senate. (See this column "The enemies of Free Speech are on the March — Part 5: The Senate Censorship Politburo," Sept. 10, 2006.)

Clearly, there was an implied threat in the Rockefeller/Snowe letter. As CEI's Ebell put it to me, "Typically senators and congressmen do not write letters to private entities telling them what to do because they have power over a number of issues that affect those private entities." And he added, "It looks like [they're saying] if you don't do this [stop the contributions], any bill that's before Congress that affects you, we're going to make sure you get it in the neck."

cont'd

And from the media

For years, there has been within the mainstream media an "act alike, do alike, think alike" peer pressure. The global warming debate has carried that culture to a new and more troubling level.

Heidi Cullen, who hosts a weekly Weather Channel program called The Climate Code, advocates that broadcast meteorologists who do not go along with the "alarmist" global warming point of view be stripped of their scientific certification.

Nobody died and made this woman the ultimate authority of who is and who is not fit to exist in the meteorologist profession. But the Stalinist thought-control mentality never bothers with such trifles. Others in the media have compared global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers and suggested they be treated as traitors and that they be charged before Nuremberg-style war crimes trials. Why stop there? Thirties-style Moscow show trials, anyone?

But in fact, skepticism abounds

One hopes that one highly-decorated French geophysicist is safe from Heidi's gendarmes.

Claude Allegre is also a former French government official and an active member of France's Socialist Party. Until September of 2006, Monsieur Allegre was a believer in man-made catastrophic global warming. Not anymore. Further study and more recent findings have made him a skeptic.

He now says that "the prophets of doom on global warming have a lot on their plate in order to make our countrymen swallow their certitudes. He also accused the alarmists of being motivated more by a desire to line their pockets. "The ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people" he said.

60 Canadian scientists have joined the skeptics, declaring, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto [the global warming treaty] would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

These are mere samples of the growing skepticism in the scientific community — adding to the ranks of the many scientists who never did buy into the alarmism in the first place.

No one in the U.S. Senate has done a more exhaustive study on this issue than Senator Inhofe. He has cited scientific studies showing that climate change is nothing new; the accuracy of computer predictions is doubtful; global cooling in fact may be on the horizon; the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing; to the extent there was global warming in the 1990s, it stopped in 1998; Alaska is cooling; the oceans are cooling; light hurricane seasons and early winter have become more common; the National Academy of Sciences has found "unsupportable" Al Gore's "hockey stick" claim that the 1990s was the hottest decade in 1,000 years; and polar bears are not going extinct. (On the latter point, see this column "Your safety vs. the enviro lobby," Jan. 11, 2007)

To sum it up

The Stalinists who would shut up the skeptics are looking more ridiculous by the day. Senator Inhofe puts it this way; "The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that [Al Gore] represents scientific 'consensus' that SUVs and the modern American way of life have somehow created a climate emergency — that only United Nations bureaucracies and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve it. [The] publicity and grant seeking global warming alarmists and their advocates in the media [have] finally realized that the only 'emergency' confronting them is their rapidly crumbling credibility, audience and bottom line."

How's that for an "inconvenient truth"? Hopefully, those who agree with it and say so won't be hied off to the gallows.

Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder 
Agency roasted after blogger spots 'hot years' data fumble

In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.

After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.

Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.

More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.

NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."

But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound.

Said Limbaugh last Thursday: "What do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA ... is in the scientific community with false data."

However Stephen McIntyre, who set off the uproar, described his finding as a "a micro-change. But it was kind of fun."

A former mining executive who runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, McIntyre, 59, earned attention in 2003 when he put out data challenging the so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting a spike in global temperatures.

This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.

Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.

McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review.

"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces."

When a 1 degree F increase over many years is enough to support their global warming theories then this is a significant error.

There is an attempted media blackout on this report, at least by all the major liberal media outlets.

Many weather stations are located near sources of man-made heat (such as airports) so their readings need to be adjusted for that. But the adjustments made by Greenie scientists are “secret” and hence probably arbitrary, if not fraudulent. If rural stations only were used, the result would almost certainly be a record of cooling.

Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'
'You can spit, have same effect as doubling the carbon dioxide'

A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

That comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the earth is increasing, but that it's got nothing to do with what man is doing.

"Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the newest study, now accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research.

The project, called "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.," Wilson wrote in a note to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Sunday.

He was referring to the massive expenditures that would be required under such treaties as the Kyoto Protocol.

"Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too high, i.e. 2-4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase," he added.

Bryson's and Wilson's comments were among those from a long list of doubters of catastrophic, man-made global warming, assembled by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and posted on a blog site for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Another leader, Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the top 10 environmental problems.

"In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10," he said. "[Former Vice President Al Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong … It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. It's hard for us to say CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2."

Gore made – and stars in – a film about purported global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," that won an Oscar. It has become mandatory for students in many high schools and colleges.

However, the studies assembled by Inhofe's team said that's not necessarily so, according to the scientists.

"If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations," Giegengack said.

"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent)," said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.

"Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."

Former Harvard physicist Lubos Motl added that those promoting the fear of man-made climate changes are "playing the children's game to scare each other."

"By the end of the (CO2) doubling, i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 – assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time – Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only – a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to," Motl explained.

Joel Schwartz, of the American Enterprise Institute, said, "there's hardly any additional warming 'in the pipeline' from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth's average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing," he added.

"Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore's claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz's results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's scientific 'consensus,' the environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?" AEI's Schwartz concluded.

The Senate committee assessment said 2007 could go down in history "as the 'tipping point' of man-made global warming fears."

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, of the website Climate Police said "global warming" is disintegrating.

"A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won't start until 2009," Conklin wrote.

However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded that climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so are not reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even attached to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed."

WND has previously reported on significant doubts about global warming.

Last September, a leading U.S. climate researcher claimed there's a decade at most left to address global warming before environmental disaster takes place, but the federal government issued a report showing the year 1936 had a hotter summer than 2006.

"The average June-August 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 2.4 degrees F (1.3 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 72.1 degrees F (22.3 degrees C)," said the NOAA report. "This was the second warmest summer on record, slightly cooler than the record of 74.7 degrees F set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era. This summer's average was 74.5 degrees F. Eight of the past ten summers have been warmer than the U.S. average for the same period."

WND also reported on NASA-funded study that noted some climate forecasts might be exaggerating estimations of global warming.

The space agency said climate models possibly were overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms.

The theory many scientists work with says the Earth heats up in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, causing more water to evaporate from the ocean into the atmosphere.

In addition, WND reported that Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, maintains there has been little or no warming since about 1940.

"Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential," Singer wrote in a climate-change essay. "In addition, the impacts of warming and of higher CO2 levels are likely to be beneficial for human activities and especially for agriculture."

They're still not recognizing the NASA mathematical error that once corrected now indicate that the earth has been cooling since 1933.

Global warming, 'hot air' = Al Gore

Ice loss opens Northwest Passage
14 September 2007

The most direct route through the Northwest Passage has opened up fully for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says.

Historically, the passage that links the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Canadian Arctic has been ice-bound.

But the agency says ice cover has been steadily shrinking, and this year's drop has made the passage navigable.

The findings - based on satellite images - have raised concerns about the speed of global warming.

'Extreme'

The Northwest Passage is one of the most fabled sea routes in the world - a short cut from Europe to Asia through the high Arctic.

Recent years have seen a marked shrinkage in its ice cover, but this year it was extreme, Esa says.

It says this made the passage "fully navigable" for the first time since monitoring began in 1978.

"We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3m sq km (1,2 sq miles)," Leif Toudal Pedersen of the Danish National Space Center said.

He said it was "about 1m sq km (386,000 sq miles) less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006".

"There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100, 000 sq km (38,600 sq miles) per year on average, so a drop of 1m sq km (386,000 sq miles) in just one year is extreme," Mr Pedersen said.

The Northeast Passage through the Russian Arctic has also seen its ice cover shrink and it currently "remains only partially blocked," Esa says.

'Battle for Arctic'

Scientists have linked the changes to global warming which may be progressing faster than expected.

The opening of the sea routes are already leading to international disputes.

Canada says it has full rights over those parts of the Northwest Passage that pass though its territory and that it can bar transit there.

But this has been disputed by the US and the European Union.

They argue new route should be an international strait that any vessel can use.

Ice loss opens Northwest Passage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6995999.stm)

All I can say is..........................................

Climate change helps rainforests
Study of Amazon finds growth spurts 'inconsistent with expectation'

Climate change may lead to lush growth rather than catastrophic tree loss in the Amazonian forests, researchers from the US and Brazil have found. A study, in the journal Science, found that reduced rainfall had led to greener forests, possibly because sunlight levels are higher when there are fewer rainclouds.

But scientists cautioned that while the finding raises hopes for the survival of the forests, there are still serious threats. Climate models have suggested that the forests will suffer as the region becomes drier and will release huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Climate models have suggested in the past that the Amazon will suffer enormous die-backs as the region becomes drier and will release huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Deforestation is calculated to be one of the main contributors to the rising carbon dioxide levels that are widely held by the scientific community to be causing global warming. The loss of the Amazon would cause enormous quantities of carbon dioxide stored in the vegetation to be released back into the atmosphere, intensifying the warming effect.

Researchers identified the greener regions of the Amazon after analysing satelite images and comparing them to rainfall records. The 2005 drought provided them with “a unique opportunity to compare actual forest drought response to expectation”.

They said: “Large-scale numerical models that simulate the interactions between changing global climate and terrestrial vegetation predict substantial carbon loss from tropical ecosystems including the drought-induced collapse of the Amazon forest and conversion to savanna.

“If drought were to have the expected negative effect on canopy photosynthesis, it should have been especially observable during this period.

“The observations of intact forest canopy ‘greenness’ in the drought region, however, are dominated by a sgnificant increase, not a decline.”

Growth spurts would be “inconsistent with expectation”, they reported in the journal Science, and concluded the reduced rainfall was more than compensated for by extra sunlight.

“These observations suggest that intact Amazon forests may be more resilient than many ecosystem models assume, at least in response to short-term climatic anomolies,” they added.

Further studies will be needed to assess the long-term impacts of changing weather patterns on the Amazon and other forest regions from factors including strong el Nino events and long-term climate change.

Deforestation from logging, legal and illegal, and fires were cited as other threats to the condition of the Amazon forests, especially as the areas pinponted as being in the steepest decline were those that were “heavily impacted by human activites”.

The Bible and 'global warming'

I can certainly understand why neo-pagans like Al Gore believe, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, man-made, catastrophic global warming is the gravest threat to the planet.

What I can't understand is why people who claim to believe in the Bible as the inerrant, inspired Word of God do so.

Even more difficult to comprehend is why some evangelical Christians are caught up in the notion that government and international action are the proper methods to fight this phantom threat.

First of all, in Genesis 8:22, we're told of a promise by God never to use global floodwaters again as a means of destroying life on Earth. In that promise, the Bible explicitly states: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

In other words, no more cataclysmic floods – the result Al Gore promises in the near future as a consequence of global warming. Just as importantly, there is another promise there that cold and heat shall not cease.

What does that mean?

It means God controls the world's temperature, not man. God controls the climate, not man. God controls the earth's "eco-system," not man. God controls our environment, not man.

It is so presumptuous and haughty of believers and non-believers alike to think man is in control of the destiny of the planet God created for us.

If it were so, would he not have warned us? With all of the prophecies in the Bible, should we not expect to be told that such matters are actually in our hands? Why would we be told exactly the opposite throughout scripture?

It's not that the Bible tells us there are no consequences for our actions on the planet. In fact, it quite explicitly does. But it is not the production of carbon dioxide that God finds offensive. It is the commission of sin. Nowhere in the Bible does God ever suggest that producing CO2 is sinful.

Keep in mind, it is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring gas – just like oxygen. God created CO2, not man. And nature's God still produces a lot more of it than does man.

In Isaiah 49, in a passage evangelicals believe represent the words of Jesus Himself, there is another promise – that those who follow Him would never perish from the heat of the sun.

"They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor the sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them," it says in Isaiah 49:10.

If cataclysmic global warming represented a real threat to believers, would God have made such a promise through Isaiah?

That is not to say heat will never be used as a means of judgment. In fact, it will be according to the Bible.

We are told in Revelation 16:9: "And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory."

What this means is that scorching heat will be used as a judgment against non-believers, and, most importantly, that God and God alone has the power over such calamities.

Yes, there will come a time when the Earth is destroyed – and intense heat will be the mechanism God employs. But we are not talking about a rise of a few degrees over centuries. We're talking about heat so severe it melts the very elements that comprise the Earth.

That comes in a day that sounds very much like the time in which we live. It is described in 2 Peter 3:3-14

      3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Are today's evangelicals who agree with the worldly that the greatest threat to mankind is represented in catastrophic, man-made global warming without spot and blameless?

It is sheer folly and ego for man to believe he controls the destiny of God's creation. But it is even more disgraceful when those who claim to believe His Word preach a false gospel of global warming that directly contradicts the entire body of scripture.

Excellent article!  I enjoyed it very much.  :D

Dreamweaver

I agree it is sad that people, especially Christians, are being deceived.  It reminded me of a couple of scriptures that might explain it though.

Matthew 24:24  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.  
Mark 13:5  And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:

Romans 16:18  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

We really must be careful in these latter days.

Love in Christ, Eva

AMEN AND AMEN!

GREAT POSTS Brother Bob and Sister Eva!

It's wonderful how the Bible puts everything into a proper perspective for Christians. The Holy Bible contains everything GOD wants us to know about the end days of HIS Age of Grace. Our hopes and promises aren't in this world, rather they are IN CHRIST!

When I think of folks like Al Gore, I think about the Scripture below.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Isaiah 5:20-23 NASB
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight! Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine And valiant men in mixing strong drink, Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!

Hmmm

I have to somewhat agree and disagree.  While I agree that ultimately the fate of this planet is in the hands of God.  I also believe that God would allow us to destroy this planet, and even later in that chapter of Isaiah it mentions just that. It describes in verse 19 "For thy waste and thy desolate places, and the land of thy destruction, shall even now be too narrow by reason of the inhabitants."

And if we look further back in creation we see one of our purposes.  Genesis 2:15 "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."  Now you could say that man was to keep just the Garden and that did not apply to the rest of the world.  However back in Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth"  Now in that verse it clearly states that man has dominion over the earth.  No where later does the Bible retract that dominion. 

Even later in Genesis 1:28 "...Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:..."

So yes I believe God has ultimate authority of the fate of this planet.  And I believe that God set in motion many phenomena when He created the Universe.  Many we are just now beginning to witness.  But I do believe that God has given us this planet to take care of.  And I also believe we are doing a terrible job of it.  I also do not believe that global warming is anything that is caused by us humans either. 

It is sort of like my soul.  God has the ultimate authority on my eternal life.  He has given me the soul to take care of.  And it is up to me to decide if I will give it back to Him or destroy it and keep it for myself.  God gave the human race this planet.  Do we give it back to him or destroy it?

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | November 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET

If the founder of The Weather Channel spoke out strongly against the man made global warming myth, might media members notice?

We're going to find out the answer to that question soon, for John Coleman wrote an article published at ICECAP Wednesday that should certainly garner attention from press members -- assuming journalism hasn't been completely replaced by propagandist activism, that is.

Coleman marvelously began,

    It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

    Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

    [...]

    I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

    In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ (http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history.html?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history)

We have been saying here at C.U. "Stop Global Warming Whining." It is just a theory, and now proof is out there if anyone looks.

Founder of Weather Channel disses 'global warming'

A prominent meteorologist with more than 54 years of experience is calling global warming an "outrageous scam" and a "manufactured crisis."



John Coleman has been a television meteorologist since 1953. His credentials include being the first weather forecaster for the television show Good Morning America, and founder of the cable-based network The Weather Channel. Currently, Coleman forecasts the weather for the San Diego television station KUSI.

About six to seven years ago, Coleman says he began to hear about supposed "global warming" and decided to research the subject deeper and to investigate it from a scientific stance in order educate his viewers.

"I'm not talking about reading media accounts. I'm talking about getting down to the basic research papers," he explains. "And the more I read them, the more doubt I had -- and eventually the whole case just collapsed, when you really study the documents. And it became very clear that it was a manufactured crisis."

According to Coleman, the science that supports arguments favoring global warming "has been manipulated" and much of the data has been "manufactured," resulting in what he calls "bad science" that, unfortunately, passed peer review. He argues that the research passed that review only because of an underlying agenda held by scientists. He claims they wish to strike fear of environmental catastrophe if people do not hold to their radical ideas.

In a blog posted on KUSI.com, Coleman dispels that fear by stating that the earth is not in peril. He states that natural cycles in weather are more responsible for any climate change, and that over the next two decades there is an equal chance for a cooling trend as there is for a warming trend. He also believes that once the dire predictions of global-warming scientists fail to pass, people will realize they have been "duped."

Yet the Weather Channel currently is the biggest proponent of global warming.

Have you seen all the places where they keep these weather monitors that they used to determine
that the Earth was/is warming up?

Next to burn barrels, Buildings, on ASPHALT, car, ect....
Not to say, that we're not warming up though...
OUGH BOY!!!

It has been proven that they made a mistake in their calculations at NASA, which is the figures used to support global warming. When the error was corrected it in fact proved that the earth has been cooling not warming.

Brothers and Sisters,

This is really just a con game being played for over 6 billion taxpayer dollars, and it's working.

The U.N. jumps on the false global warming band wagon. All the better to control the world in a one world communistic state.

_________________

U.N.: Climate change scarier than science fiction movie 
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: Even more terrifying, because 'real'

Proof of humans' impact on warming the earth's atmosphere is unequivocal, and the world faces a moral obligation to fight climate change, according to the final report by the United Nations' leading climate council.

The worst-case scenario envisaged by the report was as terrifying as created in doomsday films, said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

"These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie," he said. "But they are even more terrifying, because they are real."

The 23-page document by the UN-backed panel of scientists, issued Saturday, Nov. 17, contained the strongest warnings yet on climate change and "answered many of our questions on climate change," the secretary general said.

New ethic required

IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri pointed out several findings, including the threat rising sea levels posed to small island nations and hundreds of millions of people living in low-lying deltas as well as more infectious diseases and the destruction of coral reefs.

"We need a new ethic by which every human being realizes the importance of the challenge we are facing and starts to take action through changes in lifestyle and attitude," he said. "Every country in the world has to be committed to a shared vision and a set of common goals and actions that will help us move toward a much lower level of emissions."

Ban added that the international community would now have to "transform" its way of doing things in order to save the "treasure of our planet."

The final report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is essentially a summary of three reports compiled by more than 2,000 scientists and issued by the IPCC earlier this year.

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said the report was "a milestone in our scientific knowledge about climate change and the grave threats global warming poses to the planet."

"The report's findings amount to a stark warning that the world must act fast to slash greenhouse gas emissions if we are to prevent climate change from reaching devastating levels," he said in a statement. "The good news is that it also shows that deep emission cuts are both technologically feasible and economically affordable."

Basis for Bali conference

Governments haggled for five days over the wording of this final IPCC document, which environmentalists say will serve as a manual on how to tackle global warming and set the tone for a crucial UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia next month.

"We cannot afford to leave Bali without such a breakthrough," Ban said, referring to a conference running on the Indonesian island from Dec. 3-14, tasked with setting a strategy for deepening cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Government representatives at the Bali conference are expected to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires industrialized countries to make targeted commitments on curbing their greenhouse gases and expires in 2012.

The new IPCC report makes clear that global warming is a man-made phenomenon and is already taking place. It warns of catastrophic and unavoidable consequences if the atmosphere warms by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F). Global temperatures have already risen about 0.7 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years.

Global warming can only be slowed

To prevent that, the level of carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere must start dropping by 2020. By 2050, global emissions must be 50 percent to 65 percent below 2000 levels. The IPCC has already said global warming cannot be stopped, only slowed.

Melting glaciers and loss of snow in Alpine regions as well as thinning Arctic summer sea ice and thawing permafrost shows that climate change is already on the march, the IPCC report said.

Some of the newer elements of the report include one combined graphic that at a glance lays out specifically what levels of greenhouse gases lead to what rises in temperatures -- and what consequences each temperature rise could have on society.

Environmental groups pleased

Representatives from environmental protection groups appeared pleased with the study's results.

"The strong message of the IPCC can't be watered down -- the science is crystal clear," said Hans Verolme, director of environmental group WWF's Global Climate Change Program. "The hard fact is we have caused climate change, and it's also clear that we hold the solution to stop global warming in our hands,"

The IPCC was last month awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with former US Vice President Al Gore, for raising awareness of the threat of climate change.

You and I know there's hidden agenda everywhere.  Everyone on secular earth hasn't all of a sudden gone stupid.  When it comes out that the math was wrong, etc, etc and they all know it, then it is gain for them in some sense.  Satan is working over time and anyone that doesn't believe it just needs to take a look around.  Even my unsaved friends believe we are living in the End Times.  I sure hope they wise up soon and decide they want Heaven over hell.

Really?   ;) :D  Seriously, there are many in the secular world that are seeing through all of this and calling it garbage.



Amen!

'Global warming' shocker – Who's minding thermometers?
Surface temperature recording stations a shambles, says veteran meteorologist


Dire "global warming" predictions are based on bad science from the very start, says a veteran meteorologist who found surface temperatures recorded throughout the U.S. are done so with almost no regard to scientific standards.

As a result of his shocking initial findings that temperature monitoring stations were constructed and placed without regard to achieving accurate recordings of natural temperatures, Anthony Watts set out to investigate the facilities used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

What he found were temperature stations with sensors on the roofs of buildings, near air-conditioning exhaust vents, in parking lots near hot automobiles, barbecues, chimneys and on pavement and concrete surfaces – all of which would lead to higher temperature recordings than properly established conditions.

To qualify as a properly maintained temperature station, sensors must be placed in elevated, slatted boxes on flat ground surrounded by a clear surface on a slope of less than 19 degrees with surrounding grass and vegetations ground cover of less than 10 centimeters high. The sensors must be located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces and parking lots.

Watts' concerns about the temperatures being used to gauge whether global warming is actually taking place began when he read a 1997 study by the U.S. National Research Council that concluded the consistency and quality of temperature stations was "inadequate and deteriorating." Meanwhile, he learned, the U.S. Historical Climatological Network, responsible for maintaining the stations, was doing nothing to address the problems.

So Watts decided to take up the challenge himself. After surveying a few randomly chosen temperature stations and being shocked at the shortcomings, he set forth on a plan to survey all 1,221 stations, taking photographs along the way. With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.

The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.

All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded.

Global Cooling: World Temps Falling, Lowest Since 1983

The scare over global warming, and our politicians' response to it, is becoming ever more bizarre. On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded.

This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

On the other hand, we had Gordon Brown last week, in his "first major speech on climate change", airily committing his own and future governments to achieving a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 - which is rather like prime minister Salisbury at the end of Queen Victoria's reign trying to commit Winston Churchill's government to achieving some wholly impossible goal in the middle of the Second World War.

Mr Brown's only concrete proposal for reaching this absurd target seems to be his plan to ban plastic bags, whatever they have to do with global warming (while his government also plans a near-doubling of flights out of Heathrow).

But of course he is no longer his own master in such fantasy exercises. Few people have yet really taken on board the mind-blowing scale of all the "planet-saving" measures to which we are now committed by the European Union.

By 2020 we will have to generate 20 per cent of our electricity from "renewables". At present the figure is four per cent (most of it generated by hydro-electric schemes and methane gas from landfill).

As Whitehall officials privately briefed ministers in August, there is no way Britain can begin to meet such a fanciful target (even if the Government manages to ram through another 30,000 largely useless wind turbines).

Another EU directive commits us to deriving 10 per cent of our transport fuel from "biofuels" by 2020. This would take up pretty well all the farmland we currently use to grow food (at a time when world grain prices have doubled in six months and we are already face a global food shortage).

Then by 2009, thanks to a mad gesture by Mr Blair and his EU colleagues last March, we also face the prospect of a total ban on incandescent light bulbs.

This compulsory switch to low-energy bulbs, apart from condemning us to live in uglier homes under eye-straining light, is in practice completely out of the question, because, according to our Government's own figures, more than half Britain's domestic light fittings cannot take them.

This year will be remembered for two things.

First, it was the year when the scientific data showed that the cosmic scare over global warming may well turn out to be just that - yet another vastly inflated scare.

Second, it was the year when the hysteria generated by all the bogus science behind this scare finally drove those who rule over us, including Gordon "Plastic Bags" Brown, wholly out of their wits.

Billions of MoD spending is off target

The great row over under-funding of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, led in the Lords by five former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, has so far missed a hugely important part of the story, although it was hinted at by General Sir Mike Jackson when he was interviewed on the Today programme.
# Army funding shortage 'is insult to troops'
# Disabled veterans jeered at swimming pool
# Army crisis as number of troops leaving

Alas, John Humphrys failed to pick up the significance of Jackson's observation that "we may not have enough to do the things which we do now and the things which we may have to do in the future".

The problem with our defence spending in recent years is not that the Ministry of Defence has been starved of cash. On the contrary, it has been earmarking colossal sums for projects designed to equip us to fight imaginary wars in the future, as part of the European Rapid Reaction Force to which Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon committed us around 2000: £20 billion on the Navy's two giant carriers (with planes and infrastructure); £16 billion on FRES, a new family of vehicles for the Army; not to mention the £20 billion already committed to Eurofighters for the RAF.

It was the diversion of resources into planning for that imaginary future that took the eyes of the MoD and the then-Chief of the Defence Staff off the need to equip our forces adequately for the totally different type of insurgency war they have actually been having to fight.

The MoD is belatedly trying to make amends for this disastrous blunder, for instance equipping our troops with properly mine-protected Mastiffs, instead of the unprotected Snatch Land Rovers that have caused so many deaths. It may also help that enthusiasm for the EU's fantasy armed forces of the future has been on the wane.

But no one at the time shared that enthusiasm more obviously (or was happier to send those hopelessly inadequate Land Rovers to Iraq) than the officer who was then Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson.

Schools minister neglects homework

Desmond Swayne, MP for New Forest West, tells me of a fearful problem affecting Hampshire schools, which have been told by the county education officer, Ian Beacham, that under new rules teachers must no longer drive pupils in mini-buses unless they have a full "passenger vehicle licence" - "a huge and expensive undertaking which entitles them to drive a coach or bus".
# 'Independent schools monopolise Oxbridge'
# Call to limit middle classes in schools
# Parents spend half of income on school fees

Threatening many extra-curricular activities, such as away sporting fixtures, this is causing such grief that Mr Swayne has asked in Parliament whether it is right that teachers should be forbidden to drive children in this way.

Schools minister Jim Knight didn't know the answer but said he would look into it. Harriet Harman, Leader of the House, suggested that Mr Swayne should move for a debate on the issue.

Had those ministers or Hampshire's education officer learned to use Google, they might have found in seconds that this is all a fuss about nothing. The two relevant EU directives on driving licences, 91/439 and 2003/59, make clear that teachers are exempted from the licensing requirements, as does a leaflet available at the click of a mouse on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency website.

But does it not say something about the way we now allow our laws to be made in Brussels that neither ministers nor a council official responsible for enforcing them appear to know what those laws say?

• On October 19, 1999 I reported here a remarkable "personal message" sent out to Britain's small businesses over the signature of Nick Montagu, then head of the Inland Revenue Board. He told them how "exciting and important" it was for him and his staff to be "at the forefront of implementing the new Labour Government's policy agenda".

How apt, in light of the mega-grief they are currently causing the Government, that eight years later our incompetent tax-gatherers appear to be playing such a significant part in New Labour's impending downfall.

Snowfall in Europe

After suffering a delayed and, in some cases, virtually snow less season in 2006-07, European resorts are enjoying record November snowfalls. For once skiers heading for the slopes will find more snow in Europe than in North America.

Switzerland and Austria have had the best of the early snow, with even low-lying resorts, that had previously been drawing up plans for ‘winter hiking’ now able to use their chairlifts.

France is expecting significant snowfalls this weekend, as are parts of Germany; some Italian resorts are already open and Sweden and Norway are also hoping to join the party. Zurich has had its heaviest snow fall since 1955 and in Verbier the town is reporting 40cm (16 inches) of snow, whilst up on the slopes there are reports of 60cm (approx 24 inches).

Global warming skeptic rankles fellow scientists 
Best-selling Danish professor says climate change not imminent threat

As world leaders scramble to address global warming, sceptical environmentalist Bjoern Lomborg finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.

Lomborg, author of the best-selling book "The Sceptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World," acknowledges that the climate is warming but insists greenhouse gases "are not the priority over all priorities."

The 42-year-old Dane, who once headed Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute, has for years been speaking out against the increasingly mainstream concern that global warming is causing sea levels to rise and changing weather patterns in a way that will soon wreak havoc on world ecosystems and all of humankind.

"There are other global challenges to address this century like the battle against AIDS, malaria, malnutrition and poverty," he told AFP.

Lomborg's "Sceptical Environmentalist," which appeared in Danish in 1998 and in English three years later, blasts the growing "hysteria" around climate change and has drawn the ire of virtually the entire scientific community.

"The polar bear, which is close to extinction, has become an icon in the warming debate, when it would be enough to simply stop hunting hundreds (of the animals) each year," said Lomborg, who currently works as an assistant applied statistics professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

He acknowledges that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could prevent damages of 4,820 billion dollars by the end of the century. However, he insists the measures to do so would cost anywhere between 4,575 and 37,632 billion dollars during the same period.

Lomborg figured on Time Magazine's list of the world's most influential people in 2004 and was ranked as the world's 14th most influential academic by the respected US magazine Foreign Policy and the British monthly Prospect a year later.

In his latest book, "Cool It," published this year, the Dane violently attacks the Kyoto Protocol on climate change for being "too expensive and inefficient" and calls on world leaders to "keep their cool" and to avoid "a state of panic that will prevent them from making rational decisions."

Lomborg's claims fly in the face of the UN-sponsored climate change conference on the Indonesian island of Bali, where more than 180 nations will attempt this month to lay the groundwork for a new emissions-reducing pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires at the end of 2012.

"I don't refute global warming. It is real but has been exaggerated by many. We must stop this climate obsession and address other more urgent problems," he said.

"Reducing CO2 emissions will not make the world a better place to live," he said, insisting that "even if we do achieve the fixed (emission reduction) objectives, we will only slow global warming by two years by the end of the century."

"That's very little for a lot of money," Lomborg said, calling instead for "research into alternative and cheap technologies and energy development to reduce the dependence on fossil fuel pollutants."

"One could also get a lot more for one's money by investing in the fight against AIDS, malaria and famine," he said, insisting that "for every person saved from malaria by hitting the brakes on global warming you could save 36,000 through third world health policies."

Few environmental warriors make the blond-haired Dane fly off the handle like former US vice president Al Gore, who won this year's Nobel Peace Prize with the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"It is ironic that the prize is being given to someone who spent a good portion of his career considerably exaggerating the conclusions of United Nations' experts" on global warming, he said.

Lomborg also slams Gore's "excesses" in his celebrated film "An Inconvenient Truth," including his claims that sea levels could rise six metres (20 feet) if nothing is done to cool the planet.

"The UN panel talks of 30 centimetres (one foot)," he said.

Lomborg is worshipped as a hero by some, but has become increasingly vilified on the international stage.

Environmental writers and activists in Oxford, England, have for instance created an anti-Lomborg website aimed at exposing what they say are flaws in his analyses.

Among detailed criticisms of his articles and theories, the website also features a picture of Lomborg after he was "pied" at a British bookstore.

Another of his detractors, Tim Flannery, a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, recently wrote in the Washington Post that "Cool It" was "a stealth attack on humanity's future."

Epic Flood Triggered Ancient "Big Chill," Study Says

An epic gush of fresh water into the North Atlantic slowed a deep ocean current and triggered a century-long chill in Europe and North America some 8,200 years ago, according to a new study.

The finding confirms scenarios suggested by previous models of the ancient climate and should raise confidence in predictions made about how the oceans will respond to Greenland's rapidly melting glaciers, an outside expert said.

Some scientists are concerned that Greenland's fast-melting ice could again slow the deep current, sparking changes in weather around the world ranging from reduced rainfall to a new mini ice age.

The current, called the North Atlantic Deep Water, helps keep Europe's climate mild. It shuttles cold, dense waters from the northern seas to the tropics, allowing the warm surface waters of the Gulf Stream to flow north.

Since fresh water is less dense than cold salt water, climate models suggest a flood of fresh water into the North Atlantic should force the current to slow or shut down.

Scientists suspect the sudden draining of North America's ancient glacial lake Agassiz—which was seven times larger than all of the Great Lakes combined—caused a well-studied cold snap about 8,200 years ago. But evidence that the deep-water current slowed was lacking.

Now, a team of European scientists has found the evidence in the contents of a 39-foot (12-meter) plug of seabed mud pulled from some 11,200 feet (3,400 meters) deep in the northwest Atlantic.

"We show that there's a sudden disruption in the deep circulation which takes place just at the time of the flood outburst," said Helga Kleiven, a paleoclimate expert at the Bjerknes Center for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway.

She and her colleagues report the finding in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

Evidence Found in Ancient, Tiny Bugs

Kleiven and her colleagues drilled the core off the southern tip of Greenland, where sediment-rich deep waters slow down and deposit their loads.

"The sedimentation rate is 10 to 15 times higher at these drift sites than they are in the rest of the North Atlantic," Kleiven said.

The researchers identified a section of the core that corresponds to a hundred-year period around 8,200 years ago. The chemistry of the sediment there is unlike that from any other time over the past 10,000 years, Kleiven said.

The sediment grains in this section are also much smaller, suggesting the larger, heavier grains had already fallen out of slower-moving waters or were never picked up.

In addition, oxygen isotopes in the shells of microscopic bugs found in this section suggest the surface water temperature was markedly colder.

"Basically, we have this deepwater response which we see in both chemical and sedimentological properties fitting right in time with the [draining of] glacial lake Agassiz," Kleiven said.

"And also on top of that, by looking at … these little bugs, we strengthen the connection between deep ocean change and the climate anomaly."

Richard Alley is a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University who originally proposed in 1997 that changes in ocean circulation could have triggered the cooling that occurred 8,200 years ago.

He said the core preserves the short-term record beautifully and corresponds well with the climate record detected in ice cores pulled from Greenland.

"The data are just so clean," he said.

No Day After Tomorrow?

The new findings suggest that the changes in the ocean circulation pattern and cooling of the ocean surface happened over the course of a few decades at most, Kleiven noted.

"The response we see in these deep-ocean changes [is that] they occur on timescales which are rapid enough [that] they could impact human societies," she said.

While no immediate freshwater supply the size of lake Agassiz exists today, Greenland's rapidly melting ice sheets could potentially slow the deepwater current and affect global weather patterns.

A slowing could thrust large portions of Europe and North America into a mini ice age and weaken the monsoon rains in Africa and Asia.

"That's the rain that a couple billion people rely on for crops," Alley said.

This fear has even spilled over to Hollywood, where it inspired the 2004 eco-disaster film The Day After Tomorrow. (Read: "'Day After Tomorrow' Ice Age 'Impossible,' Researcher Says" [May 27, 2004].)

To study the possibility of future freshwater-induced disasters, scientists build computer models based on their understanding of past events like the cooling 8,200 years ago.

The new sediment core findings, Alley noted, suggest that these climate models are accurate.

And this, he added, is good news. When scientists plug the melting rates of Greenland's ice sheets into these models, they indicate catastrophe will most likely be avoided.

As an analogy, he equated potential disasters like a shutdown of the North Atlantic Deep Water to drunk drivers on a dark road.

"We now have confidence that there are fewer drunk drivers out there than we thought there were," he said. "But they're not gone."

I noticed two things about this article. One, the epic flood theory they discuss here is more evidence of Noah's flood that actually occurred 4,200 years ago not the 8,200 they attest to. The other is that I knew that they would somehow find a way to blame global warming on another ice age which is just what they are saying here. After all they have to cover themselves and account for all incidents in weather change instead of just admitting that they were wrong.

 ;D   ;D   It's OK, and it was only a small error that amounts to an opposite. I'm just wondering - is there a Nobel Prize for the BIGGEST LIES?

Well Al Gore received a Nobel award, for his lies on global warming.

Gore caught lying
Posted: December 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
by Joseph Farah

The United Kingdom court ruling smacking down Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" as shameless political fantasy unfit for schoolchildren elicited an interesting reaction from the former vice president.

Did he challenge the court's findings?

No.

Did he provide new evidence to bolster his case for any of the specific findings of falsehood and exaggeration by the court?

No.

Did he argue that the court itself was corrupt or incapable of understanding the "science" behind his film?

No.

He didn't do any of those things.

Instead, what Al Gore did was to make scurrilous and unsubstantiated accusations about the concerned parent who brought the case to court, at some personal sacrifice, to protect his child from the mental abuse of being force to watch "An Inconvenient Truth."

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider questioned in a Washington Post online blog whether Dimmock paid for his legal expenses himself or got help from others. Since she could not determine the answer to this question puzzling her, she determined that Dimmock's "motives are quite suspect."

If this is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't think I've ever seen one.

The people who created and distributed this propaganda film throughout the world are among the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. And here they are questioning the motives of one obscure parent who battled, like David vs. Goliath, the national education establishment in the United Kingdom and won!

This is the definition of "chutzpah" – Tennessee-style.

Interestingly, Gore himself has publicly said nothing about the court case – nothing! Apparently, he hopes you won't learn about it. He hopes that by not commenting on it, the amazing story of one parent's battle for truth and justice in the United Kingdom will not be heard here in the United States. And, he may have something there.

This story had no legs whatsoever – which is why I am writing about it two days in a row in this space.

A reputable court of law has heard the facts on "An Inconvenient Truth" and found it seriously wanting. That court has determined the movie is unfit for viewing in public schools in the UK without specific and explicit disclaimers explaining that the assertions offered by Gore are not supported by science. And the reaction in the U.S. is like nothing ever happened. The movie is still being shown in classrooms from coast to coast. It is, besides evolution, the very centerpiece of what passes for science education in American schools today!

This raises some questions in my mind:

    * Why isn't Al Gore being hounded in all his public appearances to address this court ruling and its implications?

    * Why isn't he put on the spot in every venue to answer the specific findings of fact?

    * Since Al Gore won't comment nor dispute the court's findings, why aren't his acolytes in Hollywood and elsewhere, all those involved in the film and supporting it, being asked to take up the challenge?

    * Why aren't U.S. parents challenging the showing of this film in schools the way the UK parent-hero, Stuart Dimmock, did?

    * Is there not even one prominent school authority in America who is willing to re-examine his commitment to the educational value of this film in light of the UK court ruling?

lol  ...  Let's not put all of the poor Tennesseeans down because of Al Gore. Most of them don't even like him.   :D :D  ;D ;D



Other winners of a Nobel Prize:



 ;D ;D  Must be.  ;D ;D

"Yeah!  I stuck it to 'em good this time!"

 (http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g83/harbl_harbl/algore.jpg)

Amazing how some can show their faces when they know that everyone else knows what a lying, thiefing, con man they are.  I would be in hiding somewhere. Actually, I would never have to because I could never do it and be comfortable in my own skin.

That picture does fit his attitude.

Huck, Mitt, Rudy, McCain blame you for global warming
GOP frontrunners all believe climate change serious threat


The Republican presidential candidates shown leading the race in recent polls all believe global warming is a serious threat and caused by human activity.

When asked at today's Des Moines Register debate in Iowa to raise their hands if they believed climate change were indeed a real problem caused by people, Sen. John McCain, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Gov. Mitt Romney all responded in the positive.

"Climate change is real. It's happening. I believe human beings are contributing to it," Giuliani said, calling for a "Manhattan Project" to wean America off foreign energy sources.

McCain chimed in, saying, "More than contributing, my friend."

"But let me put it to you this way: Suppose that climate change is not real and all we do is adopt green technologies which our economy and our technology is perfectly cable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world," McCain said. "But suppose they're wrong and climate change is real and we've done nothing. What kind of a planet are we going to pass on to the next generation of Americans?"

Mitt Romney, who has fallen behind the surging Mike Huckabee in Iowa, said the United States could not act alone.

"We call it 'global warming,' not 'America warming,'" Romney said. "So let's not put a burden on us alone and have the rest of the world skate by without having to participate in this effort. It's a global effort."

Those not raising their hands on the original question of global climate change being a serious threat caused by human activity were former Sen. Fred Thompson, Reps. Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, and Ambassador Alan Keyes.

When Keyes was asked his thoughts, he gave a long answer condemning the betrayal of U.S. sovereignty, elite politicians and the destruction of the Constitution.

Thompson jumped in to say: "I agree with Alan Keyes' position on global warming."

As the audience laughed, Keyes said: "I think the most emission we need to control is the hot air emission of politicians who pretend one thing and don't deliver."

I just wrote a post on this same subject in another thread. There is a HIDDEN, BIG, AND UGLY STORY HERE SOMEWHERE! Is it political suicide to tell the truth on this issue? I want to find out more information on this before I make any further speculation, but folks other than Keyes on that stage knew the TRUTH and LIED! At this point, I can only assume that BIG POWER AND BIG MONEY OR FEAR = LIES! If everyone will remember, there was also a MAGIC TIME that Bush and others also bought the BALONEY, and the BALONEY was being verified as BALONEY at that very time. In fact, it's Court Ordered BALONEY in the UK, and major sources here have already identified it as BALONEY. It looks like BALONEY, smells like BALONEY, and hard evidence has been presented that it IS BALONEY!

I have to find out more. At this point, I'm wondering if any of the candidates are worth voting for. If power and money from BALONEY are more important than the truth, I have no use for a candidate like that. Keyes bluntly told the TRUTH, so what kind of UGLY game is afoot? I've never heard of or seen Keyes before, but he was the only one with the courage to tell the TRUTH!

I have heard quite a bit about Alan Keyes. He was a member of the Reagan administration. Ran for Senator against Barack Obama in Illinois. Ran for President in 1996 and 2000. He has a consistent record of being against abortion, homosexuality, terrorists and being pro-Israel.

He has had a long history though of committing political suicide. While running against Obama he made the comment that Jesus would not vote for Obama because of Obamas stance for abortion. It is believed that this statement was the primary reason that he lost that election. His consistent failures in the political arena have not helped him gain in popularity.

He is currently a commentator for World Net Daily and serves on the Board of Advisors for the Catholic League.



I agree completely with that. There is something very foul afoot and I don't like the smell of it. It is another of those things though that gives us another sign of the times.

Gore: U.S. blocking climate talks progress 
At Bali talks says next president will likely be more supportive

Nobel laureate Al Gore said Thursday the United States is "principally responsible" for blocking progress at the U.N. climate conference, and European nations threatened to boycott U.S.-led climate talks next month unless Washington compromises on emissions reductions.

The former vice president urged delegates to take urgent action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, and told them that the next U.S. president will likely be more supportive of international caps on polluting gases.

"My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali," said Gore, who flew to Bali from Oslo, Norway, where he received the Nobel Peace Prize for helping alert the world to the danger of climate change.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Thursday Gore was wrong in blaming the United States for holding up progress. "I think he is incorrect," she said.

Kristen Hellmer, a member of the American delegation in Bali, said of Gore's remarks: "The U.S. is being open and working very constructively with the other countries that are here. We are rolling our sleeves up and really working to come up with a global post-2012 framework."

Earlier, the United Nations warned that time was running out for an agreement aimed at launching negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012 and the talks in Bali were in danger of "falling to pieces."

The United States, Japan and several other governments are refusing to accept language in a draft document suggesting that industrialized nations consider cutting emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent by saying specific targets would limit the scope of future talks.

European nations said they may boycott a U.S.-led climate meeting next month unless Washington compromises.

"No result in Bali means no Major Economies Meeting," said Sigmar Gabriel, top EU environment official from Germany, referring to a series of separate climate talks initiated by President Bush in September. "This is the clear position of the EU. I do not know what we should talk about if there is no target."

The European Union and others say the proposed emissions caps reflect the measures scientists say are needed to rein in global warming and head off predictions of rising sea levels, worsening floods and droughts, and the extinction of plant and animal species.

The U.S. invited 16 other major economies, including European countries, Japan, China and India, to discuss a program of what are expected to be nationally determined, voluntary cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions.

Perino said that while there were some voices calling for a boycott of the Washington meeting, it did not appear to be the official position of the EU. She said such comments were "not constructive to a conversation where everybody wants to get together for this meeting to talk about a framework for moving forward."

"And it's not just the United States who has expressed concern and surprise that the draft document included a specific reduction number. The specific reduction number was what was supposed to be negotiated after the Bali conference, once a framework was in place," Perino said.

The Bush administration views the major economies process as the main vehicle for determining future steps by the U.S.—and it hopes by others—to slow emissions. But environmentalists accuse the U.S. of trying to undermine the U.N. process.

Gore urged delegates to reach agreement even without the backing of the United States, saying President Bush's successor, who will take office in January 2009, would likely be more supportive of binding cuts.

"Over the next two years, the United States is going to be somewhere it is not now," he said. "I must tell you candidly that I cannot promise that the person who is elected will have the position I expect they will have, but I can tell you I believe it is quite likely."

Gore, who helped in the final negotiation of the Kyoto pact in 1997, also called for implementing a successor agreement two years early, in The first implementation period of the Kyoto pact expires at the end of 2012.

"We can't afford to wait another five years," he said.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said he was worried the U.S.-EU deadlock could derail the process and that a final "Bali roadmap" would contain an agreement to negotiate a new climate deal by 2009, but may not include specific targets for emission reductions.

"I'm very concerned about the pace of things," he said. "If we don't get wording on the future, then the whole house of cards falls to pieces."

The United States delegation said while it continues to reject inclusion of specific emission cut targets, it hopes eventually to reach an agreement that is "environmentally effective" and "economically sustainable."

It also noted that that the conference was the start of negotiations for a new climate pact, not the end.

"We don't have to resolve all these issues ... here in Bali," said Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, the head of the U.S. delegation.

The United States is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the only major industrial country to have rejected Kyoto, which expires in 2012. It has been on the defensive since the conference began Dec. 3.

The Kyoto Protocol requires 37 industrial nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by a relatively modest average 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Bush has argued that the pact would harm the U.S. economy and cutbacks should have been imposed on poorer but fast-developing nations such as China and India.

The talks in Bali are scheduled to wrap up Friday.

U.S. bows to demands for global warming pact

BALI, Indonesia - In a dramatic finish to a U.N. climate conference, world leaders adopted a plan Saturday for negotiating a new global warming pact by 2009, after the United States backed down in a battle over wording supported by developing nations and Europe.

The U.S. stand had drawn loud boos and sharp rebukes - "Lead ... or get out of the way!" one delegate demanded - before Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky reversed her position, clearing the way adoption of the so-called "Bali Roadmap."

"The United States is very committed to this effort and just wants to really ensure we all act together. We will go forward and join consensus," she said.

The sudden reversal was met with rousing applause.

The upcoming two years of talks, which will hammer out a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, could determine for years to come how well the world will cut emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. A year of scientific reports have warned that rising temperatures will cause widespread drought, floods, higher sea levels and worsening storms.

"This is the beginning, not the end," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We will have to engage in more complex, long and difficult negotiations."

The document does not commit countries to specific actions against global warming. It was limited to setting an agenda and schedule for negotiators to find ways to reduce pollution and help poor countries adapt to environmental changes by speeding up the transfer of technology and financial assistance.

All-night negotiations had appeared on the brink of collapse several times. Ban made an urgent plea for progress in the final hours of talks, expressing frustration with last-minutes disputes. He later praised the United States for compromising in the end.

"I am encouraged by, and I appreciate the spirit of flexibility of the U.S. delegation and other key delegations," he told The Associated Press.

European and U.S. envoys dueled into the final hours of the two-week conference over an EU proposal to suggest an ambitious goal for cutting the emissions of industrial nations - by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

The guidelines were eliminated after the U.S., joined by Japan and others, argued that targets should come at the end of the two-year negotiations, not the beginning. An indirect reference was inserted as a footnote instead.

Just when it appeared agreement was within reach Saturday morning, developing nations argued that their need for technological help from rich nations and other issues needed greater recognition in the document. China also angrily accused the U.N. of pressuring nations to sign off on the text even as sideline negotiations continued.

In an apparent resolution, India and others suggested minor adjustments in the text that encouraged monitoring of technological transfer to make sure rich countries were meeting that need.

The EU backed the changes, but the United States objected, calling for further talks. Delegates by turns criticized and pleaded with Dobriansky to reverse course.

"We would like to beg them," said Ugandan Environment Minister Jesca Eriyo.

The applause that followed the Dobriansky's reversal was one of the few times the U.S. won public praise at a conference studded with accusations that Washington was blocking progress.

She told reporters later that other delegations had convinced the U.S. that developing nations did not intend to dilute their commitment to take steps to stop global warming.

"After hearing the comments ... we were assured by their words to act," she said. "So with that, we felt it was important that we go forward."

Environmentalists and other critics of the U.S. position cheered the reversal.

"We have learned a historical lesson: if you expose to the world the dealings of the United States, they will ultimately back down," said Hans Verolme, director of WWF's Global Climate Change Program.

For developing countries, the final document instructs negotiators to consider incentives and other means to encourage poorer nations to curb - voluntarily - growth in their emissions. The explosion of greenhouse emissions in China, India and other developing countries potentially could negate cutbacks in the developed world.

The roadmap is intended to lead to a more inclusive, effective successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which commits 37 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gases by an average of 5 percent between 2008 and 2012.

The United States - the largest producer of such gases - has rejecting Kyoto, seriously weakening an initiative that scientists agree was already not strong enough to have an impact on the environment. President Bush has argued that the required gas cuts would hurt the economy, and he opposed the lack of cuts imposed on China and other emerging economies.

Critics - including former Vice President Al Gore - accused Washington of stonewalling progress at Bali. But many pointed out that with Bush's departure from office in early 2009, chances were high that the next American president would be much more supportive of ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Another clash at the conference was between rich and poor nations.

Developing nations, led by China, have demanded that industrialized countries - which have grown rich by polluting for many decades - acknowledge their primary responsibility for resolving the problem. Poorer countries fear that they will be forced to sacrifice economic growth for the sake of cleaning up a mess caused by the industrialized world.

Richer nations, meanwhile, are concerned about skyrocketing rates of greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world. China is a primary concern, and many have estimated that it has already eclipsed the United States as the No. 1 emitter.

Climate change 'hard man' breaks down at summit 
Dutch diplomat in charge of talks burst into tears, led away by colleagues

He is known as the "hard man" of climate-change negotiation.

But after 12 exhausting days of trying to reach a worldwide agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was suddenly all too much for Yvo de Boer.

As the 200-nation Bali conference wrangled over a minor procedural matter, the Dutch diplomat in charge of the talks burst into tears and had to be led away by colleagues.

Moments earlier, Mr de Boer had been warning delegates that failure to reach an agreement on global warming could "plunge the world into conflict".

Officials from China, which feels Western countries should do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, accused UN negotiators of ignoring conference protocol.

Mr de Boer, distinctively dressed in a floral shirt, stepped up to the microphone to defend his staff - only to find that the words would no longer come.

As his unfinished sentences trailed away, he broke down and walked off the platform to supportive applause.

"He wasn't just wiping his eyes, he was in floods of tears," said one observer.

"Three colleagues - one of them a woman - formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic."

Mr de Boer's breakdown came after nearly a fortnight of squabbling over proposals to cut carbon emissions.

The European Union went to the conference demanding that industrialised nations commit to cuts in CO2 emissions of 25-40 per cent by 2020, a stance which was strongly opposed by the US, Canada and Japan.

America's representatives had also been jeered for insisting on firmer commitments from developing countries --despite President Bush's refusal to sign up to the previous targets laid down in the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.

In the end, a compromise was reached with a text that did not mention specific targets but acknowledged that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required".

A wave of relief swept the hall as US delegation chief Paula Dobriansky finally declared: "The United States is very committed to this effort and just wants to really ensure we all act together.

"With that, Mr Chairman, let me say to you we will go forward and join consensus."

The resulting treaty, known as the "Bali road map", sets in motion a two-year process of negotiations designed to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Under the deal, a new pact will be agreed at a meeting in Copenhagen in 2009.

By then, members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - the organisation of which de Boer is executive secretary - should have agreed on a comprehensive plan involving wealthy and developing nations.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn hailed the Bali deal as "an historic breakthrough" and a "huge step forward" in tackling climate change.

But Prime Minister Gordon Brown sounded a note of caution. "The Bali road map agreed today is just the first step," he said. "Now begins the hardest work."

The deal will come as a relief to Mr de Boer, who is known in the Netherlands for his passionate advocacy on the subject.

His reputation as an incisive --and tireless - negotiator has earned him the "hard man" tag.

However, former colleagues said his behaviour in Bali was not entirely out of character.

Political adviser Matthijs Spits said: "We Dutch can become quite emotional --surprisingly so for other nations who think we are cold."

If you don't get your way just break down and start crying. I can't believe that our representative bought into this.

U.S. Experts Insist Global Warming Not Man-Made

A group of US experts stubbornly insist that, contrary to what some of their colleagues believe, humans may not be responsible for the warming of the planet Earth.

These experts believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and they point to reams of data they say supports their assertions.

These conclusions are in sharp contradiction to those of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reached its conclusions using largely similar data. (After all the UN can't be wrong.  ::)  )

The UN body of about 3,000 experts ( mostly environmentalists ), including several renown US scientists, jointly won the award with former US vice president Al Gore for their work to raise awareness about the disastrous consequences of global warming.

In mid-November the IPCC adopted a landmark report stating that the evidence of a human role in the warming of the planet was now "unequivocal." (Yep, the sun or other natural occurrences has nothing to do with the weather. )

Retreating glaciers and loss of snow in Alpine regions, thinning Arctic summer sea ice and thawing permafrost shows that climate change is already on the march, the report said.

Carbon pollution, emitted especially by the burning of oil, gas and coal, traps heat from the Sun, thus warming the Earth's surface and inflicting changes to weather systems. ( The sun couldn't do this without carbon pollution trapping that heat. After all earth is the only one experiencing this.  ::)  ::)  )

A group of US scientists however disagree, and have written an article on their views that is published in The International Journal of Climatology, a publication of Britain's Royal Meteorological Society.

"The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, doesn't show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming," wrote lead author David Douglas, a climate expert from the University of Rochester, in New York state.

"The inescapable conclusion is that human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," Douglas wrote.

According to co-author John Christi from the University of Alabama, satellite data "and independent balloon data agree that the atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface," while greenhouse models "demand that atmospheric trend values be two to three times greater."

Data from satellite observations "suggest that greenhouse models ignore negative feedback produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects" of human carbon dioxide emissions.

The journal authors "have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases."

For Fred Singer, a climatologist at the University of Virginia and another co-author, the current warming "trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep sea sediments and stalagmites . . . and published in hundreds of papers in peer reviewed journals."

How these cyclical climate take place is still unknown, but they "are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on cloudiness, and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface and thus the climate."

Singer said at a recent National Press Club meeting in Washington that there is still no definite proof that humans can produce climate change.

The available data is ambiguous, Singer said: global temperatures, for example, rose between 1900 and 1940, well before humans began to burn the enormous quantities of hydrocarbons they do today. Then they dropped between 1940 and 1975, when the use of oil and coal increased, he said.

Singer believes that other factors -- like variations of solar winds and terrestrial magnetic field that impact cloud formations and the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, and thus determining the temperature -- are much more influential than human-generated greenhouse gas emissions.

Thank you.  It's encouraging this morning to find that at least we have a few folks left playing with a full deck.

Hundreds of scientists reject global warming
Basing policy on carbon dioxide levels 'potentially disastrous economic folly'

A new U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.

"Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling – all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output," said research physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science for clients including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

However, he said, "I have not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of the current global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case.

"Even though these computer climate models do not properly handle a number of important factors, including the role of precipitation as a temperature regulator, they are being (mis-)used to force a political agenda upon the U.S.," he continued. "While there are any number of reasons to reduce carbon dioxide generation, to base any major fiscal policy on the role of carbon dioxide in climate change would be inappropriate and imprudent at best and potentially disastrous economic folly at the worst."

The report compiled observations from more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen nations who have voiced objections to the so-called "consensus" on "man-made global warming."

Many of the scientists are current or former participants in the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose present officials, along with former Vice President Al Gore, have asserted a definite connection.

The new report comes from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP ranking member, and cites the hundreds of opinions issued just in 2007 that global warming and man's activities are unrelated.

"Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists," the introduction to the Senate report said. "In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics 'appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.'"

"Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears 'bite the dust,'" the introduction said.

And there probably would be many more scientists making such statements, were it not for the fear of retaliation from those aboard the global-warming-is-caused-by-SUVs bandwagon, the report said.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," noted Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

He's authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, and said, "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

At an earlier hearing, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., had confronted Stephen Johnson, administrator of the EPA, about a threatening e-mail from a group that includes the EPA. That e-mail from the American Council on Renewable Energy was addressed to Marlo Lewis, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and said, "It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

It was signed Michael T. Eckhart, president of ACORE.

The scientists cited in the new study hail from Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, New Zealand, France, Russia and the United States, and defied the idea, being carried forward by various political and environmental agendas, that man's activities are endangering the future of the Earth through contributions to a rise in temperatures.

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false.

"I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority," he said.

The report was generated after UN IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri implied there were only "about half a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world.

Former Vice President Gore, of course, has likened skeptics of the global-warming philosophy to "flat Earth society members."

But the Senate report noted the scientists who are expressing a dissatisfaction with such generalizations include experts in climatology, geology, oceanography, biology, glaciology, biogeography, meteorology, economics, chemistry, mathematics, environmental sciences, engineering, physics and paleoclimatology.

"Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Price with Vice President Gore," the report said.

Besides the Nobel Gore shared over the issue of global warming, he also won an Oscar for his work on "An Inconvenient Truth," which proclaims the validity of man-made global warming and advocates urgent action.

cont'd

However, Muriel Newman, director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, has told Academy President Sid Ganis and Executive Director Bruce Davis that honor should be withdrawn.

That's because British High Court judge Michael Burton has concluded Gore's documentary should be shown in British schools only with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. The decision followed a lawsuit by a father, Stewart Dimmock, who claimed the film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush."

The Nobel panel honored Gore and the IPCC for their efforts to spread awareness of "man-made climate change."

But the British court pointed to 11 inaccuracies in the production:

"The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism," Newman said. "Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not."

The court ruled the Guidance Notes to Teachers must make clear that:

    * The film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

    * If teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

    * Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies, according to the court, include:

    * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

    * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found that the film was misleading: Over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

    * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

    * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

    * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: In fact four polar bears drowned, and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

    * And others.

The new study includes opinions from scientists at Harvard, NASA, NOAA, NCAR, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Danish National Space Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Princeton, the EPA, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, the University of Helsinki, Notre Dame, Stockholm University and others.

The study is intended to dispel the validity of such statements as Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein's description of a scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels."

"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," said Russian scientist Oleg Sorochtin, of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences. He's authored more than 300 studies, nine books and a 2006 paper titled, "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth."

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number – entirely without merit," said Hendrik Tennekes, a pioneer at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming," added Eugenia Hackbart, the chief meteorologist at the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo, Brazil. "The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

Gore, as recently as Nov. 5, has said:

"But when you're reporting on a story like the one you're covering today, where you have people all around the world, you don't take – you don't search out for someone who still believes the Earth is flat and give them equal time. And the reason the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the thousands of scientists who make up that group, have for almost 20 years now created a very strong scientific consensus that is as strong a consensus as you'll ever see in science, that the climate crisis is real, human beings are responsible for it."

A WND reader said perhaps a remedy would be to reissue Gore's Nobel and Academy wards under the designation "best in class for science fiction," or appoint a prosecutor to investigate the extent of fraud committed "at the expense of the global community.

WND earlier reported more than 500 scientists were cited by an analysis of peer-reviewed literature by the Hudson Institute as having published documentation questioning an least one facet of the global-warming agenda.

The assessment supports another study on which WND reported recently, one that revealed carbon dioxide levels were largely irrelevant to global warming. Those results prompted Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

The analysis by Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery said 300 of those scientists have found evidence that a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to the current circumstances since the last Ice Age and that such warmings are linked to variations in the sun's irradiance.

"We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new," wrote B.P. Radhakrishna in the new Senate study. He's president of the Geological Society of India. "It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles."

"The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or evnts to blame on global warming," said Kelvin Kemm, former of South Africa's Atomic Energy Corp.

There are more and more reputable scientists that are coming forward by the day that are standing up to the fake political agendas (the money grabbers) that are supporting the gabage science of global warming.

Has global warming stopped?
'Temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?

Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.

Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.

But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.

But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?

Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.

Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.

I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.

The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.

From what I've seen in my own area is actually colder temperatures and more snow and ice than recorded in many years. In fact many temperature low records have been broken this year. This of course is not an indication of the overall conditions world wide but it does appear that we may be on a decline in the warming aspect and returning to a cooling condition. As a number of scientists have said it is cyclical conditions.

Careful there brother, I remember when that happened back in the 70's. People were screaming that we were heading into an "Ice Age." ;D :o ;) ;D ;D

Scientists doubt climate change


December 21, 2007

By S.A. Miller - More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.

The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet.

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

"I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached," Mr. Tennekes said in the report.

Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over."

"The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," he said.

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

"Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry," he said. "And that challenge is how are we going to provide the energy needed to support economic and social development while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."

The Republican report comes on the heels of Saturday's United Nations climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, where conferees adopted a plan to negotiate a new pact to create verifiable measurements to fight global warming in two years.

In the Senate report, environmental scientist David W. Schnare of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said he was skeptical because "conclusions about the cause of the apparent warming stand on the shoulders of incredibly uncertain data and models. ... As a policy matter, one has to be less willing to take extreme actions when data are highly uncertain."

The hundreds of others in the report — climatologists, oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, physicists and paleoclimatologists — voice varying degrees of criticism of the popular global-warming theory. Their testimony challenges the idea that the climate-change debate is "settled" and runs counter to the claim that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

The report's authors expect some of the scientists will recant their remarks under intense pressure from the public and from within professional circles to conform to the global-warming theory, a committee staffer said.

Several scientists in the report said many colleagues share their skepticism about man-made climate change but don't speak out publicly for fear of retribution, according to the report.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," atmospheric scientist Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in the report.

The IPCC has about 2,500 members.

HEATED DEBATE

The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming:

•"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact."

Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences

•"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute

•"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

•"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

•"There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried."

Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain

Scientists doubt climate change (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/844993096/-1/RSS_NATION_POLITICS&template=printart)

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Report Released on December 20, 2007

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)

INTRODUCTION:     

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. 

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK)  In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement.

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation.  It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote.  [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - linjk (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-C3F02278F4CF)

Scientists from Around the World Dissent 

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile."

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona."

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC;  the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is "settled."

There is about 12 more posts, which I don't feel like making. You can read the full report @ U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007   (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport) or here with the introduction, U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007   (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)

Off the weatherbug on my computer...... Who says it doesn't snow in Arizona...... ;)

SNOW ADVISORY IN EFFECT UNTIL 5 PM MST THIS AFTERNOON

Event Start: 11:31AM MST, Friday Dec 21, 2007
Event End: 5:00PM MST, Friday Dec 21, 2007

Back to summary
SNOW ADVISORY IN EFFECT
UNTIL 5 PM MST THIS AFTERNOON
Wswfgz

Urgent - Winter Weather Message National Weather Service Flagstaff AZ 1131 AM MST Fri Dec 21 2007

Little Colorado River Valley In Navajo County- Little Colorado River Valley In Apache County- Including The Cities Of... Winslow... Holbrook... Snowflake... St. Johns... Springerville 1131 AM MST Fri Dec 21 2007

... Snow Advisory In Effect Until 5 PM MST This Afternoon...

The National Weather Service In Flagstaff Has Issued A Snow Advisory... Which Is In Effect Until 5 PM MST This Afternoon.

A Low Pressure Trough Is Moving Through Central Arizona Producing Heavy Snow Showers Across The Southeastern Portions Of The Little Colorado River Valley. Snow Accumulations Are Expected To Be In The 1 To 2 Inch Range With Locally Higher Amounts Over The Next Several Hours.

Driving Conditions On Local Area Roadways Will Be Difficult As Roads Will Be Slick And Visibilities Will Be Reduced To Hundreds Of Feet In The Heaviest Showers.

A Snow Advisory Means That Periods Of Snow Will Likely Cause Travel Difficulties. Be Prepared For Snow Covered Roads And Limited Visibilities... Plan Extra Time For Travel... And Use Caution While Driving. Consider Taking Extra Winter Clothing And Other Emergency Supplies In Your Vehicle.

Bulletin Issued: 11:31AM MST, Friday Dec 21, 2007
Bulletin Expired: 5:00PM MST, Friday Dec 21, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~

Thats why I'm home early, I learned to listen to my body. :D  Though 1-2 inches of snow is nothing, to some of the places I've been.

Gore camp suggests scientists bought off
Report called global warming worries 'entirely without merit'


A spokeswoman for former Vice President Al Gore has suggested that scientists cited in a new Senate minority report that calls global warming worries "entirely without merit" have been bought off. Liberal speak meaning "I couldn't buy them off."   ;D

The U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.

But Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider told the Washington Times that after a quick review, about 25 or 30 of the scientists cited in the report may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

However, Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the claim, telling the newspaper the company is concerned about climate change reports, and doesn't pay scientists to "bash global-warming theories."

"Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry," he told the Times. "And that challenge is how are we going to provide the energy needed to support economic and social development while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."

A spokesman for Gore declined WND requests for additional comment on the issue.

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number – entirely without merit," Hendrik Tennekes, a pioneer at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, said in the report . "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

"Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling – all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output," said research physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science for clients including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

However, he said, "I have not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of the current global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case.

"Even though these computer climate models do not properly handle a number of important factors, including the role of precipitation as a temperature regulator, they are being (mis-)used to force a political agenda upon the U.S.," he continued. "While there are any number of reasons to reduce carbon dioxide generation, to base any major fiscal policy on the role of carbon dioxide in climate change would be inappropriate and imprudent at best and potentially disastrous economic folly at the worst."

The report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP ranking member cited more than 400 prominent scientists in dozens of fields of study from more than two dozen nations around the world who voiced objections to the so-called "consensus" on "man-made global warming," the subject of Gore's award-winning film "An Inconvenient Truth."

Gore, of course, has likened skeptics of the global-warming philosophy to "flat Earth society members."

As recently as Nov. 5, he said:

"But when you're reporting on a story like the one you're covering today, where you have people all around the world, you don't take – you don't search out for someone who still believes the Earth is flat and give them equal time. And the reason the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the thousands of scientists who make up that group, have for almost 20 years now created a very strong scientific consensus that is as strong a consensus as you'll ever see in science, that the climate crisis is real, human beings are responsible for it."

The Senate report, however, noted the scientists who are expressing a dissatisfaction with such generalizations include experts in climatology, geology, oceanography, biology, glaciology, biogeography, meteorology, economics, chemistry, mathematics, environmental sciences, engineering, physics and paleoclimatology.

"Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Price with Vice President Gore," the report said.

Besides the Nobel Gore shared over the issue of global warming, he also won an Oscar for his work on "An Inconvenient Truth," which proclaims the validity of man-made global warming and advocates urgent action.

And there probably would be many more scientists making such statements, were it not for the fear of retaliation from those aboard the global-warming-is-caused-by-SUVs bandwagon, the report said.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," noted Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

He's authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, and said, "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

Members of the U.S. Senate earlier had noted an e-mail from a global warming theory supporter to a critic, threatening to "destroy your career … if you produce one more editorial against climate change."

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with United Nations climate change advocates or former is false.

cont'd

"I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority," he said.

The report was generated after UN IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri implied there were only "about half a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world.

A ruling from British High Court Judge Michael Burton also has restricted the showing of Gore's film in British schools so that it includes guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

The British court said the production includes 11 inaccuracies, including:

    * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

    * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found that the film was misleading: Over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

    * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

    * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

    * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: In fact four polar bears drowned, and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

    * And others.

The new study includes opinions from scientists at Harvard, NASA, NOAA, NCAR, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Danish National Space Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Princeton, the EPA, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, the University of Helsinki, Notre Dame, Stockholm University and others.

"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," said Russian scientist Oleg Sorochtin, of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences. He's authored more than 300 studies, nine books and a 2006 paper titled, "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth."

WND earlier reported more than 500 scientists were cited by an analysis of peer-reviewed literature by the Hudson Institute as having published documentation questioning an least one facet of the global-warming agenda.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/bear071207_600x495.jpg)


This is the photo that became a symbol of global warming: polar bears stranded on a melting ice-floe in mid-winter. The truth? It was taken in mid-summer when such scenes are quite normal and have been for many, many years.

The polar bear population was down to between 5,000 and 10,000 (estimated) by 1970 due to over-hunting. The current population has risen to 25,000. Just another environmentalist lie.

Ski town's flame too hot for global warming cops
Mayor targets downtown attraction for extinction
Posted: December 25, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

In the mountain resort of Aspen, where mansions each pump out more than 600 pounds of carbon dioxide annually, and jets delivering the rich and famous to their second homes add another 300,000 tons, the mayor is trying to eliminate a natural-gas fueled flame in an open municipal hearth in downtown that is intended to provide ambience.

"This isn't Arlington National Cemetery. It's not the eternal flame," Mayor Mick Ireland told the Denver Post. "It's a symbol like if the mayor were to run around in a Range Rover."

The flame was installed about 18 months ago amid the hoopla of increasing the city's "vibrancy" and "to encourage pedestrians to linger in Aspen's downtown center."

But it emits an estimated nine pounds or so of carbon dioxide every year, so even at its launching, the city acknowledged, "it is important to note that the city recognizes and acknowledges the energy use and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions from this project. However, the balance between creating vibrancy and managing our energy consumption is an ongoing and conscious effort we take very seriously. So, as part of our effort to reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions as outlined in the Canary Initiative, the city will be offsetting the emissions from the Community Fire Hearth by purchasing renewable energy credits equal to the electricity and natural gas emissions from the hearth."

But Ireland told the newspaper it's insensitive to burn natural gas, and made the extinguishment of the flame part of his recent campaign. A week ago he called for a vote to kill the light, but it failed, 3-2, meaning city workers will return to their brainstorming to find some way to make the hearth "environmentally acceptable."

The Aspen campaign against global warming is turned on high despite a recent report from the U.S. Senate that documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.

Ireland said the natural gas used by the attraction sends the wrong message in a town trying to cut its carbon emissions, through a city effort called the Canary Initiative. The goal is to cut city carbon emissions more than 80 percent over the next 43 years.

The city already has held a contest to generate ideas for alternative sources of energy for the feature. It offered $500 cash and a $500 gift certificate for home energy efficiency appliances, but there were no winners.

The newspaper said the city concluded biofuels would use too much energy in development and delivery, cooking grease wasn't practical, burning wood releases too many particulates and an electric flame was too fake.

"And copying the city of San Francisco's efforts to make power from dog poo had too high a yuck factor," the newspaper said.

The "green" city already features free mass transit, solar parking meters, a carbon tax and a bike-riding mayor. Even Christmas lights are LEDs. The city also monitors water quality from runoff, features low-flow toilets, recycles electronics and urges consumers to patronize organic food suppliers.

Council member Jack Johnson told the paper the hearth should be an educational display, with a sign explanation how it is wasting fuel and why.

As the flame burns, Escalades and Hummers drive by, paparazzi trip over hearth chairs seeking photographs of supermodel Heidi Klum and sales associate Kate Kelly, in a nearby retailer, told the newspaper, "Al Gore wouldn't be too happy about this."

But participants in a newspaper forum ridiculed the situation.

"Maybe just put the fire out and hang a picture of a fire instead. You put up a kiosk with informational booklets (printed on recycled paper) that explain the Global Warming Crisis, why the fire had to be put out, and ask for donations to purchase Carbon Credits. Ask the rich to stop coming to Aspen, because it's actually bad for the environment, to have all those jets flying around. Shut down the ski area. Because, really; can we afford to waste time skiing, when the oceans are about to rise 20 ft.? I think not." wrote Rulo Melko. "Well, maybe not. We'll let the rich still fly their jets in and ski, and spend money. As long as they're the Hollywood rich who "get it". Who "understand".

"This article," Bart Gripenstraw told the newspaper, "gave me a good chuckle this morning. It almost made me want to drive up to Aspen in my gas guzzling SUV, premium unleaded gas of course, with my wife in her full length fur coat so we could enjoy this beautiful fire pit. I am sure Al Gore would jump on his private lear jet, (sic) leaving behind his tastefully done 30,000 sq. foot home in Tennessee, to join me in a toast to the sillyness (sic) he has helped create."

You're hurt'in my leg Marnie.

(You ever see that Alfred Hitchcock episode where the old woman would say that everytime she got annoyed with her daughter?)  ;D

Nope, I don't remember seeing that episode but I had a friend that used to say that every time our Commander irked him. The message was pretty clear what he meant.

 :D :D

Japan Urges China to Sway Global Issues

By ANITA CHANG – 1 day ago

BEIJING (AP) — Japan urged China to use its growing influence to make an impact on key global issues such as climate change during summit talks Friday that reflected the countries' warmer ties.

The countries have a history of animosity stemming from disputes over territory, resources and wartime history, but Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda's four-day visit follows several friendly meetings between leaders and a Chinese warship's historic port call to Japan.

"In the long history of our relations, there has never been a time when Japan and China has had more influence or responsibilities in Asia and the world," Fukuda said at a joint news conference with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. "We face a big opportunity going forward."

"There have indeed been various problems in the relationship between Japan and China. But it is time for us to overcome these problems and push forward the development of our relationship," he said.

Wen also praised improved relations between the two countries.

"Prime Minister Fukuda said the spring has come in our relations and after 2 1/2 hours of talks, I truly feel that the spring of China-Japan relations has indeed arrived," Wen said.

Fukuda was to meet later Friday with President Hu Jintao, and Wen confirmed that Hu will visit Japan next year. It will be the first such trip by a Chinese head of state since Jiang Zemin's in 1998.

Fukuda said Japan would send a warship to China in 2008 as part of efforts to build mutual confidence. The visit follows a Chinese warship's historic port call to Japan this year.

The two sides signed an agreement to promote scientific and technological cooperation to fight climate change. The agreement calls for Japan to invite 50 young Chinese researchers every year for the next four years to be trained to combat global warming.

They also issued a memorandum aimed at increasing exchanges between the youth of China and Japan. Next year Japan will invite 3,000 Chinese high school students to visit while sending 1,000 to China, Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Mitsuo Sakaba said.

Fukuda had placed climate change at the top of his agenda for the meeting. Japan is eager to help China tackle pollution that is increasingly felt across the sea in Japan.

"Both sides have consistently believed that, on climate change, pushing forward cooperation is our duty and responsibility in the international community," Fukuda said.

Industries in China are notorious for their inefficiency, requiring more coal or other energy sources to produce the same amount of output as a plant in Japan.

Other topics included a long-running dispute over China and Japan's competing claims to gas reserves in the East China Sea, which both nations hope to exploit to feed their fuel-hungry economies.

"We will continue negotiations and aim for a resolution as quickly as possible," Fukuda said after meeting with Wen.

The two also discussed North Korea, a close ally of Beijing that has been accused of abducting Japanese citizens during the 1970s and '80s.

Fukuda will visit the industrial port of Tianjin on Saturday and will make a stop in Qufu, the birthplace of the ancient philosopher Confucius, before returning home Sunday.

Japan Urges China to Sway Global Issues (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h7G-ZwRQu4t9u7fiiO4a5d0dm2MwD8TQFB180)

China could care less about "global warming".

China isn't about to pay some socialist, er "global warming carbon tax". China's interest lies solely in money and power. The closer ties between Japan and China are the striking thing in these articles. Just a short time ago, this would have been unthinkable. Kings of the East y'all!!

Snowfall nears record for Wisconsin city
Estimated 24.5 inches blankets Oshkosh this December

Another round of snow blanketed Oshkosh with about four inches of the white stuff fell Friday adding to a near record snowfall for the month.

So far, an estimated 24½ inches of snow has fallen in Oshkosh this December, which is believed to be the fourth most since at least 1948, according to the Midwestern Regional Climate Center, Champaign, Ill. The agency reported the record snowfall for December, 25.7 inches, fell in Oshkosh is in 2000.

Oshkosh’s average snowfall in December is about 11 inches and the normal seasonal snowfall during winter in the city is 41.3 inches.

The heaviest snow on Friday fell between noon and 4 p.m. About an inch of snow fell Friday evening with accumulating snow ending by 8 p.m. Light snow is also forecast for Sunday and Monday.

Oshkosh received measurable snowfall on eight days so far this month.

December has been a snowy month throughout the state. Wisconsin Rapids received a state-high 18.2 inches of snow last weekend, according to the National Weather Service.

The snow is good news for businesses.

Geri Cauley, a floor manager for Kitz & Pfeil Hardware on North Main Street in Oshkosh, said Friday afternoon that snow-melting products are going out the door quite fast.

“We still have an ample supply of snow shovels,” she said.

Todd Messerschmidt, manager of the Kitz & Pfeil Power Center in Oshkosh, said it’s been “an awesome” month for sales of snowblowers, parts and service.

“We haven’t had snow like this in a number of years,” he said.

Messerschmidt said their power center in Oshkosh sold 113 snowblowers in about one week after the first storm of the month, when eight inches of snow fell on Dec. 1.

Rural Omro dairy farmer Jeff Bradley said the abundance of snow helps insulate crops already in the ground, such as alfalfa, and prevents the crops from being damaged by ice.

“There’s also extra moisture for the fields in the spring,” he said.

Officials from the NWS in Green Bay said the 90-day forecast for January through March calls for below normal precipitation and a 30 percent chance for below normal temperatures.

It’s just a forecast and the weather could change, said Dan Clark, a meteorological technician for the NWS in Green Bay.

“There are so many variables that go into this and it covers a big area,” Clark said.

State of Ill. Sponsoring Kids Global Warming Poster Contest

Here is the sort of garbage your State EPA is foisting on your children, Illinois. The State EPA is instituting a Statewide Poster And Poetry/Prose Exhibit: "Global Warming – What Can We Do?" for the kiddies to help the Democrat controlled state EPA office to further their globaloney propaganda. Nothing like forcing our kids to toe the line of political propaganda, eh? Of course, it matches right up with our school children being forced to read that "Heather has two Mommies" and being handed condoms for their sexual escapades, doesn't it? Apparently, we don't need to be bothering our children with those ridiculous things like history, math and real science when there are so many political agendas that need to be pushed!

The state EPA is making global warming political propaganda fun, though.


Loads of fun for all the kiddies.

Here is the thing, though. The state EPA is propagating an idea that is no way settled scientifically. This is not a "scientific" or factual based endeavor, but a political one.

And, get a load of this liberal, emotion-speak from the state EPA website:


Yes, let us all "share" on a "deeper and more personal level" shall we?

What poppycock.

Illinoisans, this is what your taxes are paying for. Take note.

I wonder how many other states are indoctrinating the children in this manner.

Energy-saving light bulbs blamed for migraines
'A debilitating condition which can often leave people bedridden for days'

The energy-saving light bulbs that will be made compulsory in homes in a few years can trigger migraines, campaigners have claimed.

The Migraine Action Association (MAA) said some of its members alleged the fluorescent bulbs had led to attacks of the powerful headaches.

By 2011, Britain will be the first European country to phase out traditional bulbs as part of a strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The MAA is calling on the Government to avoid a complete ban on old-style bulbs, by providing an opt-out for people with health problems.

Last year it was claimed that the "green" bulbs can cause people with epilepsy to experience symptoms similar to the early stages of a fit.

There have also been complaints from people with lupus, a chronic immune disease that causes pain and extreme tiredness.

Low energy light bulbs use only a quarter of the energy consumed by traditional versions and are estimated to save 2,000 times their weight in greenhouse gases.

They are often five times more expensive but the greater efficiency means they can pay for themselves within months.

Several versions use a technology similar to fluorescent strip lights and some migraine sufferers say they produce a flickering effect that triggers their condition.

Karen Manning, from the MAA, said: "When the Government announced that traditional light bulbs would be phased out, we were inundated with over 200 calls and emails from members who said the flickering had caused migraines.

"This is a debilitating condition which can often leave people bed-ridden for days.

"The bulbs do not necessarily affect every sufferer, but we are talking about up to six million people in the UK who suffer migraines - so this is a serious concern.

"We would ask the Government to avoid banning them completely and leave some opportunity for conventional bulbs to be purchased."

The Lighting Association, which represents manufacturers, denied that modern designs produced a flicker.

A spokesman said: "A small number of cases have been reported by people who suffer from reactions to certain types of linear fluorescent lamps. These were almost certainly triggered by old technology."

Today's Global Warming Updates

New Year's Snowstorm Smothers Midwest

A Midwestern storm that dropped up to 16 inches of snow on New Year's Day snarled traffic on highways and runways and extended the winter vacation at dozens of schools.

The storm was threatening to cause similar disruptions as it moved into New England. Meanwhile, new snow was falling early Wednesday across much of Michigan and Ohio, where thousands of people had lost power the day before.

Authorities reported no deaths or serious injuries from the six-hour blast of Michigan snow, which started early Tuesday. But they said there were many spinouts and minor accidents on the roadways.

The storm extended the winter holiday through Wednesday for students at dozens of schools across southeastern Michigan.

Ten to 16 inches of snow buried parts of Oakland, Lapeer and St. Clair counties north of Detroit, the National Weather Service said. The western St. Clair County community of Capac reported 16 inches.

"This will be a memorable storm for the amount of snow it dumped in such a short amount of time," Weather Service meteorologist David Shuler said.

He said it was the region's heaviest New Year's Day snowstorm on record and was unusual for its intensity. During the heart of the storm, snow fell at a rate of at least 2 inches an hour, with periods of 4 inches an hour.

Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, one of the nation's busiest, canceled about 150 flights Tuesday and reported delays of about 45 minutes because of blowing snow. Passengers also experienced morning delays at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, but operations were back to normal by the afternoon, spokesman Michael Conway said.

Utility officials reported scattered power failures affecting more than 36,000 homes and businesses.

The storm also blacked out 10,000 customers in northeast Ohio, mainly in areas east of Cleveland, said Chris Eck, a spokesman for FirstEnergy Corp. Wind gusted to 51 mph at Cleveland's Burke Lakefront Airport, the Weather Service said.

FirstEnergy repair crews had difficulty keeping up with the storm. "As they're getting lights on, lights are going off. They're just fighting it as it happens," Eck said.

Farther east, the weather system spread snow across upstate New York and northern New England, where it was expected to last into Wednesday and drop as much as a foot of snow on parts of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.

It followed a storm in the Northeast on Monday that made for the snowiest December in the region in decades. December's snowfall at Concord, N.H., totaled 44.5 inches, toppling a record of 43 inches that had stood since 1876. Burlington, Vt., got 45.7 inches, far above its 17.2-inch December average, and Portland, Maine, amassed 37.7 inches for its third-snowiest December on record.

New Hampshire has already spent $30 million on snow removal out of the $75 million budgeted for the entire winter, said highway department spokesman Bill Boynton.

However, New England ski resorts enjoyed the flurry of storms after last year's lack of snow early in the season.

Maine received a fresh layer of snow on top of the roughly 6 feet that accumulated last month at the state's two biggest ski resorts, Sugarloaf USA and Sunday River.

"It's been unbelievable," Sugarloaf spokesman Bill Swain said. "It just keeps coming."

Today's Global Warming Updates

Fla. Citrus Growers Brace for Cold Snap


Farmers rushed to protect citrus and other crops Tuesday as Florida braced for plunging temperatures, with the governor even lifting certain agricultural regulations as a precaution.

Temperatures were expected to drop below freezing in much of the state Tuesday night, hitting the lower to mid-20s for a few hours in many areas. Wind chill factors were expected to dive into the teens Wednesday night and Thursday morning.

Gov. Charlie Crist issued an order late Monday relaxing restrictions in getting harvested crops moved to processing centers.

Officials were most concerned about the state's large citrus industry, though the state produces nearly 300 crops and much of the nation's domestically grown fruits and vegetables during the winter.

"If it only stays below freezing for four to six hours, we're OK, but after about six hours it starts to do its damage. If it freezes the oranges, obviously they're no good," Florida agriculture spokeswoman Liz Compton said.

The early harvest of citrus starts in November and December, Compton said. But beans, corn, cucumbers and eggplant are also being harvested and could be affected, Compton said.

With New Year's Day temperatures in South Florida still in the 80s, sunbathers got in one last tan Tuesday before temperatures were expected to drop there by about 20 degrees.

Freeze warnings were posted down to areas just north of Tampa and Orlando, according to the National Weather Service.

In northern Florida, high temperatures Wednesday and Thursday are forecast to remain in the 40s. Central Florida is expected to see 50s, and only 60s can be expected in the Keys and southeast Florida, emergency management officials said.

Some of the coldest weather was expected in the Florida Panhandle, where temperatures are forecast to plummet into the 20s.

Forecasters anticipated potential freezes from Wednesday evening into Thursday. Five-day forecasts had the cold snap ending by the weekend.

Many of the state's 40,000 commercial farmers were making preparations. One farmer told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel he was readying helicopters to fly over his fields if the temperature drops below freezing; the blades can circulate air and prevent frost from forming. Other farmers were contemplating turning on irrigation systems, which can also ward off frost, and some were harvesting early.

The governor's order relaxed size and weight restrictions on commercial vehicles taking vulnerable crops to processing sites.

Some fishermen were not going out because of expected high winds. Dive shop operators, too, were looking at potential high winds later in the week and the possibility they could create choppy seas and stir up sand, which affects visibility.

Today's Global Warming Updates

Snow Falls In Central Fla.; Hundreds Without Power On Coldest Morning
Resident Says Snowing Hard Enough To Use Wipers On Cars

Some residents in Daytona Beach and other parts of Central Florida photographed snowflakes in their neighborhoods as temperatures fell below freezing early Thursday.

The Macklefish family snapped several photos of snow around their Volusia County home at about 8 a.m. and sent them to Local6.com.

"We are getting some returns and we have had a couple of returns that have made their way on shore," Local 6's Elizabeth Hart said. "I'm not sure if it has reached the ground but atmospheric conditions are such that there may be a couple of flurries that way."

Another resident said it was snowing hard enough near Ormond Beach that she had to use her windshield wipers during her commute.

Conditions in parts of Central Florida were favorable for snow flurries Thursday because of clouds similar to those in the Great Lakes states that produce lake-effect snow.

A hard freeze warning was issued for areas north of Interstate 4 and counties located south of I-4 were under a general freeze warning.

With the wind chill, it felt like 15 degrees in Ocala, Local 6 reported Thursday.

A gradual warm-up is expected over the next two days in Central Florida.

"By the time we get to the weekend, we are right back into some warm Florida temperatures," Hart said.

Saturday's high temperature is expected to be 74 degrees in Orlando.

Hundreds Without Power

Hundreds of Central Floridians were left without power on the coldest day in years due to several outages, according to officials.

Progress Energy said some 2,000 families near University Boulevard and the 417 were without power Thursday after temperatures fell into the high 20s and low 30s.

Another reported outage left nearly 1,000 families without electricity in the Orlo Vista area of Orange County.

Progress Energy said an equipment problem blew out a major part of a grid at about 1 a.m. Thursday. The problem was fixed about four hours later.

Today's Global Warming Updates

 NEW YEAR BIG FREEZE IS COMING



BRITAIN faces one of its bitterest winters for 100 years, with temperatures set to plummet to -17C (1.4F), forecasters warned last night.

The New Year will begin with a freezing cold snap that will sweep across the country, causing “havoc” in its wake.

And forecasters predict an even icier Arctic blast will strike later in the month to bring the coldest recorded temperatures in 20 years.

Sleet and snow are expected in many parts over the next few days. And spells of freezing weather are set to last until the end of February.

The sudden cold snap is predicted to cause chaos, as it coincides with millions of people returning to work after the Christmas break.

Car breakdowns on Wednesday are set to rocket by 70 per cent as an estimated 45,000 drivers in England and Wales find their cars unable to start due to the cold weather.

The Highways Agency has already put 500 gritting vehicles on standby to cope with the predicted snowfall.

Concern is also growing for the welfare of the 2.5million pensioners across the UK who live in poorly heated homes.

Piers Corbyn, from long-range weather forecasters WeatherAction, said: “It is likely to be one of the six coldest Januarys for 100 years and is expected to include at least one exceptionally cold spell, similar to that experienced in January 1987 and the legendary January of 1740 when biting, strong, easterly winds and snow wreaked severe havoc.

“There is likely to be a number of days when temperatures in many parts stay below freezing all day.

“The lowest night temperatures in parts of the Midlands, Northern England or Scotland could be as low as -17C (1.4F) or possibly colder.”

The Met Office yesterday forecast a bitterly cold snap for almost the whole of the UK in the middle of this week.

Temperatures are expected to plunge from a mild 10C (50F) to -4C (25F) overnight in northern areas by Thursday and a blanket of snow is likely in many parts.

Robin Downton, of the Met Office, predicted snowfall in the East and North of England and eastern Scotland on Wednesday, possibly spreading to the Midlands, East Anglia and the South on Thursday.

He said: “The weather is going to turn really cold during Wednesday and by Thursday it will feel jolly cold throughout the whole of the country, apart from the very far West and South-west.

“With the strong winds, it will be a bit of a shock for people because it will feel bitterly cold. With the wind-chill, it will feel perishing.”

The freezing temperatures will feel even worse because of the mild winter Britain has enjoyed so far.

By the weekend, temperatures are due to thaw to about 11C (52F) but forecasters say the respite will be only temporary, with further winter misery to come. Jonathan Powell, senior forecaster at Positive Weather Solutions, said: “During February we will see an extended cold snap. We would expect it to be much colder than January.

“It will not be a pleasant month. We would expect many days where the temperatures struggle to get above freezing.

“There will be harsh frosts and snow at the start and the end of the month.”

The gloomy forecast means revellers looking forward to welcoming in 2008 outdoors should make the most of the next two days.

Unlike last year when many New Year and Hogmanay celebrations had to be cancelled, mild temperatures of about 8C (46F) are expected for the evening.

Wales and most of England will be mainly dry and cloudy today, although one or two showers are anticipated.

Revellers in northern England, Northern Ireland and Scotland, however, can expect rain.

Those hoping to walk off the excesses of New Year’s Eve can expect a mild but cloudy day on January 1.

Most areas will remain dry but rain is expected in central and southern Scotland, North-east England and East Anglia.

The mercury is expected to top 10C (50F) in southern England on New Year’s Day and will only be a few degrees cooler across the rest of the UK.

Today's Global Warming Updates

Coldest winter in nearly 15 years ahead: Environment Canada

Big chill coming for most of country

Canadians who enjoyed last winter's mild temperatures and relatively light snowfall better get ready to bundle up -- it's going to be a cold one.

Environment Canada announced Friday that winter this year is expected to be the coldest in nearly 15 years. From December through February, conditions are forecast to be the harshest since the early 1990s.

Southwestern Ontario and parts of northern Canada are the only areas expected to experience the usual weather this winter.

"The highest confidence we have that our forecast will be good is for the Prairies. We have our models showing that it's going to be quite cold there," said Richard Moffet, a meteorologist at the Canadian Meteorological Centre in Montreal.

The last time Canada experienced such a cold season was in 1994, when temperatures dropped as low as -42C before factoring in the wind chill.

But Mr. Moffet said there could be an upside to the brutal weather.

"Maybe the winter in the Prairies will seem to be like the good old winters. People will be able to skate outside and play hockey," he said.

Environment Canada has forecast regular amounts of snow, although cities such as Calgary, Regina and Toronto could get more than usual.

Last year's winter saw green Christmases in the traditionally snowy cities of Timmins, Quebec City and Ottawa. The provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island only had two-thirds of their usual snowfall.

This year's cold weather is being triggered in part by La Nina, a period of lower than normal temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, according to Mr. Moffet.

"Off the coast of Peru, it's colder than usual and it's going to be there for all of winter and into the next spring for sure. This is going to be long-lasting," he said.

Today's Global Warming Updates

 Kashmir Valley at minus seven degrees

Srinagar: The banks of Dal Lake froze for the second time this winter as the mercury plunged to a record low of minus 7.2 degrees Celsius in Kashmir valley on Sunday while Leh in Ladakh was reeling under a numbing 15 below freezing point.

After the coldest night of the season, the sun came out brightly as a respite to people using hot water to defreeze water pipes and also thawing the lake. Besides Dal Lake, which is the main draw for tourists, icicles had formed on other water bodies in the valley but melted as the day advanced.

“The overnight temperature in Srinagar recorded this morning was minus 7.2 C, the season’s lowest so far and 5 degrees below the normal range,” a weather office spokesman said. The temperature was a 2 degree drop from Thursday’s minus 5.6 C, which was the coldest till then, he said.

This has zapped the valley’s denizens who expect the ‘chilai kalan’ (40 days of harsh winter) period to be just snow and rain. ‘Chilai kalan’ begins from December 21.

Leh district saw the minimum temperature as minus 15.2 C on Saturday.

Today's Global Warming Updates

Early winter of our discontent: More snow, cold than years past

DOVER — Technically, winter hasn't begun, but try telling that to plow truck drivers.

With the winter solstice just around the corner on Saturday, an average of 20.9 inches of snow has already blanketed the state in the month of December.

According to the National Weather Service Meteorologist Tom Hawley, New Hampshire hasn't had this much snow in December since 2003, when an average of 21.1 inches fell.

Before that, the December record snowfall was in 1995.

"I think we've been getting soft in the past few years," Hawley said about the limited snow fall and warmer temperatures.

On average, this December has also had the coldest temperatures in the past 18 years, at approximately 21 degrees Fahrenheit.

"It's about 8 degrees below norm — 7.7 degrees," Hawley said. "You have to go back to 1989 to have the last average coldest temperatures in December, where there was a record of 11.9 degrees."

Last year is balmy by comparison — December 2006 had an average temperature of 33.9 Fahrenheit.

Meteorologists predicted that Thursday's storm will have dropped six to nine inches in Strafford and Rockingham counties.

Several York County, Maine, towns reported accumulations of around a half-foot. Totals were lower farther north and east in Maine.

The snowfall was enough to make it the snowiest December in Portland, Maine, since 1995 when 33.9 inches of snow fell in the month, said Hawley.

Before the latest storm, Portland had recorded 22.7 inches of snow and Concord, N.H., had recorded 20.9 inches.

Today is expected to be mostly sunny and clear with highs in the 30s.

Saturday, the official start of winter, is expected to be sunny during the day with a high of 33 degrees Fahrenheit and a 30 percent chance of freezing rain in the evening after 1 a.m.

Today's Global Warming Updates

Year of global cooling

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

Today's Global Warming Updates

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, late night TV talk show host and comedian.


It’s noteworthy how often scientists use so-called irrefutable evidence to predict future events, only to be eventually proven wrong. Weather forecasters predicted more numerous and intense hurricanes the past two seasons since Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, only to see milder and fewer storms instead. There are more variables than we can imagine when forecasting even short-term weather patterns. One thing is for sure: Climate change is a cyclical phenomenon that repeats over hundreds of years ever since Noah's flood.

You can’t legislate the weather. We just aren’t that important in the big scheme of things. Sorry to burst a bubble or two, but there it is! This is NOT our fault, and we can’t control what the planet does. Yes, we can cut down on the pollution, we can make the effort to clean up our own messes, but the planet will survive.

 ;D   ;D

I find this absolutely amazing, especially knowing that Al will probably have another best seller. People will buy almost anything. Let's just all write a book and make up the contents as we go. After all, that's how Al did it. WHEW!

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?

THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998. (Which the 1998 temperature figures have been proven to be wrong and the warmest year on record was in fact 1934.)

But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.

In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.

University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling?

"Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."

Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.

"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.

Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.

Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over."

But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."

Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.

I just had to post this article as I found it not only fitting but absolutely hilarious.

Global warming a big hoax - In the spirit of being a good neighbor, I've decided to offer a needed service for all of the believers in human-caused global warming. That's right, step right up, folks, I'm going to be selling carbon credits to those who want to assuage their guilt about heating up the planet with their SUVs.

For those of you not familiar with carbon credits, people who don't want to cut back on their use of fossil fuels just pay someone else to cut back, much the same way you might pay someone to eat healthy foods for you so you can eat anything you want.

My gimmick is that I'm offering $100 carbon credits for only $89 each. If you buy carbon credits from Al Gore, you'll have to pay the full retail price. But if you send your money directly to me, you'll receive an official certificate for $100 in carbon credits for every $89 you send. But wait, there's more. If you are among the first 500 purchasers, we'll include a fantastic vegetable chopper, a $19.99 value, absolutely free.

And you will be helping to save the planet. I've had my eye on a 12-foot jon boat with a used 10-horse Evinrude, which will no doubt pump out oodles of carbon dioxide. But instead, I'm going to use the proceeds of carbon credit sales to purchase a sailboat -- in other words, an environmentally friendly boat that uses wind power. The latest issue of Yachts International includes an ad for a 66-foot Van De Stadt for a mere $2,295,000. That's a lot of carbon credits, but I'm sure if all of you dig deep enough, we can pull this off.

When you display your certificates on the wall, not only can you be smug about protecting our planet, you can also proudly tell your friends and neighbors that you got them wholesale.

Expanding the same general principle, I'm also pleased to offer healthy food credits to folks who need to improve their diet. Just send me $5, and I'll eat a stalk of celery for you. Of course, that's with a big blob of Cheese Whiz spread all over it. Sorry, if you want me to eat the thing with no topping; it'll cost you 10 bucks.

(Note to the humor-challenged: the above is satire. Do not send money to me or to any carnie out there, whether they are selling carbon credits or tickets to see a two-headed calf.)

 ;D   ;D   ;D   ;D   ;D    ROFL!

I'm not a scientist, but I did learn some common sense early in life. I've always known that the sun has much to do with light and heat. Man has no control over the thermostat of the sun - that's GOD'S domain alone. Man also has no control over the turning of the earth or movement of other planets - that's GOD'S domain alone.

Al Gore simply needs help in figuring out the basics. I would recommend a good kindergarten or some other pre-school.   ;D

Columnist argues 'global warming has stopped'

An accumulation of nearly 45 inches of snow in New Hampshire last month has Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby asking, "Where did global warming go?"

Jacoby contends the "hysteria and alarm" that is expressed by many people who write and comment about global warming is misplaced. Lost amid all that "hysteria," he says, was the fact that record low temperatures were set all over the world in 2007, noting the start of winter last year in South America was one of the coldest ever observed.

"The hook of it for me was going through my files and realizing that at the beginning of 2007, there were predictions that it was going to turn out to be the warmest year ever recorded," he comments. "And in fact what happened in 2007 was that global average temperature was essentially the same it had been in 2006; which was essentially the same as it had been in 2005; and so on going back to 2001. Whether this is a permanent thing or something temporary, it seems that global warming has stopped."

Jacoby says for the past seven or eight years, there has been no real change in the temperature of the planet -- either up or down. "When you combine that with the hysteria about how the world could be roasting if we don't radically revise and drastically change and restrict the way we live and the consumption of energy and all the rest of it, it just seems to me that it's a point that needs to be made over and over again," he shares. "This thing gets treated like a religion when that isn't the way science is supposed to work."

The columnist says "much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming -- especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill."

In his new column "BR-R-R! Where did the global warming go?" Jacoby also contends that "even though atmospheric carbon dioxide ... is up about four percent since 1998, the global mean temperature has remained flat."

You know I've been thinking.............  :o


God has used the weather, to get mans attention in the past. This could be Gods attempt to have man/woman come back to our first love, Jesus Christ, our Lord, and Saviour.

In the Old Testament, God used droughts to bring people to Him. He used Joseph and a drought to bring His people down to Egypt. He used Elijah and a draught to rid his land of the prophets of Baal and to show His strength. It is not mere coincidence that there are fires, droughts, hurricanes, famine, etc., etc. God has to get our attention and since this world keeps falling deeper and deeper into a moral decay or decline. This maybe the last chance for some to come to God.

The POINT is that God has used weather, and His control over it, to bring people’s attention to their sin.

Jeremiah 2:5-7 THE WORD of the Lord that came to Jeremiah concerning the drought: 2 Judah mourns and her gates languish; [her people] sit in black [mourning garb] upon the ground, and the cry of Jerusalem goes up. 3 And their nobles send their little ones and their inferiors for water; they come to the cisterns and find no water. They return with empty vessels; they are put to shame and confounded and cover their heads.

Haggai 1:10-12 Therefore the heavens above you [for your sake] withhold the dew, and the earth withholds its produce. 11 And I have called for a drought upon the land and the hill country, upon the grain, the fresh wine, the oil, upon what the ground brings forth, upon men and cattle, and upon all the [wearisome] toil of [men's] hands. 12 Then Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people [who had returned from captivity], listened to and obeyed the voice of the Lord their God [not vaguely or partly, but completely, according to] the words of Haggai the prophet, since the Lord their God had sent him, and the people [reverently] feared and [worshipfully] turned to the Lord.

AMEN DREAMWEAVER!

Brother, this is 100% correct. I think that we both agree that the time of GOD'S Patience toward the evil of mankind is just about spent. Evil is getting worse by the day, and the world appears to be ripe for the wrath of GOD.

Love In Christ,
Tom

 

1st snow for 100 years falls on Baghdad
Meteorologist says climate change possibly to blame for unusual event

Light snow fell in Baghdad early on Friday in what weather officials said was the first time in about a 100 years.

Rare snowfalls were also recorded in the west and centre of Iraq, plunging temperatures to zero degrees Centigrade (32 degrees Fahrenheit) and even colder, an official said.

The snow in Baghdad, which melted as it hit the ground, began falling before dawn and continued until after 9 am, residents said.

"Snow has fallen in Baghdad for the first time in about a century as a result of two air flows meeting," said a statement by the meteorology department.

"The first one was cold and dry and the second one was warm and humid. They met above Iraq."

The director of the meteorology department, Dawood Shakir, told AFP that climate change was possibly to blame for the unusual event.

"It's very rare," he said. "Baghdad has never seen snow falling in living memory.

"These snowfalls are linked to the climate change that is happening everywhere. We are finding some places in the world which are warm and are supposed to be cold."

Snow was also reported in the mountainous Kurdish north of the country, where falls are common.

Sikkim has the largest number of glaciers in India
January 12, 2008

Gangtok (PTI): Sikkim, comprising 0.5 per cent of India's landmass, has 84 glaciers, the largest number as compared to any other state or union territory.

The present number of glaciers at 84, with the mapping exercise still underway to find about out more ice caps in the state has grown by about four times over the past six years as the figure of glaciers stood at 21 at that time, a senior scientist of the science and technology department, which has been carrying out mapping of the glaciers and other landscapes of the state, told PTI.

The glaciers have been mapped by using remote sensing application system and capturing data through satellite, he said.

The rise in the number of glaciers belied the impact of the global warming phenomena in this region with the scientist pointing out that the impact of global warming has never been a factor in the climate of the border state with the state being landlocked and surrounded by the mountainous landscape on all sides. (Global warming theory is this area should be a desert.  DW)

While most of the glaciers are found in the north district, the Zemu glacier in West Sikkim, which lies in a u-shape, is the largest such ice cap with an ice mass spread over 26 km, he said.

The department has plans to map the lakes and forest cover of the state through remote sensing application system, besides sending a team to the interior parts of the state to collect information on the number of glaciers, lakes and forests, the scientist said.

The state government had set up a nine-member commission under the leadership of a scientist, T S Singh, last year to find out the impact of global warming phenomena on the topography of the mountains.

Sikkim has the largest number of glaciers in India (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200801121040.htm)

I used this in another forum to help disprove global warming. Though the news isn't there no more, I kept a copy on my hard drive. So here you go.....

Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier  Advancing Three Feet Per Day

22 Jun 07 - Ever since St. Helens rumbled back to life in 2004, geologists have curiously watched the dichotomy of fire and ice play out.

Crater Glacier is like no other glacier in the world. It’s the only glacier with lava extruding through it and forming a dome. And while most glaciers are receding (I don’t agree - Most glaciers are not receding), Crater Glacier is advancing three feet per day and forming a collar around the growing dome.

Crater Glacier started forming shortly after St. Helens blew its top on May 18, 1980. The glacier is fed by snow and falling rock and ice from the crater rim. The glacier is about 40 percent rock and 60 percent ice, USGS geologist Willie Scott said.

Originally, the glacier filled the void between the crater walls and the lava dome that formed from 1980 to 1986.

When the 2004 eruption pushed a new dome up through the ice, geologists feared the 1,300-degree lava would melt the glacier, causing a lahar to spew from the open end of the horseshoe-shape crater.

What happened next surprised the scientists.

Cooling rock on the outside of the dome insulated the glacier from the lava, and only about 10 percent of the glacier melted, said Carolyn Driedger, a USGS hydrologist. Instead, the dome, growing by a pickup truckload of lava every two seconds, split the glacier into two moraines – deposits of glacial rock and soil – pressing each against the crater walls. The pinching forced the glacier arms to double in depth and increase their speed.

Here is the dead link for Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier  Advancing Three Feet Per Day (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/93350.html)

 ;D   ;D 

UM? - It seems like there's more ice involved with all of this global warming by the day. Al Gore just might need his gloves and overcoat soon. I'm wondering how long it will take for his circus side-show to quit making money.

You are right in not agreeing with it. It has been proven that some of the environmentalists have faked the data on receding glaciers. It is common for glaciers to recede somewhat during a short period in the summer months. It was during the summer months that this data on shrinking glaciers were taken not during the winter months when they actually grew significantly. It is just like the pictures that were taken of Polar Bears being stranded on a melting ice float. The people that took this made it seem like this occurred during the winter. Instead they were taken during the summer when such incidents are normal.

One I can think of off the bat is Michael Mann .

Air Pollution is man's problem, But other then that. It is documents by Soho in 1998 the Sun spike and the Earth was hit with a solar flare. a month later the Earth's core temp rose by 3 degree's

Brothers and Sisters,

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that so many people are gullible enough to believe the global warming baloney from Al Gore. So-called SCIENCE is now at a new low. This global warming nonsense has become almost sacred to self-proclaimed intellectuals, second only to the theory of evolution. The difference is that the theory of evolution is a bigger quantity of baloney, and it's spoiled - long past the expiration date. However, many intellectuals own the spoiled baloney and refuse to throw it out.

These things are really giving SCIENCE AND BALONEY a bad name!

Yes, it does give science a bad name. For the portion on global warming it is far from science. As Brother Bob has posted in the thread "Signs of the Lord's Return and the End of the Age" in Prophecy/Current Events it is in fact a false religion called Gaia that is driving this movement.

U.N. climate head welcomes 'Marshall Plan' fund
Says U.S. ready to pay billions for clean-tech transfer to China, India

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer on Wednesday hailed as a "Marshall Plan" for climate change news that the United States will set up a multi-billion dollar fund to help developing nations acquire clean power technologies.


The "clean technology fund" would help the developing nations meet the estimated US$30 billion cost of acquiring expensive low carbon emission power technologies in place of cheaper, but far dirtier, old technologies.

"This clean technology fund is perhaps a Marshall Plan on climate change beginning to emerge where we stop worrying about the short term woes and focus much more on taking a bold step forward ... towards a clean future," de Boer told Reuters.

The Marshall Plan was a major investment project set up by the United States after World War Two to help rebuild Europe's shattered economies.

"The notion of this clean technology fund, announced by the United States, represents a sea change in thinking on climate change," de Boer, the head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in a telephone interview from Germany.

"Up to now there has been a lot of concern, certainly in the United States, that helping developing countries like China and India on climate change would take jobs away from Americans and give them to the Chinese," he added.

Few details are yet available about the proposed new fund, such as whether it would be loans or grants, who would administer it and over what period.

Extending the analogy of the Marshall Plan which combined public with private money, de Boer said the clean technology fund would facilitate private investment in clean technologies.

"This clean technology fund is seen as a way of mobilising private capital, of opening up new markets," he said.

"This is a signal that a solution is beginning to emerge, that the conductor that connects rich country action to poor country action in terms of technology and finance is beginning to be seriously thought about," he added.

The fund is expected to draw finance from the major developed nations who have pumped most of the climate warming carbon into the atmosphere in the first place, and who the poorer developing countries insist bear the burden of cost.

De Boer said that while the main thrust of the new fund, announced in Washington on Monday, was to promote low carbon economic growth, security was also a serious issue -- as it was with the Marshall Plan which had a sub text of shoring up European democracies against the threat of Communism.

"I see a number of economic and security issues emerging as a result of climate change which make it all the more imperative to come to grips with this issue in time," he said.

"If I look at the potential impact of sea level rise on metropolitan centres around the world and if I realise that within 20 years time 25 million Africans could be impacted by water stress and looking for somewhere to move," he added.

Ice returns as Greenland temps plummet

While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.

On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.

'The ice is up to 50cm thick,' said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark's Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. 'We've had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.'

Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago.

Temperatures plunged to -25°C earlier this month, clogging the bay with ice and making shipping impossible for small crafts, according to Anthon Frederiksen, the mayor of the town of Ilulissat, where Disko Bay is located.

'On the other hand, it's an advantage for fishermen who rely on dogsleds for transportation,' Frederiksen said.

The mayor cautioned against thinking that the freezing temperature indicated that global warming claims were overblown. He noted that a nearby glacier had retracted more in the past two decades than in recorded history.

'We Greenlanders have acclimated to changing conditions over the past 1100 years,' said Frederiksen. 'Temperatures change at regular intervals.'

Although Greenland's capital, Nuuk, and much of the island saw temperatures drop below -25° C yesterday, milder temperatures appeared to be on the way in the near future.

Light bulb ban will increase CO2
Exclusive: Andrew Longman has good laugh at Congress after doing science on new law

The world has seen that if ever a utopian scheme becomes law, that law achieves the opposite of the intended utopian effect. Call it "Longman's Lemma" if someone else doesn't already claim it. And nowhere can that proverbial truth be observed more laughably than in Congress' compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Echoing around my head from some required eco-indoctrinaire experience in my educational past was this unconnected fact: "Some homes in Sweden are heated entirely with incandescent light bulbs." I don't remember where I'd heard this; it was being held up as an example of what errant Americans could do if only we let Bob Villa overwhelm our R-factors and insulate our attics properly. In colonial days, we were to be ashamed of our immorality; today we are supposed to be ashamed of our Owens-Corning.

Anyway, that idea wandered through my mind in search of something to connect with.

When it found Congress' latest law on eco-madness, click, the light went on.

Regular, Thomas Edison-style, incandescent light bulbs throw off a large amount of heat. When you purchase a "100-watt" light bulb, that power rating refers to what the bulb consumes, not so much what it illuminates. Today we are told that a 15- or 20-watt compact-fluorescent will produce as much light as a 100-watt incandescent.

American leftists, intent on hating the chemicals they are made from, work very hard to force other people to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted during existence. Being mostly liberal arts majors, and not engineers, these folks have quickly come to equate energy efficiency with lower CO2 emission. Based on those vague facts, and a strong sense of female social emotion, Congress recently passed a law yanking incandescent lights from production and replacing them all with compact fluorescents. Wisdom has been mandated.

The net result, of course, will be more fossil fuels burned and more CO2 released. The lemma says so. And as a conservative, I'm OK with that and think it's funny. But of course, facts shall never intrude on the feelings of idealism possessed by the utopian instigators of these stupefying laws. But I would invite everyone who thinks this Congress is a bunch of loonies to laugh at them with me.

Heating a home is far more energy consumptive than cooling it. And, according to National Public Radio, "on average, heating an American home with natural gas produces about 6,400 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2, a major warming gas). Use electricity, and CO2 emissions average about 4,700 pounds." One must recognize that whereas electric heat comes from a mix of nuclear power, coal and other sources, natural gas heating comes exclusively from burning things. So, electric heat, chiefly because nuclear power produces no oxidized carbon, pollutes less.

But how many pounds of C02 does it produce for two environmentalists to screw in a light bulb? Well, it's about 17 percent more hot air than if you'd asked two conservatives to do it. See, if we remove a 100-watt incandescent, and replace it with a 20-watt compact-fluorescent, the light in the room may not dim, but the warmth in that room has been cut by about 80 watts.

Let's consider an American home at 1,700 square feet, using 10 watts per square foot over the course of a year for heating, and lit with 30 incandescent, 100-watt light bulbs. In such a normal home, 17 percent of the wattage needed for winter heating would be supplied by the electric lights, when the lights were turned on. If you replace those incandescents with compact fluorescents, only 3 percent of the average heat necessary to heat the house would now be available from the light bulbs.

The conservation of energy points out that if the thermostat doesn't change its setting, the lost wattage will have to come from your furnace or boiler. That means the 2,400 watts you otherwise would have been buying from the electric company you would now buy from your heating company. The furnace would run more often. Your heating bill would go up.

So, a regular natural gas home that would have been getting 83 percent of its heat from gas and 17 percent of its heat from electric light will now fall to 97 percent of its heat from gas and 3 percent of its heat from electricity. If NPR's statistics are correct, that means a home using natural gas and incandescents would produce about 1,000 pounds more per year of CO2 by switching to compact fluorescent bulbs. Since most American homes are heated with natural gas, which costs less than electricity, it is an economic gain.

So, switching to compact fluorescents will save you money, raise the amount of hydrocarbons burned and make a mockery of the latest leftist utopian scheme. Conservatives should do it, and liberals should avoid it. But, of course, if you wanted lighting that lowered the humidity, lowered hydrocarbon pollution and employed green power from wind farms or solar, the Democratic Congress has prevented all that now.

As a conservative, I switched to compact fluorescents years ago to make more money and emit more pollution. I would encourage conservatives and liberals everywhere comply with the new law so they can do the same.

...... and with the increased CO2 you will be helping produce healthier plant growth that will produce more oxygen into the atmosphere. Let's aid the environmentalists in producing more CO2.


(http://img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif)

It sounds like we would be much better off to get the Three Stooges to take the place of Al Gore. YES - I know the Three Stooges are deceased, so we wouldn't have to pay them and their advice would be better.   ;D

Gore: Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared 
Says some forecasts see North Pole ice caps disappearing in summer within 5 years

Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday.

Recent evidence shows "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us," climate campaigner and former US vice-president Gore said.

There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years, he told a gathering at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a massive report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its 4th assessment in 18 years.

Global warming is a key theme at this year's meeting of the world's business and political elite in Davos.

Al Gore still hasn't learned his lesson. Scientists have already proven this lie false as the have many of his other ones. Gore turned back to the myth on the North pole melting because many top scientists recently exposed his lies about the South Pole melting.

__________

Theory On Thin Ice

Global warming alarmists have made a big deal out of North Pole ice melting and polar bears suffering due to climate change. Before they mouth off again, they should look at a new NASA study.

From 2002 to 2006, scientists and researchers from NASA and the University of Washington's Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory observed a meaningful ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation. The cause is atmospheric circulation changes that vary in decade-long periods and the effect is, well, let the scientist who led the study explain it:

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said the University of Washington's James Morison.

But listening to the ecozealots and Al Gore acolytes, one would think the North Pole was melting because too many conservatives drive too many SUVs and don't have enough social responsibility to tame their wicked fossil-fuel burning ways.

This isn't the first time that real science has exposed hyperbole concerning melting ice at the North Pole. In August 2000, the New York Times ran an apocalyptic story that said the pole was free of ice for the first time in 50 million years.

"It was retracted three weeks later as a barrage of scientists protested that open water is common at or near the pole at the end of summer,"writes environmental scientist Pat Michaels.

"Further, it's common knowledge in the scientific community that there has been no net change in Arctic temperatures in the last 70 years."

Apparently unwilling to learn its lesson, the Times published a fretful story Oct. 2 about Arctic ice loss. Good for shipping across the pole, and fishing and oil exploration in the region. But not so good, the article said, for polar bears that could be in for a "particularly harsh jolt."

The alarmists like to scare the public with harrowing stories of bears drowning when they get trapped on melting ice and can't swim the long distances needed to reach safety. The specter of their extinction has been raised.

So how to explain the increase in the polar bear population from 5,000 in 1950 to 25,000 today, as documented by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service? The alarmists are noticeably quiet. Could it be that the facts don't fit with their campaign of exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies?

 ;D   ;D

Hello Pastor Roger,

We must remember that common sense and facts aren't allowed.  After all, pesky facts and common sense might hurt Al Gore's book sales and his reputation. This is the most ridiculous example of the vanity of man that I've ever seen.

Everything is extremely SIMPLE for Christians. THE CREATOR - THE GREAT I AM - ALMIGHTY GOD is in complete control of everything HE CREATED!

Brothers and Sisters, everything really is this SIMPLE!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Brother Tom can i put the "KISS" here.just for laugh :D :D :D :D

 ;D   ;D

Hello Sister Def,

YES - I had forgotten about the "KISS" principle until someone reminded me of it recently. As Christians, the ULTIMATE realities for us are as simple as one can get.

We belong to CHRIST, and HE should be the CORE and FOCUS of this short life.

Love In Christ,
Tom

 

Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new ice age
Claims data shows temperature peak already passed, cooling ahead

Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti Tuesday.

"Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005," said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.

According to the scientist, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade, but global warming has practically stopped. It confirms the theory of "solar" impact on changes in the Earth's climate, because the amount of solar energy reaching the planet has drastically decreased during the same period, the scientist said.

Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 Celsius in the past ten years, however, it never happened, he said.

"A year ago, many meteorologists predicted that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make the year 2007 the hottest in the last decade, but, fortunately, these predictions did not become reality," Abdusamatov said.

He also said that in 2008, global temperatures would drop slightly, rather than rise, due to unprecedentedly low solar radiation in the past 30 years, and would continue decreasing even if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide reach record levels.

By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years, the scientist added.

"By the mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, similar to the Maunder Minimum, because the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041," he said.

The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715, when only about 50 spots appeared on the Sun, as opposed to the typical 40,000-50,000 spots.

It coincided with the middle and coldest part of the so called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.

"However, the thermal inertia of the world's oceans and seas will delay a 'deep cooling' of the planet, and the new Ice Age will begin sometime during 2055-2060, probably lasting for several decades," Abdusamatov said.

Therefore, the Earth must brace itself for a growing ice cap, rather than rising waters in global oceans caused by ice melting.

Mankind will face serious economic, social, and demographic consequences of the coming Ice Age because it will directly affect more than 80% of the earth's population, the scientist concluded.

I hope this knocks the wind out of that ol' blowhard!  You know the one I mean.


Actually, I don't think we will make it that long.  At least I hope not.  And there are alot of other things that could achive the same the end.

I doubt that it will as nothing that scientists have said yet in opposition to him nor what the weather is actually doing has changed anything coming from him.

China weather chaos a sign of things to come: experts

Don't tell the thousands of Chinese stuck at railway stations or airports, but the chaos caused by a vicious cold spell afflicting much of China could be just a taste of things to come, experts say.

The inclement weather and ensuing problems merely highlight the country's increasing vulnerability to the extreme weather swings characteristic of global climate change, experts say, and is likely to be repeated in future years.

Vast areas of central and southern China have experienced the most severe winter in half a century in the past few days, coming on the heels of one of the warmest winters on record last year.

With climate change gaining pace and the planet generally warming up, the social, economic and political impact on China will rise along with the mercury, experts said.

"As a developing country where the vast majority live in poor circumstances, China is unusually vulnerable to this," said Paul Harris, a professor at Hong Kong's Lingnan University, who studies the social impact of climate change.

"But what we've clearly seen this week is the inability of the government to cope with such extreme events."

There is no way to prove climate change is to blame for the extreme cold snap, but some Chinese government scientists see no other explanation for the wild temperature swings, particularly in the areas that have become accustomed recently to mild winters.

"There is no doubt (climate change is to blame) for such weather events," Wang Qiwei, a climatologist with the China Meteorological Administration, wrote in an online forum set up to answer public questions about the cold weather.

"And it's a reminder that mankind must protect this globe of ours and pay more attention to how we impact our environment."

Although climate change is most closely associated with rising world temperatures, many scientists say it also increases the intensity of all kinds of weather.

"Snow in the south of China? Whoever would have imagined that?" said Yang Ailun, climate change campaigner for Greenpeace China.

"China will be one of the countries most affected by climate change and it is in China's best interest to do more to prepare," she adds, suggesting greater disaster-response spending.

China has a history of devastating natural disasters but the current harsh winter is the latest example of increasingly extreme weather as climate change progresses.

Average 2006 temperatures in China were the warmest in 55 years, while last year saw some of the worst regional droughts in decades, leaving huge swathes of farmland withered and rivers at record low levels.

Chinese climatologists expect more extreme weather over the years, with potentially dire effects on people and agriculture.

"Global warming incidents will be more prominent, more frequent and intense, including torrential rains, droughts, and hurricanes," wrote the meteorological administration's Wang.

China's vast numbers of poor usually suffer the most from natural disasters, raising the spectre of weather-induced social unrest, Hong Kong professor Harris said.

"The people hit hardest are the poor and powerless. Climate change will just lead to more (social unrest)," he said.

The current freezing weather has paralysed transportation just as millions of people try to head home for the annual Lunar New Year holiday.

It has also triggered a power crisis as the transport chaos has endangered shipments of coal to electric power plants just as plummeting temperatures have caused energy demand to soar.

The situation starkly illustrates how extreme weather has the potential to bring the country to its knees, said Harris.

He adds that in future China will be forced to spend more on mitigating the effects of climate change, such as efforts to ensure clean and ample water supplies in times of drought.

"China is spending on building Olympic stadiums, sending astronauts into space and building up its military instead of investing in these things," he said.

"Climate change is not a central factor in current economic planning and I think that is a problem."

Aha! We knew the cold would be a sign of global warming!

China weather chaos a sign of things to come: experts

Don’t tell the thousands of Chinese stuck at railway stations or airports, but the chaos caused by a vicious cold spell afflicting much of China could be just a taste of things to come, experts say.

The inclement weather and ensuing problems merely highlight the country’s increasing vulnerability to the extreme weather swings characteristic of global climate change, experts say, and is likely to be repeated in future years.

Vast areas of central and southern China have experienced the most severe winter in half a century in the past few days, coming on the heels of one of the warmest winters on record last year. (AFP)

No, you didn’t misread that. They said that the most severe winter in 50 years, coming on the heels of one of the warmest [read: mildest] winters on record last year, are both due to ‘rising global temperatures’ (which are currently not rising, so far as anyone can tell — but never mind that). And some people take this garbage seriously?

Al Gore called 'prophet' at liberal Baptist meeting

Al Gore has used a speech to hundreds attending Jimmy Carter's liberal Baptist meeting in Atlanta to sell his global warming campaign.

The Tennessean in Nashville describes Gore's speech this way: "With a green-colored Bible in one hand and his familiar red laser pointer in the other, former vice president and Nobel prize winner Al Gore led 2,500 Baptist preachers and lay leaders through his global warming slide show in Atlanta Thursday. Sounding more like an evangelist than a politician, Gore drew upon Scripture, science and a Sunday school teacher from his home church to urge Baptists to do whatever they could to fight global warming."
 
The newspaper goes on to quote Gore as telling the crowd that "if we heap contempt on God's creation, that is inconsistent with glorifying God" -- and comparing the "rising storm" of the alleged climate crisis to the rise of the Nazi party in the 1930s.
 
And it appears Gore had plenty of disciples at the gathering. According to The Tennessean, Robert Parham, executive director of the Nashville-based Baptist Center for Ethics, called Gore a "Baptist prophet." In introducing Gore, Parham said, "prophets are unacceptable because their truth is inconvenient."
 
The newspaper also quotes Todd Lake, vice president for spiritual development at Belmont University, as saying Gore had opened his eyes to the scale of global warming. "Not only do we have a crisis, we have a mounting crisis," Lake stated.
 
Despite the apparent success Gore enjoyed at the meeting, many people question the former vice president's claims about global warming. They argue the earth is simply going through another cycle of changes, as it has since the beginning of time.
 
Meanwhile, the Carter meeting wraps up today with speeches from former president Bill Clinton and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who is investigating some popular televangelists' alleged misuse of financial gifts from their donors.

I don't argue that he is a prophet but the word FALSE needs to be with that.

(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f166/XhypocriteX/hypocrite.jpg)


(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a316/rpiver/straight_jacket.gif)
That's all I've got to say.  But then...it really says it all, doesn't it?

Yep, it sure does.

Your right, he is a FALSE prophet.

More Ice Than Ever

 The Washington Post recently ran a shocking above-the-fold article warning us of "Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica." A new paper by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory shows a net loss of ice where most scientists thought the opposite would occur.

The Post went full-bore with this one, spreading the article on to an entire interior page. The piece ends by noting that Rajenda Pachauri, head of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is so concerned that he's is personally going down to inspect the situation.

He should. Before he even gets to Antarctica, Pachauri is going to see something even more surprising than Rignot's finding. Despite a warming Southern Ocean, the amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is now at the highest level ever measured for this time of the year, since satellites first began to monitor it almost thirty years ago. This represents a continuation of the record set last winter (our summer).

Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, we can also look at the departure from the average for ice mass in a given month. At present, the coverage of ice surrounding Antarctica is almost exactly two million square miles above where it is historically supposed to be at this time of year. It's farther above normal than it has ever been for any month in climatologic records. Around now, because it's summer down there and the ice is headed towards its annual low point, there should be about seven million square miles of it. That means, as data in University of Illinois' web publication Cryosphere Today shows, that there is nearly 30% more ice down in Antarctica than usual for this time of the year.

All of the IPCC's models of Antarctica in the 21st century forecast a gain in ice, as a warmer surrounding ocean evaporates more water, which subsequently falls in the form of snow when it hits the continent. It's simply too cold for rain in Antarctica, and it'll stay that way for a very long time.

Concerning Antarctica as a whole, the IPCC's new climate compendium notes "the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region." Other studies, such as Peter Doran's in Nature in 2003, show actual cooling in recent decades. (There is a small area of significant warming in the peninsula that points towards South America, but this is less than 2% of Antarctica's total land mass.)

There's brand new evidence, just published in mid-January in Geophysical Research Letters, of a striking increase in snowfall over that peninsula. The few snowfall records that are available elsewhere in Antarctica show considerable variation from decade to decade, so discriminating the "signal" of increased snowfall caused by global warming from all the rest of the "noise" may be very difficult indeed.

We see the same problem with hurricanes and global warming. Their strength and numbers vary considerably from year to year. 2005 was the most active year ever measured in the Atlantic Basin, while 2007 was one of the weakest in history. How do you find the fingerprint of global warming amidst such variation?

So it's not warming up, and the snowfall data are equivocal, yet the continent is experiencing a net loss of ice. How can this be, and is it even important? The current hypothesis is that warmer waters beneath the surface are somehow loosening the ice. That's plausible, but again, there's precious little proof of it.

And further, the bottom line is that there is more ice than ever surrounding Antarctica.

One of the tired tropes that reverberate throughout global warming reporting is that inconvenient facts get left out. In this case, it's blatant. Midway through the Post's page-long article comes a statement that "these new findings come as the Arctic is losing ice at a dramatic rate." Wouldn't that have been an appropriate place to note that, despite a small recent loss of ice from the Antarctic landmass, the ice field surrounding Antarctica is now larger than ever measured?

Watts Up With That? has a different slant on yesterday's 'Nessie' story: Global Warming Kills “Nessie” - Global warming gets blamed for a lot of things, like in the 90’s, when that California Cheese commercial came out blaming everything  on “Its the El Ninnnnoooooo…..”. Every day we see more an more piling on of claims that the root cause of some problem is “global warming”.

But when this one came along, it gave me such pause, that I just had to mention it due to the absurdity vortex that surrounds it. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you this:

Veteran Loch Ness Monster Hunter Gives Up

Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming.

Read the whole story here at the UK’s Daily Record.

Of course we all know that Nessie is “real” and therefore it’s *ahem* reasonable to assume that the massive species extinction claimed as one of the direct effects of AGW would reach right down to the depths of Loch Ness and strike beloved Nessie dead. It’s a huge blow to Scotland’s tourist industry.

But that’s not the cause, the epic battle of Nessie’s last stand was captured in late 2007 on the Loch Ness web cam. The real culprit is not global warming, but very close.

See the picture below:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/gorezilla520.jpg)

Note: yes I realize the picture is absurd, but “absurd claims require absurd proof.” (Watts Up With That?)


(http://img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif)

Article from Junkscience.com:

Where have all the sunspots gone?


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/soho-mdi-02-13-08.png)


I’m writing this after doing an exhaustive search to see what sort of solar activity has occurred lately, and I find there is little to report. With the exception of the briefly increased solar wind from a coronal hole, there is almost no significant solar activity.

The sun has gone quiet. Really quiet.

It is normal for our sun to have quiet periods between solar cycles, but we’ve seen months and months of next to nothing, and the start of Solar cycle 24 seems to have materialized (as first reported here) then abruptly disappeared. The reverse polarity sunspot that signaled the start of cycle 24 on January 4th, dissolved within two days after that.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/reversed_sunspot_010408.jpg)


Of course we’ve known that the sunspot cycle has gone low, which is also to be expected for this period of the cycle. Note that NOAA still has two undecided scenarios for cycle 24 Lower that normal, or higher than normal, as indicated on the graph below:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/ises_sunspots_013108.png)


But the real news is just how quiet the suns magnetic field has been in the past couple of years. From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little magnetic field activity there has been. I’ve graphed it below:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/solar-geomagnetic-ap520.png)


What is most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels.

This looks much like a “step function” that I see on GISS surface temperature graphs when a station has been relocated to a cooler measurement environment. In the case of the sun, it appears this indicates that something abruptly “switched off” in the inner workings of the solar dynamo. Note that in the prior months, the magnetic index was ramping up a bit with more activity, then it simply dropped and stayed mostly flat.

We saw a single reversed polarity high latitude sunspot on January 4th, 2008, which would signal the start of a new cycle 24, which was originally predicted to have started last March and expected to peak in 2012. So far the sun doesn’t seem to have restarted its normal upwards climb.

If you have ever studied how the magnetic dynamo of the sun is so incredibly full of entropy, yet has cycles, you’ll understand how it can change states. The sun’s magnetic field is a like a series of twisted and looped rubber bands, mostly because the sun is a fluid gas, which rotates at different rates between the poles and the equator. Since the suns magnetic field is pulled along with the gas, all these twists, bumps, and burps occur in the process as the magnetic field lines get twisted like taffy. You can see more about it in the Babcock model.

I’ve alway’s likened a sunspot to what happens with a rubber band on a toy balsa wood plane. You keep twisting the propeller beyond the normal tightness to get that extra second of thrust and you see the rubber ban start to pop out knots. Those knots are like sunspots busting out of twisted magnetic field lines.

The Babcock model says that the differential rotation of the Sun winds up the magnetic fields of it’s layers during a solar cycle. The magnetic fields will then eventually tangle up to such a degree that they will eventually cause a magnetic break down and the fields will have to struggle to reorganize themselves by bursting up from the surface layers of the Sun. This will cause magnetic North-South pair boundaries (spots) in the photosphere trapping gaseous material that will cool slightly. Thus, when we see sunspots, we are seeing these areas of magnetic field breakdown.


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/Babcock_model.jpg)


Sunspots are cross connected eruptions of the magnetic field lines, shown in red above. Sometimes they break, spewing tremendous amounts of gas and particles into space. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CME’s) are some examples of this process. Sometimes they snap back like rubber bands. The number of sunspots at solar max is a direct indicator of the activity level of the solar dynamo.

Given the current quietness of the sun and it’s magnetic field, combined with the late start to cycle 24 with even possibly a false start, it appears that the sun has slowed it’s internal dynamo to a similar level such as was seen during the Dalton Minimum. One of the things about the Dalton Minimum was that it started with a skipped solar cycle, which also coincided with a very long solar cycle 4 from 1784-1799. The longer our current cycle 23 lasts before we see a true ramp up of cycle 24, the greater chance it seems then that cycle 24 will be a low one.

No wonder there is so much talk recently about global cooling. I certainly hope that’s wrong, because a Dalton type solar minimum would be very bad for our world economy and agriculture. NASA GISS published a release back in 2003 that agrees with the commonly accepted idea that long period trends in solar activity do affect our climate by changing the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).

Some say it is no coincidence that 2008 has seen a drop in global temperature as indicated by several respected temperature indexes compared to 2007, and that our sun is also quiet and still not kick starting its internal magentic dynamo.

Of course: Cold wave in India attributed to global warming


 Mumbai: The recent cold wave sweeping across Mumbai and other parts of India could be attributed to global warming, experts said on Tuesday here at an environmental conference.

Addressing the ‘Combat Global Warming’ conference at the Indian Merchants Chamber (IMC) here, former Union minister for power and environment Suresh Prabhu said global warming was primarily a problem created and induced by human beings.

He said the increase in emission of green house gases like carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and methane had resulted in the situation, which could prove catastrophic if unchecked.

Prabhu said the cold wave that swept Maharashtra and other parts of India recently could be attributed to the phenomenon of global warming. (Sify)

______________


Cold wave in India attributed to global warming

Mumbai: The recent cold wave sweeping across Mumbai and other parts of India could be attributed to global warming, experts said on Tuesday here at an environmental conference.

Addressing the ‘Combat Global Warming’ conference at the Indian Merchants Chamber (IMC) here, former Union minister for power and environment Suresh Prabhu said global warming was primarily a problem created and induced by human beings.

He said the increase in emission of green house gases like carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and methane had resulted in the situation, which could prove catastrophic if unchecked.

Prabhu said the cold wave that swept Maharashtra and other parts of India recently could be attributed to the phenomenon of global warming.

He said global warming had already affected agriculture and water availability in various parts of the country. "A recent study revealed that 70 percent of India's water bodies are polluted," Prabhu said.

The former minister said India was one of the world's top five polluters, which also include the US, European nations and Japan.

IMC president Niraj Bajaj said the fluctuating climatic conditions due to global warming posed a threat to the very survival of the planet.

To drive home his point, he quoted Mahatma Gandhi: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

Environmental scientist Emmanuel D'Silva said Mumbai and Kolkata were among the ten worst cities in the world with regard to environmental pollution and sanitation.

"It is estimated by the year 2050, another seven million persons are expected to take refuge in Mumbai after global warming leads to either a drought or deluge in their village or city elsewhere in the country," D'Silva said.

 ;D   ;D  The facts are killin' me - ROFL!

The ones that cause the most laughing involves anyone listening to another word that Al Gore has to say. Man has no control over the sun, so why are we still listening to "GOOBERS" who want to spend MEGA-BILLIONS on NOTHING and ACCOMPLISH NOTHING but line some fat cat pockets with CASH?

   

    HuffPoster Kerry Trueman on Tuesday suggested that food shortages will be so rampant if we don't stop climate change that we'll all end up eating bugs.

    I kid you not.

    For those looking for a cut to the chase, this was the money shot:

        If the thought of eating bugs and roadkill freaks you out, consider this: competition for the world's dwindling resources is heating up right along with the planet, and global warming is worsening food shortages all over the world. In this land o' plenty o' processed foods, most Americans can't imagine an era when we'd be forced to subsist on weeds, bugs, and -- till we run out of gas -- roadkill.


Never mind that food crops like corn are being diverted to ethanol production in the name of diminishing ostensibly man-made global warming. Never mind that warmer weather and higher CO2 levels tends to produce higher yields. Greenland once was green, after all, when the climate was warmer and so was Antartica.


Hysteria is too kind a word for this idiocy.

'Coldest winter in decades'
New evidence casts doubt on claims world's ice-caps really melting

Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature.

It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming.

But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back.

Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.

The data flies in the face of many current thinkers and will be seized on by climate change sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

A photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg has become one of the most enduring images in the campaign against climate change.

It was used by former US Vice President Al Gore during his Inconvenient Truth lectures about mankind’s impact on the world. But scientists say the northern hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades.

They add that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966.

The one exception is Western Europe, which has – until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10C in some places – been basking in unseasonably warm weather. The UK has reported one of its warmest winters on record.
   
However, vast swathes of the world have suffered chaos because of some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades.

Central and southern China, the USA and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms.

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.

In Britain the barmy February weather came to an abrupt halt at the weekend as temperatures plunged to -10C in central England.

Experts believe that this month could end up as one of the coldest Februaries in Britain in the past 10 years.

The freezing night-time conditions look set to stay around -8C until at least the middle of the week.

A Met Office spokesman explained: “There has been little or no cloud cover across England and Wales. So there is a capacity for a fair bit of heat to be able to escape at night.

“It has been warmer in Scotland but that’s because it has been cloudy there.

“Until the weekend the temperatures were in the 14s and 15s, and we will see a return to that later this week, though it will look grey and overcast when the clouds return.”

But he added that there was little chance of snow. He said: “When the rain comes it will get warmer.”

THIS COMMENT SUMS UP THE SNAKE OIL OF GLOBAL WARMING


" I have a spiffy computer model that tells me you may contract cancer in the future. Maybe twenty or 100 years from now. Who knows? Forget the measurable fact that you have no symptoms now; my program predicts your demise — your temperature may rise to least 110 and all of your fingers may fall off. And your dog may die with you.

Therefore, the only logical thing to do to avert your pending demise is to administer chemotherapy to you, starting today. You will get terribly sick from this preventative medicine, you’ll suffer serious side-effects, and you could easily die from it. Many doctors have objected to my course of action, advising a more cautious approach, but they are deniers. My intentions are good and my models are flawless, reviewed by my like-minded friends. Who are these doctors to question me?

Take your medicine. It’s for your own good. Trust me. "

Now why did you have to go and ruin poor Elmer Fudd's reputation by associating him with nuts.  ;) :D :D

 ;D   ;D   The wascally wabbit did it.

Garbage in, garbage out: More bad warming data
Another temperature-monitor station riddled with problems, says meteorologist


A meteorologist performing a comprehensive study of temperature-monitoring stations that provide data about global warming says the official facility at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport is riddled with problems that render it useless to scientists.

But the data collected there is being used nonetheless.

Anthony Watts concludes in his investigation that the station at O'Hare is affected by an urban heat effect that would make temperature readings inaccurate as an indicator of what is actually occurring regionally.

"The community around O'Hare was much smaller during World War II, when the airport was built, than it is now," says Watts. "The area had a significantly less-urban population and lacked the acres of concrete and asphalt that exist there today."

The problems at O'Hare are similar to those found by Watts around the country in his study of temperature stations used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration..

What he has found elsewhere are temperature stations with sensors on the roofs of buildings, near air-conditioning exhaust vents, in parking lots near hot automobiles, barbecues, chimneys and on pavement and concrete surfaces – all of which would lead to higher temperature recordings than properly established conditions.

To qualify as a properly maintained temperature station, sensors must be placed in elevated, slatted boxes on flat ground surrounded by a clear surface on a slope of less than 19 degrees with surrounding grass and vegetations ground cover of less than 10 centimeters high. The sensors must be located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces and parking lots.

Watts' concerns about the temperatures being used to gauge whether global warming is actually taking place began when he read a 1997 study by the U.S. National Research Council that concluded the consistency and quality of temperature stations was "inadequate and deteriorating." Meanwhile, he learned, the U.S. Historical Climatological Network, responsible for maintaining the stations, was doing nothing to address the problems.

So Watts decided to take up the challenge himself. After surveying a few randomly chosen temperature stations and being shocked at the shortcomings, he set forth on a plan to survey all 1,221 stations, taking photographs along the way. With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.

The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.

All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded.

Forget global warming

Lorne Gunter, National Post
February 25, 2008

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

Forget global warming (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289)

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here.  The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm)

Northern Residents Lament Snowy Winter
Feb 26, 9:13 PM (ET)

By DON BABWIN

CHICAGO (AP) - Betty Stewart's Tuesday started with her stepping into a slushy puddle just long enough to get her sock wet and having her newspaper blown from her hands and getting soaked on the ground.

"Enough already," she said.

Like many others, the 30-year-old receptionist has had it with winter and what seems like unusually wet weather.

"Coming to work, people are mad at the world," said Olivia Young, a customer service associate in downtown Chicago. Winter, she said, "just puts you in an overwrought situation."

Experts say people in some northern states aren't just looking to complain; the weather this winter truly is worse in some ways.

In Boston, for example, 49.6 inches of snow has fallen this winter, or 19.3 inches more than normal. In Madison, Wis., where it never had snowed more than 76.6 inches, the city already had seen 77 inches by Feb. 12.

Last week, Grand Rapids, Mich., shattered its December-February snowfall record of 85.1 inches set in 1951-52. As of Tuesday afternoon, 90.4 inches had fallen. And though the month doesn't end until Friday, the city has a new February record of 37.1 inches, surpassing 1990's 35.5 inches.

On Tuesday, snow fell from Illinois to New England, with more than 6 inches on the ground by late morning in northern Indiana and Ohio. Up to 16 inches of snow was possible across northern Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, the National Weather Service said.

In Chicago, more than 50 inches has fallen since the beginning of December, which is about 15 inches above normal and makes this the first winter since 1978-79 the area has seen more than 50 inches of snow, said Amy Seeley, a weather service meteorologist.

Snowy weather and fluctuating temperatures have led to Chicago having to fill in more than 60,000 potholes since Dec. 1 - nearly twice the number filled during the same period last year and, as any Chicago driver can tell you, a fraction of those out there.

Some communities are running low on road salt, scrambling to find more and reporting in some cases a spike in traffic accidents because roads are not sufficiently salted.

Officials at Southern Illinois University are lamenting ice, not snow, after it forced them to cancel classes three times this month.

"Snow, you can plow that right off," said school spokesman Rod Sievers. "But the ice was just brutal, brutal."

Evrod Cassimy knows exactly how brutal after spending 11 hours stranded in a traffic jam south of Madison, Wis. earlier this month when a storm dumped 12 to 19 inches of snow.

"I am fed up with it," said Cassimy, who lives in Rockford, Ill. and works in Madison. "It is just kind of one of those things if I hear there's snow, I just don't even want to believe it any more. I am definitely sick of it."

All this snowing, thawing and freezing has people slipping and falling on sidewalks or crashing their cars on streets as slippery as hockey rinks.

"We're definitely experiencing more ... people with broken arms, a lot of fall-type injuries, and car accidents," said Rockford Memorial Hospital spokesman Mike Wiltse. "Driveways and sidewalks are nothing but ice."

What makes it worse, people say, is it seems there's been no break, with storms arriving one after another.

"It's been endless," Roland Swanson said as he waited to cross a street in South Bend, Ind. "It just keeps coming. It's killing us by the inch."

Northern Residents Lament Snowy Winter (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080227/D8V2CFRO0.html)
~~~~~~~~

I would not look for the UN and Gore letting go of the cash-cow called Global warming anytime soon though. I remember it snowing in Los Angeles (elevation 38 feet) back in 1967-68.........

It's like the rest of the GLOBAL INSANITY! NO! - They won't let it go, and common sense won't prevail. There's MONEY in it for the Al Gores of this world. The same is true for SUPER HIGHWAYS, NORTH AMERICAN UNIONS, ETC., ETC.

The INSANITY TRAIN has already left the station, and it's a RUNAWAY TRAIN without any brakes. This is in all areas. It appears that the INSANITY TRAIN serves the entire world.

Scientists meet in NYC to challenge Gore, U.N.
Hundreds of experts assert 'alarmists' in climate debate 'have had their say'

Global warming is a natural process, not likely the result of human activities, argued more than 100 internationally prominent environmental scientists in papers presented at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which concluded here today.

The conference, organized by the Heartland Institute, sought to refute the contention promoted by Al Gore and the U.N. that there is an "established scientific consensus" that human beings are causing the earth to warm catastrophically. The event attracted more than 500 people, including scientists, economists, policy experts and members of the public from around the world.

"The purpose of the conference is to provide a platform for the hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts who dissent from the so-called 'consensus' on global warming," said Joseph Bast, president of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute. "This is their chance to speak out."

"Is global warming 'An Inconvenient Truth,' as Vice President Al Gore charges, or a 'Global Warming Swindle?' Harriet Johnson, spokeswoman for the Heartland Institute asked in a statement distributed at the start of the three-day conference.

"The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say – over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films," a notice on the Heartland Institute website proclaims. "But they have lost the debate."

Environmental scientist S. Fred Singer kicked off the conference by releasing a report entitled, "Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate," summarizing a three-year international scientific research project conducted by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, that Singer headed.

"There are many factors that affect the climate," Singer told WND. "What we can now exclude by scientific evidence is the argument that greenhouse gases are an important factor in causing global warming."

Singer and the NIPCC agree that global warming occurred in the 20th century, but disagree human activity is responsible. He argues instead that natural causes are likely to be the dominant cause of the scientifically observed global warming under discussion.

The NIPCC scientists contend the U.N. agenda "is largely hypothetical and not sustained by observations" driven by complex mathematical models.

The computer models, the NIPCC scientists claim, are only valid in a "virtual computer world," but fail to produce reliable real world predictions that can be empirically verified.

"Computer models undoubtedly have their place as a way of projecting possible consequences when one or more variables are changed," the NIPCC scientists wrote in their newly released report. "However, models do not represent reality, yet the IPCC persists in treating them as if they do."

The newly released NIPCC report presents scientific evidence that solar-wind variability is a primary cause of climate change, a better explanation for 20th century warming than greenhouse gas effects.

Moreover, the NIPCC report argues the IPCC's estimates of future human-generated carbon dioxide emissions are too high and the higher concentrations of carbon dioxide that can be attributed to human activity have been beneficial to plant and animal life.

"Global warming is attributable to natural causes," Singer told WND, "so in that sense global warming is unstoppable, regardless what measures Al Gore or the U.N. want to impose on us with new international governmental regulations."

"Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years" is the title of Singer's New York Times best-selling book, co-authored with Hudson Institute scientist Dennis T. Avery.

Examining geological and historical data, Singer and Avery claim to have established a 1,500 year-cycle that generates warming and cooling of the earth's atmosphere, regardless of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

The NIPCC report issued at the New York City conference was written to counter the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, a scientific panel established in 1988 by the U.N. to evaluate the risk of climate change.

The IPCC and Gore and the won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for efforts to disseminate their theory about man-made climate change.

The IPCC released a report Nov. 17 in Valencia, Spain, entitled, "Climate Change 2007," arguing "much of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gas) concentrations."

The U.N. has utilized the IPCC to launch an aggressive agenda, largely supporting the Kyoto Protocol, calling for the establishment of a global response to climate change.

At the core of the U.N. agenda is an array of recommended governmental policies designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, including the creation an international carbon market that imposes economic penalties for non-compliance.

"Al Gore and the U.N. have a fixation with the argument that we cause global warming," Singer said. "Besides that, look at the billions of tax dollars going into various schemes like subsidizing biofuels. We're being charged twice by the global warming alarmists – once in new taxes the U.N. is planning to impose on us and then again as consumers who will ultimately have to bear the cost of these new global taxes."

The founder of The Weather Channel has long voiced his dissent against the fraud of global warming. He is highly upset with the networks reports on climate change and wants to sue all those that sell carbon credits for fraud.

Like he said a law suit of that nature would really get some attention. They would have to keep it out the liberal courts like those in California though in order to do any good.

Snow shatters 98-year record
'We need to be smart, take care of ourselves and attempt to be helpful to others'

Midwest Cleans Up After Record Snowfall


Highway and utility crews worked overtime Sunday to recover from the huge storm that buried Ohio and other parts of the Midwest in snow and tore down power lines elsewhere.

More than 20 inches of snow fell from Friday through Saturday at Columbus, eclipsing the city's previous record of 15.3 inches set in February 1910, the National Weather Service said. Elsewhere on Saturday, 14 inches fell at Milan, Ind.; and up to a foot fell at Louisville, Ky., Buffalo, N.Y., Cleveland, Cincinnati, and parts of Tennessee. Arkansas collected a foot of snow Friday.

Many churches in the Columbus area canceled Sunday services because roads were still slippery.

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, which shut down Saturday, reopened Sunday but flight delays and cancelations were expected as airlines tried to get their schedules back on track, spokesman Todd Payne said.

Delays also were expected at Port Columbus International Airport, where 90 percent of flights were canceled Saturday.

"We will get through this," Gov. Ted Strickland said Saturday. "The snow will stop, the wind will cease, and the sun will shine. But until that happens we need to be smart, take care of ourselves and attempt to be helpful to others."

Ohio had one traffic death linked to the weather, and four men died while shoveling snow. Two traffic deaths were blamed on the storm in western New York state and one in Tennessee. Two people were killed Friday as tornadoes spun out of the eastern edge of the weather system in Florida.

The storm also made roads slippery and snow-covered in western New York and caused flooding that closed roads in other parts of the state. On Sunday, high wind and falling temperatures created brisk wind chills in much of the state.

Utility companies in southeastern Pennsylvania said Sunday they had restored power to most of the 80,000 customers who were blacked out Saturday by power lines snapped by wind and falling tree limbs.

More than 100,000 New Jersey homes and businesses lost power at the height of thunderstorms that boiled up along the eastern part of the weather system, and some commuter train routes into New York City were blocked by fallen trees, authorities said. Wind gusted to 65 mph in New Jersey, the weather service said.

In Maryland, the storm system's wind blew a ship away from its pier Saturday in Baltimore. Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class Ayla Stevens said no one was injured when the car-carrier's mooring lines broke and the ship was pushed out into the city's harbor.

People around the world have gotten hit with unusually cold weather. In June, children in Johannesburg, South Africa, woke up to snowfall, a very rare occurrence even in the southern hemisphere's winter season.

Blizzards and severe snowstorms across China in January forced the evacuation of more than 100,000 people. The weather also stopped train travel, stranding several hundred thousand passengers.

After weathering nearly five years of war, Baghdad residents thought they'd seen it all, but in January, for the first time in memory, snow fell across the city.

Residents wade through a flooded street last month in Trinidad, Bolivia. Experts say that La Nina, a periodic cooling of waters in the Pacific Ocean, is responsible for a rainy season there and is likely contributing to the cold spell around the world.

After retreating last year, Arctic sea ice is returning, giving global warming skeptics a point to argue in environmental debates.

A postal carrier braves a snow storm in Illinois last month. "The current downturn is not very unusual," said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems. "Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Nina event is over."

Climate expert: Greenhouse equations 'totally wrong'
Global warning activist admits 'runaway warming' impossible

New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher.  He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well.  "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states.  Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results.  Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple.  "Money", he tells DailyTech.  Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research.  Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate.  My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated.  It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past.  The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.

However, not everyone is convinced.  Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible".  Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is  an extremely good fit with observational results.  For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.

Southern Baptists Back a Shift on Climate Change

Signaling a significant departure from the Southern Baptist Convention’s official stance on global warming, 44 Southern Baptist leaders have decided to back a declaration calling for more action on climate change, saying its previous position on the issue was “too timid.”

The largest denomination in the United States after the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, with more than 16 million members, is politically and theologically conservative.

Yet its current president, the Rev. Frank Page, signed the initiative, “A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.” Two past presidents of the convention, the Rev. Jack Graham and the Rev. James Merritt, also signed.

“We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues has often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice,” the church leaders wrote in their new declaration.

A 2007 resolution passed by the convention hewed to a more skeptical view of global warming.

In contrast, the new declaration, which will be released Monday, states, “Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed.”

The document also urges ministers to preach more about the environment and for all Baptists to keep an open mind about considering environmental policy.

Jonathan Merritt, the spokesman for the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative and a seminarian at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., said the declaration was a call to Christians to return to a biblical mandate to guard the world God created.

The Southern Baptist signatories join a growing community of evangelicals pushing for more action among believers, industry and politicians. Experts on the Southern Baptist Convention noted the initiative marked the growing influence of younger leaders on the discussions in the Southern Baptist Convention.

While those younger Baptists remain committed to fight abortion, for instance, the environment is now a top priority, too.

“In no way do we intend to back away from sanctity of life,” said the Rev. Dr. Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Ala.

Still, many powerful Southern Baptist leaders and agencies did not sign the declaration, including the convention’s influential political arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Dr. Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy at the commission, played down the differences between the declaration and the Southern Baptist Convention’s position.

The declaration says in fact that lack of scientific unanimity should not preclude “prudent action,” which includes changing individual habits and giving “serious consideration to responsible policies that effectively address” global warming.

The declaration is the outgrowth of soul-searching by Mr. Merritt, 25. The younger Mr. Merritt said that for years he had been “an enemy of the environment.” Then, he said, he had an epiphany.

“I learned that God reveals himself through Scripture and in general through his creation, and when we destroy God’s creation, it’s similar to ripping pages from the Bible,” Mr. Merritt said.

Right there is the key statement. They are more concerned with what the world says that what the Word of God says.

Baptists: No change on climate change
Blame confusion on efforts of 25-year-old seminary student

The Southern Baptist Convention wants you to know there has been no policy change on the issue of global warming.

That official statement from the denomination is meant to clarify confusion generated about the efforts of Jonathan Merritt, a 25-year-old Southern Baptist Theological Seminary student who launched a campaign from within Baptist ranks for stronger action against climate change, which he believes poses an imminent threat to mankind.

The statement titled "A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change," written by Merritt received massive media coverage – from the New York Times to the Associated Press to Reuters. It was widely portrayed as a major deviation from a more cautious stance on the controversies surrounding the seriousness of man-made catastrophic global warming.

"For the record, there has been no change in convention policy and despite the media blitz that suggests otherwise, there does not appear to be a groundswell of support for change," explained Will Hall, vice president for news services for the SBC, a member of the executive committee and executive editor of the Baptist Press. "Jonathan Merritt does not speak for the Southern Baptist Convention. Unfortunately, his use of 'Southern Baptist' in the title of his declaration misinforms the public and misrepresents the Southern Baptist Convention."

The SBC released its views on global warming last summer in the statement titled, "On Global Warming."

While not being an official document of the SBC the latest statement was signed by several high-profile Southern Baptist leaders including Merritt's father, James Merritt, a pastor and former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. In addition, the current president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Frank Page, endorsed the document as well as Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, who was also a former president of the SBC.

Page also supported the SBC's resolution on the topic that was released last year.

During an annual meeting in San Antonio in 2007, Southern Baptist leaders spoke of the issue of global warming encouraging others "to proceed cautiously in the human-induced global warming debate in light of conflicting scientific research." It also endorsed public policies that safeguard "an appropriate balance between care for the environment, effects on economics, and impacts on the poor when considering programs to reduce" carbon and other emissions.

"Southern Baptists have long stood for a clear environmental message which takes seriously God's call to guard and keep the earth," Page said. "We have been balanced and responsive in our calls for care. ... However, in a broader sense, many of God's people have been timid about speaking out regarding issues which relate to environmentalism. Perhaps this timidity has been a fear that speaking out would tie us to the very extreme left wing liberal environmental lobby. Some in this group are known for harsh political tirades. Others have issued irresponsible calls for economic change which would devastate the economies of some of the poorest nations in the world."


Merritt, who is the project director of the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative, explained in a teleconference March 10, that his inspiration for the resolution came during a theology class.

"In the lecture my professor made the statement that when we destroy creation, which is God's revelation, it is no different than tearing a page out of the Bible," he said. "At that moment, God began to work in my heart and call me to do something. It is the product of that nudge from God that day."

Merritt's statement reads, "current denominational engagement with these issues has often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better."

The resolution is signed by 46 leaders in the SBC.

The newly released resolution has four main points:

    * Human beings have a responsibility to care for creation and acknowledge their participation in environmental decline.
    * Addressing climate change is prudent.
    * Stewardship of the earth is required by Christian and Southern Baptist beliefs.
    * Individuals, churches, communities and governments should act now.

The statement also emphasizes the signers differ with many environmentalists on population control issues and maintain the SBC positions on biblical marriage and protecting the unborn.

"We will never compromise our convictions nor attenuate our advocacy on these matters, which constitute the most pressing moral issues of our day," the statement says. "However, we are not a single-issue body."

The lack of endorsement of the final document by the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission was notable. In a teleconference, Merritt said that the ERLC has provided input in early drafts of the resolution, but did not endorse the final draft.

ERLC President Richard Land stated that he would not endorse the resolution in a statement to the Baptist Press to preserve the autonomy of the Southern Baptists.

"They reserve to themselves the right to decide through Convention action what the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy positions are to be," Land said. "The ERLC will continue to share the officially adopted positions of the Convention with public policy makers and the media."

In addition, Land commented on the signers' allegation that the SBC has been "too timid" in handling the stated issues.

"The convention has officially addressed the issues of creation care and environmental stewardship in its 2006 and 2007 conventions through resolutions adopted by the convention's duly elected messengers," Land said. Referring to the 2007 action, he added that the approved action "is as close to an 'official' position as the SBC is capable of making, apart from its formal confession of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message. Consequently, in our convention-assigned role to share faithfully with Washington and other public policy venues where the convention is on an issue, it would be misleading and unethical of the ERLC to promote a position at variance with the convention's expressly stated positions."

The Washington Post-er Child for Climate Bias

Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin leads the pack in this year’s contest for biased climate journalism.
 
Eilperin’s March 10 article entitled, “Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say” has the same sort of journalistic objectivity that one might expect from totalitarian state-controlled media.
 
With nary a critical word about the computer models used to project increases in global temperature, Eilperin touted two new model-dependent studies that “suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.”
 
“Using advanced computer models to factor deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide, the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further,” Eilperin reported.
 
But none of the models in the studies -- nor for that matter any other mathematical model of global climate -- has proven to be particularly useful. No model has been validated against historical climate data. So why would any rational person assume that they can be used to predict future climate or serve as a basis for developing national energy policy?
 
As reported in this column last December, global climate models uniformly predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than have actually occurred.

Such model failure should come as no surprise since they have many built-in biases, including the unproven assumption that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives global climate. But all the available real-life data -- including 20th century records and ice core samples stretching back 650,000 years -- fail to support such a cause-and-effect relationship. The ice core samples show, in fact, an opposite relationship.
 
Eilperin, who has long reported on climate for the Washington Post, must know about the models’ problems, but she apparently chooses not to report it.

In her March 4 Post article, Eilperin mentioned a report by a number of climate experts from around the world entitled, “Nature Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.”  She even interviewed one of the experts for her story.
 
A section of that report, entitled “Climate Models Are Not Reliable” discusses in plain language how climate models don’t consider solar dimming and brightening, don’t accurately control for clouds, don’t simulate the potential feedback effects of water vapor, don’t explain many features of the Earth’s observed climate, and don’t produce reliable predictions of regional (let alone global) climate change.
 
At JunkScience.com, we label climate modeling as PlayStation® Climatology, with no disrespect intended toward Sony since its PlayStation games are in fact what they purport to be -- just games.
 
Not content with ignoring viewpoints she doesn’t like, Eilperin goes on to diminish, if not ridicule critics of her apparent point of view.
 
Eilperin’s March 4 article featured four ad hominem attacks from three environmental activists, abusing those who question global warming orthodoxy as members of a “flat Earth society” and participants in the “climate equivalent of Custer’s last stand.” If Eilperin wants to poke fun at those who disagree with her on public policy issues, she ought to write an opinion, rather than a news column.

Another disturbing aspect of Eilperin’s article was the accompanying photo of downtown Beijing.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/WashPost31008.jpg)


 The photo was captioned, “A heavy haze could be seen in Beijing in August 2007. Two recent reports call for a heightened global effort to reduce carbon emissions.”
 
The juxtaposition of the article and photo clearly implied that unless we cut carbon dioxide emissions, U.S. cities would soon look like Beijing.
 
But as virtually anyone who breathes knows, carbon dioxide is an invisible gas. Not only can you not see it, there’s no possible way for carbon dioxide emissions to cause smog, haze or whatever was fouling Beijing’s air in the photo.
 
The irrelevant and misleading nature of the photo has been pointed out to Eilperin, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell and the paper’s editors. As of the writing of this column, none have responded and it remains to be seen whether the Washington Post has the journalistic integrity to remove the photo from its web site and publish a correction in its print edition.
 
It’s quite possible that if Eilperin and the many other members of the mainstream media who so far have been in the tank for global warming started reporting on the very real debate about climate model validity rather than simply regurgitating what the agenda-driven modelers tell them, then we could avert the looming national economic disaster that Congress is preparing for the next president to sign into law.

Something that even this article fails to mention is that bringing CO2 levels close to zero would be hazardous to all life on earth. CO2 is required plant life. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas in the first place. It is a gas that is needed in greenhouses and often artificially increased in greenhouses in order to obtain healthier plants. Zero CO2 levels would mean the demise of plants and therefore the demise of humans.

A really big DOH!

... as attested to by a company that designs and builds greenhouses and provides associated supplies for them:


Use of CO2 in Greenhouses

Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality.

Modern growers are becoming increasingly aware of the value of CO2. Particularly now that most greenhouses are purposely shutting out CO2 [air] to conserve energy.

Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent in the air we breathe. It comprises only .03% [ 300 parts per million, or PPM] of the atmosphere, but is virtually important to all life on this planet!

Plants are made up of about 90% carbon and water with other elements like nitrogen calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and trace elements making up only a small percentage. Almost all the carbon in plants comes from this minor 300 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air.

The process called photosynthesis is that plants take in CO2 through pores called stoma, in their leaves during the daylight hours. They give off oxygen at the same time. Without this oxygen animal and human life would not be possible.

The reason you will get more rapid and efficient growth and better plant quality with a higher CO2 level is because plants must absorb CO2 in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight which produces sugars which are vital for growth. If any of these elements are missing or low, plant growth will be retarded. When CO2 is increased to over 1000 ppm it results in higher production and plant quality.

The best time to add CO2 is from dawn to dusk. CO2 ranges from 400 to 500 ppm during the night due to plant respiration. Right after sunrise a level will drop to about 300 ppm. After three to four hours of early sun light it will drop to 100 to 250 ppm at which time growth will stop. If you add CO2 during the winter months when ventilators are closed and CO2 concentrations are low, you will get increased yield and bloom which normally happens during the spring and summer.

This is a formula which can be used to figure what amount of CO2 must be added to reach 1000 ppm.
9 ft.³ of CO2 per hour per 1000 ft.² yields 1000 ppm

When there is sunlight and vents are closed you should be adding CO2 continuously to your greenhouse. If the vents are open because of heat you should continue to add CO2 for two additional hours.

As does the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs of Ontario, Canada.

The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.

Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm. As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.

During particular times of the year in new greenhouses, and especially in double-glazed structures that have reduced air exchange rates, the carbon dioxide levels can easily drop below 340 ppm which has a significant negative effect on the crop. Ventilation during the day can raise the CO2 levels closer to ambient but never back to ambient levels of 340 ppm. Supplementation of CO2 is seen as the only method to overcome this deficiency and increasing the level above 340 ppm is beneficial for most crops. The level to which the CO2 concentration should be raised depends on the crop, light intensity, temperature, ventilation, stage of the crop growth and the economics of the crop. For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.

 ;D   ;D   ;D    ROFL!



The GREEN INTELLECTUALS prefer to sound the ALARM that the SKY IS FALLING! SO, where's ELMER FUDD when they need him the most?   ;D

A blurb from Rush Limbaugh:

RUSH: Global Warming Stack. John Coleman is back. This is the founder of the Weather Channel, 1982. He says, you know what? This whole thing, this whole global warming thing is a hoax, and it's financial fraud. The selling of carbon credits is a fraud. He wants to sue Algore, because the Algores of the world will not have a debate about this. The Algores of the world are out there and his supporters are accusing the skeptics of being "deniers." So John Coleman (paraphrased), "Let's have a lawsuit about this. If we can't get a debate, let's get a debate in a court of law and let's make these people show up and prove all this." He says out of every 100,000 molecules in the atmosphere, 38 are carbon dioxide. Thirty-eight out of 100,000, and it was 33 about five years ago. The temperature did go up in the last hundred years one degree, but we lost that degree last year.

It was so cold that we lost a degree. In one year, we lost it. What if we're heading into a cooling phase or period? So he wants to sue Gore and all these other people in a court of law, and he also lashed out the Weather Channel. He said (paraphrased), "I don't think people want to watch the Weather Channel to find out how to live. The weather is the single most important thing to people's day, day to day, planning and so forth, safety, security. It involves economics. If you're going to have a Weather Channel, you turn on the Weather Channel and get the weather. You don't get some babe telling you about your lightbulbs or showing you pictures of polar bears or what have you. Give us the weather!" I love this guy, John Coleman. He was the staff weatherman for Good Morning America back when it was worth watching, back in the eighties.

(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj302/frodo82801/alGore1.gif)

 ;D   ;D   ;D


I'm thinking that a yellow big-bird outfit would be more appropriate. I also think it would be nicer to the viewers if we could cover up at least part of his face with big-bird beak.

Now that is funny.



That would be denigrating Big Bird because I think that Big Bird shows more intelligence (at least part of the time).

 ;D   ;D

My Apologies to Big Bird. Maybe GOOFY would be appropriate, at least to continue the sales job on GLOBAL WARMING.

 

I wish i knew how to put my pictures on here.
I have one with him AS Rainman walking next to bill, Charlie Babbot!
Man is it funny!
"Smart, BUT SO STUPID"!
YLBD

Hello Littleboy,

Try the link below for help on posting pictures. It's in the questions and answers area. There are several more posts there and elsewhere about posting graphics.

http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?topic=9751.msg217960#msg217960

The big thing that a lot of people don't understand is that you must have LIVE and HOT links on the Internet for the graphic or photo to be able to post it on forum or anywhere else. Just having it on your own computer won't work because there is no LIVE and HOT link from your computer with an address the Internet can use and understand.

Your computer uses a file structure to find individual files. The Internet uses addresses assigned to servers, and those servers are ready to display that address 24/7. An example is the Internet address assigned to the help information I gave you above, the one that starts with "http:". If the same information was already on your computer, it might be found in the file structure as something like this:

c:\help\graphics.txt

The Internet doesn't understand the file structure on your computer, and the individual files on your computer don't have Internet addresses UNLESS your computer is a Web Site, an FTP site, or a SERVER site of some sort specifically designed to deliver or display files. Each of those files will have an Internet address that the entire Internet understands and can access.

There are quite a few FREE services on the Internet that you can use to store your graphics. It assigns the Internet address, and you simply use the addresses it supplies anywhere you wish. Here's one example and the one I use:

http://photobucket.com/

All you have to do is sign up for an account, and the service is FREE. There are easy instructions for uploading the graphics you want to use. Each graphic is given a specific Internet address that is a LIVE AND HOT LINK 24/7. I just gave you one example. There are many FREE SERVERS that store and deliver graphics. Once you have working Internet addresses for your graphics, they can be posted here with the IMAGE command button. You will see this button while making a new post. It's over the posting window - second row down - second from the left. It becomes very easy once you've used it a couple of times. Each forum is different, but this one has very easy to use command buttons right over the posting window. You don't have to remember any hard commands, rather you just click an easy to use command button.

By the way, there's also an excellent HELP SYSTEM built into the forum. Just click the HELP BUTTON near the top of your screen and see detailed instructions for just about everything that can be done on the forum. However, the COMMAND BUTTONS while posting a new message do most of the work for you without the need to know a ton of details.

I hope this helps.

Love In Christ,
Tom

 

November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.

A Washington, D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.


Here is the text of the Washington Post (Associated Press) article:

    The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


UPDATE:

The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. It is much more detailed than the Washington Post (Associated Press) article. It seems the AP heaviliy relied on the report from Norway Consulate George Ifft.



(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png)


I wonder where the man-made CO2 came from then? Antique SUV's?

 ;D   ;D   ;D

This is a perfect example of why Al Gore's Global Warming con game is so hilarious. I've also wanted to send Al an email to inform him that most areas of earth have seasons. In others words, there is a natural variance in temperature every year.   ::)

I think that they taught all of us in school that we would freeze to death without the sun. UM? - Increases in solar activity might cause more heat - AND decreases in solar activity might cause more cold.   :o   Most folks are SHOCKED when they figure this out.    :o

Increased Knowledge About Global Warming Leads To Apathy, Study Shows

The more you know the less you care—at least that seems to be the case with global warming. A telephone survey of 1,093 Americans by two Texas A&M University political scientists and a former colleague indicates that trend, as explained in their recent article in the peer-reviewed journal Risk Analysis.

“More informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming,” states the article, titled “Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the USA.”

The study showed high levels of confidence in scientists among Americans led to a decreased sense of responsibility for global warming. The diminished concern and sense of responsibility flies in the face of awareness campaigns about climate change, such as in the movies An Inconvenient Truth and Ice Age: The Meltdown and in the mainstream media’s escalating emphasis on the trend.

Kellstedt says the findings were a bit unexpected. The focus of the study, he says, was not to measure how informed or how uninformed Americans are about global warming, but to understand why some individuals who are more or less informed about it showed more or less concern. “In that sense, we didn’t really have expectations about how aware or unaware people were of global warming,” he says. But, he adds, “The findings that the more informed respondents were less concerned about global warming, and that they felt less personally responsible for it, did surprise us. We expected just the opposite.”


Icecap Note: This is why the alarmists and their cheerleaders in the media try to paint the issue as settled and suppress alternative information. The public is too smart.

Sorry Media and Alarmist Websites: Antarctica Ain’t Cooperating

Literally thousands of websites on global warming claim that the icecaps are melting at an unprecedented rate due to emissions of greenhouse gases (particularly from the United States), and in case you cannot picture what that looks like, the sites feature an endless number of pictures of blocks of ice floating away from Antarctica (the really effective pictures have a few penguins floating away as well). National Geographic magazine featured a cover story entitled “The Big Thaw,” and based on what you would see in that issue, you would think there is absolutely no debate about rapid and undesirable changes occurring in Antarctica all due to the dreaded global warming phenomenon. As we have shown over and over, nothing could be further from the truth!

When discussing changes (or the lack thereof) in Antarctica, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) most clearly states in their 2007 summary report “Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region.” Furthermore, IPCC just as clearly states “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.” It would take anyone with internet access no more than a few seconds to download the summary from the IPCC website, but once again, the facts are too inconvenient regarding what is reportedly happening in Antarctica according to the greenhouse advocates.

Another major article on temperature trends in the Antarctic has appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research by a team of scientists from Ohio State University, the University of Illinois, and the Goddard Space Flight Center; the research was funded by the National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs Glaciology Program. Monaghan et al. begin their lengthy (21 pages - quite long for geophysics) article noting that a previous research team studying Antarctica examined “station temperature records for the past 50 years and report statistically insignificant temperature fluctuations over continental Antarctica excluding the Antarctic Peninsula, with the exception of Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, which cooled by -0.17 K decade-1 for 1958�2000.” That is correct [ despite all you have heard elsewhere on the subject, the South Pole has been cooling over the past half century. The previous research team also reported that any warming in Antarctica has slowed and the cooling has accelerated in the more recent three decades.

Literally hundreds of articles could appear tomorrow re-confirming their results, the IPCC could continue to report emphatically that Antarctica is not warming (and may well be cooling), and somehow, this will all translate into claims that “Antarctica is warming and melting.” The truth from Antarctica is hard for the greenhouse crusade to accept (although certainly they try hard to fit it in), and in the long run, the truth from Antarctica might melt away the flimsy, well-publicized claims about global climate change-especially the concerns of a rapid sea level rise.

Vast Antarctic Ice Shelf on Verge of Collapse - Latest Sign of Global Warming’s Impact Shocks

A vast ice shelf hanging on by a thin strip looks to be the next chunk to break off from the Antarctic Peninsula, the latest sign of global warming’s impact on Earth’s southernmost continent. Scientists are shocked by the rapid change of events. Glaciologist Ted Scambos of the University of Colorado was monitoring satellite images of the Wilkins Ice Shelf and spotted a huge iceberg measuring 25 miles by 1.5 miles (37 square miles) that appeared to have broken away from the shelf. Scambos alerted colleagues at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) that it looked like the entire ice shelf - about 6,180 square miles (about the size of Northern Ireland)- was at risk of collapsing. The region where the Wilkins Ice Shelf lies has experienced unprecedented warming in the past 50 years, with several ice shelves retreating in the past 30 years. Six of these ice shelves have collapsed completely: Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and the Jones Ice Shelf. See MSNBC version of this story here.

Icecap Note: Let’s put this in perspective. The account may be misinterpreted by some as the ice cap or a significant (vast) portion is collapsing. In reality it and all the former shelves that collapsed are small and most near the Antarctic peninsula which sticks well out from Antarctica into the currents and winds of the South Atlantic and lies in a tectonically active region with surface and subsurface active volcanic activity. The vast continent has actually cooled since 1979. 

The full Wilkins 6,000 square mile ice shelf is just 0.39% of the current Antarctic ice cover (just 0.1% of the extent last September). A very small piece broke off as an iceberg (37 square miles). Then only a small portion of it around 160 square miles partially disintegrated late this February into early March. That represents just 2.67% of the full Wilkins ice sheet and 0.01% of the total Antarctic icecover (0.003% of its level last September), a little like an icicle falling from a snow and ice cover roof. No big deal (unless you are standing beneath it).

And this winter is coming on quickly. Satellite images show the ice has already refrozen around the broken pieces and expanded. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months ahead of the peak. We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear.

You couldn't tell a Seattlite there was any global warming right now.  It snowed yesterday and a bit today!  Nothing that stuck around but it's the end of March for Pete's sake!

In Christ,
Yvette

British policy advisor says Gore is in 'panic' mode

British environmental analyst Christopher Monckton says Al Gore's latest attack on global warming skeptics shows the former vice president and other climate alarmists are "panicking."

On Sunday, CBS News correspondent Leslie Stahl asked Al Gore on the television show 60 Minutes what he thinks of people like Vice President Dick Cheney who doubt that global warming is caused by human activity.
 
"I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, and those who believe the earth is flat," replied Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off."
 
However, Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy advisor for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s, says the former vice president can enjoy his "flat earth fantasies" for a few months, but in the end, the world will be laughing at him.
 
"The alarmists are alarmed, the panic mongers are panicking, the scare mongers are scared; the Gores are gored. Why? Because global warming stopped ten years ago; it hasn't got warmer since 1998," he points out. "And in fact in the last seven years, there has been a downturn in global temperatures equivalent on average to about [or] very close to one degree Fahrenheit per decade. We're actually in a period ... of global cooling."
 
Monckton contends Gore is now "panicking" because he has staked his reputation as a former American VP on "telling the world that we're all doomed unless we shut down 90 percent of the Western economies." He also contends that Gore is the largest "global-warming profiteer."
 
Gore's group The Alliance for Climate Protection is currently launching a new $300 million ad campaign that demands reforms in environmental law to help reduce the supposed "climate crisis." But Monckton points out that in the U.K., Gore is not allowed to speak in public about his "green investment company" because to do so would violate racketeering laws by "peddling a false prospectus." He says that fact came about after a British high court found Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, riddled with errors.
 
Monckton challenged Gore to an internationally televised debate on climate change last year.

Al Gore's Global Warming is one of the most ridiculous large scale frauds I've ever seen. It's only worth 36 Billion plus to Gore and his friends. The end result should be prison for all of them.

They are about to lose their gravy train they been riding, making money. Someone should take Gore to court, and sue him for false advertisement.  ;D ;D ;D

I think they need to throw the book at Gore and his fellow criminals. This is a massive fraud with tons of money already involved, and it should result in criminal and civil prosecution to the limit of the law. AL GORE'S GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD IS REALLY A GIANT CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY!

Ted Turner predicts 'mass cannibalism' by 2040
Says crops will have been destroyed by global warming

The year 2040 – or about then – will find the world's crops dead, most of the people in a similar state of decay, and those few left alive will be cannibals, according to a prediction from Ted Turner, founder of Turner Broadcasting and CNN.

His comments came in an hour-long interview with Charlie Rose on PBS, and some of his comments about the environment, the U.S. war on terror and the U.S. military were compiled by Newsbusters into an abbreviated video.

"Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or the Sudan," Turner said. He said the living conditions will be intolerable.

The media mogul was being interviewed in his role as founder of the United Nations Foundation, to which he has donated hundreds of millions of dollars in pursuit of solutions to global "problems."

He said drastic action – immediately – is required to address global warming.

"Not doing it will be catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in 10, not 10 but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals," he said.

He said civilization will have collapsed and "the droughts will be so bad there'll be no more corn grown. Not doing it is suicide."

WND previously has reported on multiple challenges by top scientists and their organizations to the theory that global warming is caused by man and is ravaging the world.

The recent 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, for example, refuted repeatedly the contention promoted by Al Gore, the U.N., and Turner that there is an "established scientific consensus" humans are causing the Earth to warm catastrophically.

The conference was organized by the Heartland Institute and attracted hundreds of experts and scientists.

"The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say – over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films," a notice on the Heartland Institute website proclaims. "But they have lost the debate."

Environmental scientist S. Fred Singer kicked off the conference by releasing a report entitled, "Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate," summarizing a three-year international scientific research project conducted by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, that Singer headed.

"There are many factors that affect the climate," Singer told WND. "What we can now exclude by scientific evidence is the argument that greenhouse gases are an important factor in causing global warming."

Singer and the NIPCC agree that global warming occurred in the 20th century, but disagree human activity is responsible. He argues instead that natural causes are likely to be the dominant cause of the scientifically observed global warming under discussion.

The NIPCC scientists contend the U.N. agenda "is largely hypothetical and not sustained by observations" driven by complex mathematical models.

Turner also said the population is another problem that must be handled.

"We've got to stabilize the population. When I was born…," he said.

Rose asked what is wrong with the population.

"We're too many people. That's why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. If there were less people, they'd be using less stuff," he said.

He also launched verbal offensives against the U.S. war on terror, describing war as senseless and suggesting a cutback in military budgets.

"Right now the U.S. is spending $500 billion a year on the military which is more than all 190 countries in the world put together. The two countries that the military-industrial complex and some of the politicians would like to demonize and make enemies are Russia and China. China just wants to sell us shoes. They're not building landing craft to attack the United States. And Russia wants to be our friends, too," he said.

Turner said he is sure of that because "I spent time with the Chinese and Russians."

He said even if China and Russia are increasing their military budgets, they are not "credible expenditures."

And even with the U.S. "$500 billion military budget, we can't win in Iraq. We're being beaten by insurgents who don't even have any tanks, they don't have a headquarters, they don't have a Pentagon. We don't even know if they have any generals."

When Rose pointed out that the insurgents have used a lot of roadside bombs, and asked Turner where he thought they were obtained, Turner took off in another direction.

"I think that they're patriots and that they don't like us because we've invaded their country and occupied it. I think if the Iraqis were in Washington, D.C., we'd be doing the same thing: we'd be bombing them too. Nobody wants to be invaded," he said.

He compared Iraq to Vietnam.

"All we have to do is look at Vietnam. In Vietnam, we killed three million Vietnamese. They never attacked us, we attacked them. It was another one of these pre-emptive wars like the war in Iraq. And we lost 50,000. They lost three million. That's like 60 for one. But at the end of 18 years we left and the Vietnamese were there," he said. "I'm just so glad, because I think about it a lot, that the Vietnamese, the North Vietnamese, didn't give us an ultimatum that we couldn't leave Vietnam until we signed a decoration of surrender, you know, so they could get that on tape just like the Japanese surrendered on the Missouri."

He said the U.S. isn't the first superpower to have gotten "beaten" in the Middle East region. He said Russian earlier lost in Afghanistan, when he said the U.S. was helping Osama bin Laden.

 ;D   ;D   ;D

Wasn't this guy married to Hanoi Jane?

It sounds like his elevator doesn't go to the top floor and the porch light might be burned out!

Yep, he was. Maybe that's the reason for the elevator and lightbulb malfunctions.

World needs more CO2, environment confab told
'There will be significant cooling very soon,' asserts solar scientist

 You could have heard a pin drop at the Hong Kong conference designed to persuade the airline industry to cut back on its production of so-called greenhouse gases to fight "global warming."

The "Greener Skies 2008" conference had just heard from David Archibald, a solar scientist asserting that climate change is mostly dictated by solar cycles, not carbon dioxide levels, as conventional wisdom suggests.

Archibald didn't just tell the group not to worry about carbon dioxide emissions. He told those gathered they should figure out ways of increasing CO2 output.

"In a few short years, we will have a reversal of the warming of the 20th century," Archibald warned, according to CargoNews Asia. "There will be significant cooling very soon. Our generation has known a warm, giving sun, but the new generation will suffer a sun that is less giving, and the earth will be less fruitful. Carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad – it's wholly beneficial."

One observer at the February conference said there would have been fewer jaws dropping had Archibald stripped off his clothes before the assembled.

"Plant growth responds to atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment," he continued. "In a world of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide, crops will use less water per unit of carbon dioxide uptake. Thus the productivity of semi-arid lands will increase the most."

But the real shocker was not just his unorthodox view of carbon dioxide. Unlike most of those in the conference, Archibald doesn't see a future threat of global warming, but an imminent and dire future of global cooling.

"We will need this increase in agricultural productivity to offset the colder weather coming," he said. "It also follows that if the developed countries of the world want to be caring and sharing to the countries of the Third World, the best thing that could be done for them is to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It is the equivalent of giving them free phosphate fertilizer. Who would want to deny the Third World such a wonderful benefit?''

After Archibald's speech, Martin Craigs, president of Aerospace Forum Asia, went to the microphone and asked: "Don't you have Al Gore's e-mail address?" "How can you be right and 2,000 scientists wrong?"

Archibald replied: "I am happy to share the science. It's all reputable."

 ;D   ;D   ;D    ROFL!

IMAGINE THIS! - Solar cycles could actually have something to do with heat and cold. I thought this WAS conventional wisdom!

UM? - Solar Activity Increases = More Heat

UM? - Solar Activity Decreases = Less Heat

UM? - Dramatic Solar Activity Change = Dramatic Earth Temperature Change

_______________________________

I thought that the above is almost as basic as light when the sun comes up and increasing darkness when the sun goes down.   ;D

Al Gore is always in the dark so he couldn't tell that it gets cooler at night without the sun. What was it that he said about a flat earth ....

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 ;D   ;D

We might have to find another way of explaining things to Al - maybe pictures that he can color with crayons. Explaining things to Al all at once would  be too much, so let's go SLOW!

 
 

 ;D ;D

That's a good idea. Wouldn't want him to suffer from sun shock.

Remember he's the same one that laughed at Ollie North when Ollie tried in vain to warn us about the most evil man he had ever encountered.  Goes by the name of Osama bin Laden.

First movie of 'tsunami' on Sun
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News, Belfast

'Tsunami' speeds through the Sun's atmosphere (Nasa Stereo Consortium)

Astronomers have captured the first footage of a solar "tsunami" hurtling through the Sun's atmosphere at over a million kilometres per hour.

The event was captured by Nasa's twin Stereo spacecraft designed to make 3D images of our parent star.

Naturally, this type of tsunami does not involve water; instead, it is a wave of pressure that travels across the Sun very fast.

Details were reported at the UK National Astronomy Meeting in Belfast.

   In half an hour, we saw the tsunami cover almost the full disc of the Sun
David Long

In a solar tsunami, a huge explosion near the Sun, such as a coronal mass ejection or flare, causes a pressure pulse to propagate outwards in a circular pattern.

Last year's solar tsunami, which took place on 19 May 2007, lasted for about 35 minutes, reaching peak speeds about 20 minutes after the initial blast.

Co-author David Long, from Trinity College Dublin (TCD), Ireland, commented: "The energy released in these explosions is phenomenal; about two billion times the annual world energy consumption in just a fraction of a second.

"In half an hour, we saw the tsunami cover almost the full disc of the Sun, nearly a million kilometres away from the epicentre."

His colleague Dr Peter Gallagher, who is also from TCD, said the shockwave moved out exactly like a tsunami on Earth.

"A series of troughs and crests in pressure causes it to propagate outwards. But on the Sun, we have hot gas," he explained.

"When I’m talking to someone in a room, my voice is carried by pressure waves in the gas that's between us; it's the much the same on the Sun."

However, it was not exactly the same, Dr Gallagher added, because on the Sun, magnetic fields also helped the waves along. The phenomenon is therefore known as a magneto-acoustic wave.

Theory problem

Solar tsunamis were originally discovered by the Soho spacecraft almost a decade ago.

However, the observations did not fit at all well with theory: the problem was that the waves were travelling too slowly.

After the two Stereo spacecraft launched in 2006, scientists were able to get images of the Sun at a much higher rate than was possible with Soho.

And when they observed a solar tsunami again last year, their observations matched theoretical predictions.

   

"We found that the speed was probably twice as fast as we had previously thought," Dr Gallagher told BBC News.

"We've seen from this set of observations that if the time interval between images is too long, it’s easy to underestimate the speed that the waves are moving."

With Soho, the researchers were only able to take images in the upper section of the corona - the outer part of the Sun’s atmosphere.

Stereo's Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUVI) instruments monitor the Sun at four wavelengths, which allowed astronomers to see how the wave moved through the different layers of the solar atmosphere.

"We were able to show for the first time that this wave actually propagates almost all the way from the surface of the Sun to high up in the Sun's atmosphere," said Dr Gallagher.

The researchers even saw the pressure wave bouncing off irregular regions of the Sun’s atmosphere, generating reflections or diffraction patterns - exactly as tsunamis have been observed to do on Earth when they crash against land.

__________________________________________

What's this?  Sarcasm?..........


















then you're a man after my own heart!    (http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x125/luvmarley_bucket/cid_006701c66bbe0d2562b00900a8c0Dis.gif)

 ;D   ;D

Top hurricane scientist
cools to global warming
New study suggests storm frequency, intensity
may not substantially rise during next 2 centuries

One of the most vocal scientists in the field of hurricane prediction has backed away from his earlier certainty of a link between global warming and stronger hurricanes after developing a new forecasting technique that suggests a moderate increase – or even decline – in storm activity over the next 200 years.

Kerry Emanuel, a climate scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his co-authors published their findings in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

"The results surprised me," Emanuel told the Houston Chronicle.

Emanuel's latest research tackled a problem facing hurricane prediction efforts based on climate models. Most such models, used to predict global atmospheric conditions for centuries in the future, are unable to detect individual tropical storms.

The new technique pioneered by Emanuel "downscales" the simulations by creating "seeds" of tropical systems – bits of computer code – throughout the climate model to see how they behave in terms of its global predictions.

Simulations conducted in the study satisfactorily reproduced past hurricane fluctuations, convincing the researchers it could be used for more accurate predictions.

Emanuel and his colleagues found reduction in the number of hurricanes around the world over the next two centuries with increases in intensity in some regions.

"The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us," Emanuel told DotEarth, the New York Times science blog.

"There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet.

Emanuel was among the first to publish his belief global warming was responsible for the increased number of tropical storms making U.S. landfall during the 2004 and 2005 season. Just three weeks before Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, Emanuel, in a paper published in Nature, wrote that a key measurement of the power dissipated by a storm during its lifetime had risen dramatically since the mid-1970s.

In the future, Emanuel concluded, 2005's hurricane activity would become the norm rather than the exception.

As WND reported, lawyer and environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr. cited that study in blaming the Bush administration for the catastrophic damage caused by Katrina.

"The science is clear," wrote Kennedy, son of slain New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, in a commentary at HuffingtonPost.com. "This month, a study published in the journal Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing prevalence of destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming."

The presumed global warming-hurricane link was used in promotions for Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," with a satellite image of a hurricane emanating from a smokestack.

Emanuel "had the good fortune, or maybe the bad fortune, to publish when the world's attention was focused on hurricanes in 2005," Roger Pielke Jr., who studies science and policy at the University of Colorado, told the Chronicle. "Kerry's work was seized upon in the debate."

Now the debate may go in a different direction.

"The take-home message is that we've got a lot of work to do," Emanuel said of his latest findings. "There's still a lot of uncertainty in this problem. The bulk of the evidence is that hurricane power will go up, but in some places it will go down."

Bush prepares global warming initiative
'Attempt to move the administration and the party closer to the center'

President Bush is poised to change course and announce as early as this week that he wants Congress to pass a bill to combat global warming, and will lay out principles for what that should include.

Specifics of the policy are still being fiercely debated, but Bush administration officials have told Republicans in Congress that they feel pressure to act now because they fear a coming regulatory nightmare. It would be the first time Mr. Bush has called for statutory authority on the subject.

"This is an attempt to move the administration and the party closer to the center on global warming. With these steps, it is hoped that the debate over this is over, and it is time to do something," said an administration source close to the White House who is familiar with the planning and who said to expect an announcement this week.

The source requested anonymity to be able to speak on a sensitive matter still under debate. Given the arguments at the White House over the extent of the action to take, it is not clear exactly what Mr. Bush will propose, the adminstration source said.

Still, Republican members of Congress who were briefed last week let top administration officials know that they think the White House is making a mistake, according to congressional sources and others familiar with the discussions. Opponents said Mr. Bush could be setting off runaway legislation, particularly with Democrats in control of Congress.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino would not say whether an announcement is imminent. She said discussion has continued on how to follow up on Mr. Bush's call at the Group of Eight summit last year for the U.S. to lead on a post-Kyoto Protocol worldwide framework.

The administration also is trying to head off what it sees as a regulatory disaster. Environmentalists say greenhouse gases can be regulated under existing rules under the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act, and have filed lawsuits to try to force action. The Bush administration and others want to avoid a web of rules and regulations for businesses.

"The embedded regulatory trajectory that we're on is a train wreck," Mrs. Perino said. "For those who want reasonable and responsible action, it is worthwhile to have a constructive conversation as we work to keep the developing nations in this process in a way that will work to solve the problem without harming the economy."

She said the administration's discussions, both internally and with Congress, are building toward an expected debate on climate change in the Senate in June and toward the next G-8 meeting in July, when the U.S. would like to have a more specific conversation about goals for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.

At the end of this week, U.S. officials will be in Paris for a meeting with officials from other major economic powers, where climate change is expected to be on the table. Sources in the administration and in Congress say this meeting explains the White House push.

Mrs. Perino, though, stressed that the White House does not expect countries to come to the meeting with specific proposals.

Many scientists say humans are contributing to climate change through increased carbon dioxide emissions from industry, power generation, automobiles and other sources. Some governments, including European nations, have enacted rules to try to limit their emissions, though opponents say those rules end up hurting their economies without much environmental benefit to show for it.

With Sens. John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the remaining major presidential candidates, all favoring new controls on greenhouse-gas emissions, Mr. Bush could be trying to lay the groundwork for the next president.

All three candidates are on record in favor of a cap-and-trade system, such as the Europeans have. The system sets an overall limit on carbon emissions and allows polluters to buy credits from companies that stay below their carbon targets.

The congressional and administration sources said it's not clear whether Mr. Bush will go that far this week.

But Brian Kennedy, spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research, said Mr. Bush should realize that the U.S. is already ahead of the Europeans.

"U.S. taxpayers are already spending more than $40 billion a year to address climate change, and to date we're achieving better results than the Europeans are under a bureaucratic regulatory framework," he said. "That should be kept in mind before any rash — or political — decisions are made inside the White House. Excessive regulations would come with significant economic consequences and additional costs for consumers."

Christopher C. Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming," said the Bush administration should have seen the regulatory problems long ago and that the president is trying to solve them the wrong way.

"There's a way to responsibly do this, but calling for a bill isn't it. Democrats — and all presidential candidates — desperately want Bush to take ownership of the issue before he goes, leaving them free of the burdens of responsibility for their rhetoric," Mr. Horner said.

He said Mr. Bush should have been spending the past two years pointing out that even as the U.S. reduces the rate of growth of carbon emissions, it is taking manufacturing jobs from Europe. Nations that adopted strict carbon emissions are facing economic consequences while finding the goals impossible to meet, he said.

"The U.S. is the world leader in reducing the rate of growth of CO2 emissions while also growing its economy — faster on both counts, as with population as well, than its principal antagonist, Europe, which is suffering for reasons of political 'face' under a failed scheme that the Democrats and McCain amazingly want to burden us with," he said.

James L. Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and Keith Hennessey, a domestic policy adviser to Mr. Bush, got an earful Wednesday when they briefed House members on the options the White House is considering.

One person familiar with the meeting said several members, including Republican Reps. John Shimkus of Illinois and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, told the White House it was making a mistake if it called for congressional action.

Spokesmen for both congressmen said their bosses didn't want to be interviewed about the meeting, which they regarded as private. Steve Tomaszewski, a spokesman for Mr. Shimkus, said the congressman's exchange with administration officials was intended to let them know the prospects under a Democrat-controlled House.

"He was emphasizing that whatever proposal the administration might be discussing would not be received favorably by the majority in Congress," Mr. Tomaszewski said. "The speaker is pretty much focused on a cap-and-trade, and anything less that you might propose would likely not be received favorably. Small steps aren't what they're looking at right now."

This is as far as I got and I'm too disgusted to read the rest.  Good Grief.  Has everyone gone mad?

Almost everyone.

Yuppers!!

(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9459/yikestm9.jpg)

They need to (http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5027/stopglobalwhiningnk5.jpg) And look to God, for their answers!!

 ;D

I haven't gone mad - SEE - I'm still smiling!

 

However, I just saw a squirrel with a Mohawk haircut, so I might need to check again.  At least the squirrel wasn't armed.

(Small Print:  I think that I know what's coming next.   ;D )

Oops, wrong squirrel..........................


Right squirrel...................... ;D ;D ;D

 ;D   ;D   ;D   ROFL! - Call the white coats - BUT ask them to get the squirrel FIRST!

I take all of that back. PLEASE let the white coats deal with the most dangerous people first - OUR POLITICIANS!

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v512/Pizza_Al/suhids.gif)


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v512/Pizza_Al/5308tba.gif)Shoot them down, cats.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v512/Pizza_Al/Personal/cat_w_gun-738066.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v512/Pizza_Al/Personal/cat_w_gun-738066.gif)

 The Doomsday clock has been moved two minutes closer to the midnight hour

A group of scientists assessing the dangers to civilization have now added climate change to the prospects of nuclear annihilation as the greatest threats to humankind and the Doomsday Clock located in Chicago now stands at five minutes to the hour of midnight.

The directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist held discussions to assess this idea of doomsday threats to civilization and felt that the growing global nuclear instability has led humanity to the brink of a second nuclear age and that the threat posed by climate change is second only to that posed by nuclear weapons.

The assessment by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that we are closer to the midnight hour on the Doomsday Clock goes along with the prophetic scenario for the Last Days that can be found in Bible prophecy.

The concept timepiece, the Doomsday Clock devised by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, was first featured by the magazine some sixty years ago shortly after the US dropped its Atomic Bomb on Japan. According to the scientists, the threats most worrisome included: Iran's nuclear ambitions, North Korea's detonation of an Atomic Bomb, the presence of twenty-six thousand launch-ready weapons by America and Russia, and the inability to secure and halt the international trafficking of nuclear materials such as highly enriched uranium and plutonium.

The concept of a Doomsday Clock does draw ones attention to the reality of the End of the World scenario that can be found in Bible prophecy. The seventeen ancient Jewish prophets in the Old Testament Scriptures reveal the Last Days scenario that alerts all students of Bible prophecy that Doomsday is quickly approaching; however, the Bible does not call for the complete annihilation of all of humankind. Revelation 6:8-9 tell us that one fourth will be killed Rev8:11 says "many men died" and 9:15 one-third of Earth's population will die in a catastrophic way. Death and destruction is ahead for this Earth and its population according to the prophetic passages of Scripture.

The truth be known, that Doomsday clock may be a bit slow.

I don't think they know how close they are, to God calling us home. This is only my opinion though, as we come closer to the end times.

Not only has President Bush joined the global warming crew but now Newt Gingrich has jumped on the band wagon with the production of a global warming ad next to Nancy Pelosi. The ad is produced with/by Al Gore. It looks like the republicans now are also selling America out to a bunch of garbage just for the purpose of controlling the people.

Now Newt the Poot too, uh?  What a bunch of brainwashing, scaming, hoopla.  The thing is, there are folks that really believe this stuff.  Even Christians that I know!  Meanwhile, we've been having snow and hail here in the Greater Seattle area and it's gettin' darn close to May for crying out loud!

(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z114/beverlyb123/WEB%20PHOTOS/3183.jpg)

Brothers and Sisters,

All of the GLOBAL WARMING STUFF IS COMPLETE HOG-WASH. However, there are some energy issues that must be dealt with. If they told the TRUTH, what needs to be done would be much easier to accomplish.

The TRUTH is that we desperately need forms of energy OTHER THAN OIL. This has nothing at all to do with GLOBAL WARMING, rather to NATIONAL SECURITY and affordable energy for the future. We should already be HEAVILY involved with NEW nuclear plants, wind energy, solar energy, clean coal-fired energy, and all kinds of NEW TECHNOLOGY that would end our dependence on foreign oil. We also need stable prices for energy, and that can no longer be done with oil. In effect, our current dependence on oil means that our ECONOMY AND NATIONAL SECURITY can be held HOSTAGE BECAUSE OF OIL. This is TRUE, so why aren't we doing anything about it? People would understand and accept this TRUTH, but not the pack of LIES that we are currently being fed. Those pushing the lies will make tons of money until those paying the bills either go bankrupt or give up. Further, I don't think it would take long to make a significant portion of the middle class poverty stricken. It wouldn't bother the RICH PEOPLE much. In fact, the RICH PEOPLE would probably just get RICHER. However, larger and larger numbers of people would not be able to buy goods and services.

If things continue as they are now, having electricity and heating a home will cost an arm and a leg. Large portions of our population won't be able to afford it. It won't have a thing to do with the lies of GLOBAL WARMING, rather of decreasing supplies of oil and increasing demands for oil. FOR WHATEVER REASONS, THIS PART OF THE WORLD HAS INVESTED ALMOST NOTHING IN SOURCES OF ENERGY OTHER THAN OIL! So, it wouldn't take much to put us into a crisis that would probably cause our economy to collapse. IN SHORT, WE ARE IN A VERY SAD AND IGNORANT CONDITION THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING!

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the
theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
right things—in terms of economic policy and
environmental policy.”

Timothy Wirth, Former
U.S. Senator (D- Colorado)

Instead of the global warming/climate change garbage here is where gore and his ilk need to be doing something about. Of course that wouldn't put as much money in their pockets if they did that.

_________


Over 37.7 million people in India are affected by water-borne diseases due to contaminated drinking water supply and an estimated 1.5 million children die of diarrhoea each year, according to newly available statistics.
Compiled through collaboration between the government and the international non-government organisation (NGO) Water Aid the new figures belie official claims that 94 percent of rural 94 percent of rural and 91 percent of urban populations now have access to safe drinking water.

According to Water Aid the difference is that until now there has been no mention in official statistics of the quality of water supplied to these populations, or of its sustained year-round supply.

Lizette Burgers, chief of Water, Environment and Sanitation at UNICEF says that in spite of India’s efforts at reaching water to millions, "increasing populations, bacterial infections and other problems have resulted in significant difference in effective coverage’’.

According to UNICEF statistics, over one-third of the world’s population that lives without access to sanitation lives in India. "The greatest problem for water quality in India is from human and animal faeces," said Burgess. "The world is looking at India to see what it does for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in this sector", commented Burgess.

India is committed to the MDG in the water-sector to halve, by 2015, the numbers of its people without access to safe drinking water.

Depinder Kapur of WaterAid-India says the organisation got alerted to the issue of contaminated water-supply from their ‘extensive engagements’ with various communities across India.

Kapur said in Water Aid’s experience the main sources for India’s polluted water-supply remain open defecation, lack of sanitation, over-exploitation of groundwater resources and chemicals leaching into water sources.

The most serious victims of this pollution are India’s rural villages, constituting nearly 70 percent of the country’s population.

Arsenic and fluoride contamination from over-used groundwater, wherein the water drawn hits rock-bottom, is another serious health hazard facing rural communities. A newly-emerging cause of anaemia, especially in women and children in rural communities, is now thought to be related to fluoride contamination.

"One direct impact of this is affected women giving birth to low birth-weight babies, who in turn are impaired from this pollution with autism, impaired physical and mental growth and several other disorders,’’ says Dr. A.K. Susheela of the Delhi-based Fluorosis Research and Rural Development Foundation.

A 2008 UNICEF report says that 43 percent of the world’s low birth-weight infants are born in India.

In support of argument Susheela said that while government of India, in its bid to check anemic pregnancy has been providing folic acid to pregnant mothers since 1970, no positive benefit has been noticed so far. She believes the reason is due to fluoride-contamination damaging intestinal inner walls and making them incapable of absorbing nutrients.

"We are adding to the disabled-child population in India without realising the causative factor,’’ says Susheela.

Approximately 30,000 habitations in various parts of the country are affected by fluoride in their water systems and another 7,000 habitations are affected by arsenic. Both contaminants come from mineral rock sources, emerging due to over-exploitation of groundwater.

Human populations alongside the river Ganges, running through northern and eastern India, suffer from various levels of arsenic poisoning, according to well-established studies.

Dipankar Chakraborty of the School of Environmental Sciences at the Calcutta-based Jadavpur University, who first brought the issue to public attention about 20 years ago, blames the administration for not heeding to the serious public health-hazard in time.

"The crisis is in the administration’s poor management of water supply and can be solved by switching from groundwater sources to the rivers for water supply, Chakravarty said.

Bharat Lal, director of the government’s Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission and the department of Drinking-Water Supply admits that the issue of water-quality has been secondary. "We are not monitoring the impact of the water, once access has been achieved.’’

Lal said there was a serious lack of trained staff for arsenic and fluoride-testing at the district-level and points to unutilised funds given by the central government to various state administrations for water-quality testing.

"The government, municipal and village bodies, responsible for water-supply also abdicate the responsibility of monitoring whilst they supply," said Lal.

Hello Pastor Roger,

Brother, you're right - there are all kinds of worthy things that need to be addressed. However, it appears that the corrupt Al Gore's of this world are receiving the attention and soaking up available resources. It's very sad to know that the money being thrown at Al Gore and folks like him will accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except make the Al Gore's richer.

It's also sad to know that programs associated with folks like Al Gore will be mandatory. The money spent will also reduce the available money that could have been given in private and public aid for REAL HUMAN NEEDS. BUT, instead - Al and his friends need more private jets and mansions. They also want to experiment with PRIVATE DICTATORSHIP METHODS that appear will work quite well!

Al Gore's global warming debunked – by kids!
Winners announced in 'The Sky's Not Falling' video-essay contest

Al Gore's global warming philosophy has been debunked by many scientists and studies, and now it has met the same fact at the hands of children, in "The Sky's Not Falling" video/essay contest, sponsored by WND Books, formerly World Ahead Media.

The contest was launched early I 2008 and was designed to highlight the absurdities, untruths and downright lies that children are being taught daily about "climate change" in public school.

Russell Young, a Minnesota writer who captured first place in the essay competition, explained the importance of using celebrities such as Gore and the medium of movies to enhance the educational experience for students.

(Story continues below)

"Here are just a few other films schools might use for their teaching curriculums. 'The Polar Express' could be used for instruction on transportation systems. 'Borat' is a perfect teaching tool for understanding how the Democratic Party uses focus groups. 'Alien,' could be used to teach students about anatomy and homeland security, all at the same time," he wrote.

"'Far fetched,' you say. Maybe, but 'Moby Dick' taught me all I ever needed to know about whales, and I'm a marine biologist," he said.

"Kids across America are being victimized by global warming hysteria," according to Holly Fretwell, author of The Sky’s Not Falling: Why It’s OK to Chill About Global Warming.

"I wanted to know what kids just like mine are hearing in their classrooms,” Fretwell said. “Running a contest was a fun way to go about it.”

"All of us, and our children in particular, are being confronted daily with half-truths and falsehoods about global warming,” noted Fretwell. “It’s just plain wrong.”

She said that was or inspiration for the book in the first place.

"I want kids to get excited about science and to understand that it’s human ingenuity and a can-do spirit, not government sanctions, that will lead us to a bright environmental future. I want kids to learn how to become critical thinkers," she said.”

Contest winners will receive a cash prize, a copy of “The Great Global Warming Swindle” DVD courtesy of junkscience.com, and copies of The Sky’s Not Falling for their local school library and their kids’ science classroom.

In second place in the video competition was Warren Meyer of Arizona.

The first-place essay is titled "Al Gore Causes Global Warming in School Aged Brains" and is by Russell Young, of Minnesota:

    If Al Gore’s film "An Inconvenient Truth," is suitable for teaching about climatology, then Alfred Hitchcock’s film the "The Birds," is a good candidate for teaching ornithology.

    "Wait a moment," you say. What does a horror film which has been characterized as "extremely disturbing," where hoards of normally skittish, but peaceable birds, inexplicably attack and terrorize humans, have to teach our children about science? The answer, of course is that it could be used to anesthetize them to the frightening scenarios presented in Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

    It's hard to decide which would be worse: frightening young students with scripted terror from a horror master, or frightening students with scripted propaganda from an environmental hypocrite. But think of the box office draw potential by making a double header out of these two movies. Plus, each film is steeped with enough gut wrenching scenes to keep even the most jaded students interested, making them a perfect antidote to typically boring science fare.

    In "The Birds," one scene shows children helplessly driven to terrified flight as birds relentlessly descend upon them. A particularly graphic moment depicts a bird tearing at the face of a screaming boy of about 8 or 9 years of age. Such viewing should make an indelible impression upon the minds of our youth as to the importance of not interfering with nature.

    In Gore's film we are treated to equally stomach turning cinematography as the director treats us to numerous close-ups of Gore, thus making it clear how serious minded he is about the environment. We know he is the man who can make a change because of the repeated shots showing adoring masses who seemingly follow him around the globe. Let's just hope they don’t all do it on their own personal jets.

    All of this, however, got me to thinking. Maybe schools could begin to utilize more Hollywood offerings. Think about it. For only the cost of a Blockbuster rental our students minds could be opened up to myriad realms.

    Here are just a few other films schools might use for their teaching curriculums. "The Polar Express" could be used for instruction on transportation systems. "Borat" is a perfect teaching tool for understanding how the Democratic Party uses focus groups. "Alien," could be used to teach students about anatomy and homeland security, all at the same time.

    "Far fetched," you say. Maybe, but "Moby Dick" taught me all I ever needed to know about whales, and I'm a marine biologist.

The second-place essay is titled "Global Warming Basics For Beginners," and is by Dan Nagasaki of California:

    The earth has had huge climate shifts with extreme warmth and extreme cold (remember reading about the ice age?) long before man could have possibly had any impact on the earth's climate. If man didn't exist on earth, these great climate shifts would still occur. There are two major questions regarding global warming. First, are we really in a long-term global warming trend and second, is man primarily responsible for this? The first may be true, but the second doesn't appear to be true.

cont'd

    If you ask an average person who is concerned about the environment to name the major factors affecting global warming, he'll probably fail to mention the two most important factors. First is the sun, which is actually quite volatile. Even small changes on the sun affect our climate. So, the most important factor affecting global warming, the sun, is not affected by anything mankind does.

    In fact, other planets in our solar system are also getting warmer. Second is water vapor, which forms the cloud cover.

    After the sun and water vapor come other, much less significant factors such as sulfur dioxide, methane, and carbon dioxide (CO2). To put this even further in perspective, more sulfur dioxide is spewed out through volcanoes and earth vents than by industrialization. Methane is produced by plant-eating animals, including man, so if you really want to make a serious dent in methane production, you need to resign yourself to the mass extinction of most plant-eating animals. As for CO2, which makes up less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the earth's atmosphere (Nitrogen and oxygen make up 99 percent of the earth's atmosphere), the average person, merely by existing, produces more CO2 than the average automobile. Even with the tremendous increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years, the average temperature of the earth has increased about 1 degree C, with most of that temperature increase occurring prior to the rapid increase in CO2 levels.

    Many environmentalists believe that protecting the environment means keeping certain environmental conditions exactly the same, but the earth and its ecosystem are constantly evolving. The earth naturally goes through periods of warming and cooling, and some species die out, while others are created. And again – to add some perspective – some changes, such as CO2 increases and global warming, have some beneficial effects, such as increased crop yields and vegetation.

The third-place essay is titled "A Christmas Dinner Conversation" and is by Jim Lion of California:

    At a recent Christmas dinner, I had a conversation with my niece, 16 and very smart, who just got into the University of Pennsylvania on early decision. When I showed her how rising global temperatures may have caused the increase in CO2 gases, rather than the opposite Algorism (i.e. that rising CO2 has caused Global Warming) she said, "But that doesn't make any sense."

    She's a smart girl. She can figure things out. The reason she thought my assertion made no sense is simple. It runs counter to the doctrine she has heard repeated over and over again ad nauseum, and perpetuated without question or remorse by the mainstream media.

    I'll tell you what I told her that night at dinner.

    If you look at the graph that Al Gore used in his Oscar-winning movie "An Inconvenient Truth," something emerges decidedly inconvenient to Al Gore's thesis of man-made global warming.

    At first, Al Gore appears to get it right. The graph shows a precise correlation between changes in global temperature and changes in atmospheric CO2 over thousands of years. This suggests that when carbon dioxide emissions increase, a rise in global temperatures will result. However, if you take a closer look, the data show an 800 year gap between the changes in global temperature and the changes in atmospheric CO2. 800 years! What's more, CO2 is a trailing indicator, which means, based on the Goracle's own data, that today's current rise in atmospheric CO2 was actually caused by the Medieval Warming Period that occurred 800 years ago!

    These facts have not been lost on many reputable scientists, who are busy looking for ways to prove how a rise in global temperature 800 years ago could have percolated down through the ocean, and then rose to the surface, causing the oceans to release vast quantities of CO2. If the process took 800 years in would explain the facts.

    Imagine that. An explanation that matches the facts.

    It seems to me Al Gore should get out of the pseudo-science business, and go back into theology, which he studied at Vanderbilt University, since it appears that he wants to alter the doctrine of Original Sin, making people feel guilty every time they exhale, spewing harmful CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Mr. Gore may change his mind when he learns about these important facts, but don't hold your breath.

"As a parent of two grade-schoolers and a natural resources policy expert, I've heard some whoppers about global warming," says author Holly Fretwell, whose book, "The Sky's Not Falling! Why It's OK to Chill about Global Warming," is specifically designed to set the record straight. "If you're as tired as I am of the environmental bill of goods our kids are being handed at school, now's your chance to tell the world!"

In her book, Prof. Fretwell shows kids 9-12 that it's human ingenuity and adaptability – not a mindless fear of change – that are most likely to guarantee the Earth a healthy future. Fretwell brings genuine educational credentials and practical experience to the environmental debate, giving kids the straight scoop about global warming – and the potentially devastating human and economic consequences of politically motivated responses to it.

Can it really be that human innovation and creativity, combined with individual choice, will yield better environmental outcomes than the draconian, self-congratulatory approaches advocated by Al Gore and his Hollywood friends? Yes!

Indeed, in her book, Fretwell gets kids excited about science and economics, and shows it's human ingenuity combined with an "enviropreneurial" spirit that will lead America to a bright environmental future, not government programs controlled by giant, growth-killing bureaucracies.

Excellent article PR!  Thanks! (http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x125/luvmarley_bucket/heart.gif)

Hello Pastor Roger,

I second the thanks for the excellent article. Does COMMON SENSE have a chance to prevail on this issue? Is it actually possible that we can prevent Al Gore and his friends from stealing all this money with their con game? I don't know yet.

Ecochondria is not new

Check out these snippets from Life, Jan 30, 1970 (a copy of which was found in an antique store). At the time "solid experimental and theoretical evidence" supported the assertion increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would lead to "mass flooding or a new ice age" and air pollution would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth’s surface by one-half. Not just that but by the ’80s urbanites would require gas masks to survive air pollution and sonic booms from SSTs would damage children in utero.


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/Life30Jan1970Scary.jpg)


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/Life30Jan1970Pic.jpg)


Guess there really is nothing new under the sun. Funny how little the doom brigade have changed over the years, isn’t it? Even funnier how the media keep publishing their nonsense.

YES - Brother Roger! Great hosts of us remember this story well - with or without the documentation. It was a topic that everyone was talking about at the time, and nobody was laughing because the GREAT SCIENTISTS of the world told us it was going to happen. In our part of the country, the biggest talk was about the coming ICE AGE. If it happened, it wasn't on this planet.    ;D   ;D

Unfortunately many people out of convenience don't have that kind of memory and the younger ones are never told about it, again for the sake of their own convenience in order to substantiate their agendas and now we have more scientists that again are claiming a coming ice age. Only this time it is caused by global warming.

 ;D   ;D   ROFL!

I think that I'll become a scientist. More heat causing ice makes sense to me.    ???

Me too!  From the looks of it, you don't have to have an education!  These guys obviously got theirs out of a Cracker Jack box!

And I'll add further; if this is the education of our scientists, were they really smart enough to land us on the moon?  Um....makes me wonder.  Their 1 + 1 doesn't seem to add up.  Their "science" sounds more like "science fiction".

Yep, that's because that is where the money is.

Global Waming causes.. Acne?

I stumbled upon an interesting page which claims to be a complete list of all the things people claim are caused by global warming.

Each item on the list links back to an actual article or news story which makes the claim. Note how many opposites there are (Earth spins slower/faster, fish shrink/grow, expansion/shrinkage of rain forests).

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


It is a pleasure to stand upon the shore, and to see ships tost upon the sea: a pleasure to stand in the window of the castle and to see the battle and the adventures thereof below: but no pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of truth ( a hill not to be commanded and where the air is always clear and serene), and to see the errors, and wanderings, and mists, and tempests, in the vale below.
From Of Truth, Francis Bacon

Hello Pastor Roger,

Thanks Brother! - This was fascinating, and I think that Al Gore should be forced to study it until he understands and can explain it.   ;D

Does 'climate change' mean 'changing data'?
NASA temperature figures show agency reworking recent numbers upwards, older numbers downwards

Methodology used by NASA to estimate rates of climate change are resulting in dramatic shifts in previously published historical temperature data, causing figures for estimated global surface temperature prior to 1970 to now be lower and figures since 1970 to now be higher – and appearing to provide evidence for those who say the Earth is warming.

John Goetz, writing last month in the science blog Climate Audit, analyzed the way NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculates estimated global surface temperatures and showed that the addition of new, contemporary data could "have a ripple effect all the way back to the beginning of a [weather] station's history."

Goetz found 32 different versions of published global annual averages going back to Sept. 24, 2005, that showed the published figures – figures used as a baseline to demonstrate change through time – changing hundreds of times.

"On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years," he wrote. "The largest single jump was 0.27 °C. This occurred between the Oct. 13, 2006 and Jan. 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43 °C to +0.70 °C, a change of nearly 68 percent."

Temperature anomalies – differences between the average measured global air temperature and some long-term mean – are primary data for studies of climate change.

The magnitude of the changes in the reworked historical data observed by Goetz – 0.27 °C – is more that a third of the total average increase in global air temperature near the Earth's surface – 0.74 ± 0.18 °C – that has occurred over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

A comparison of annual temperature anomalies for the United States from 1880 to 1999 further revealed that shifts in historical estimates of temperature, since NASA refined its data for the period 1930 to 1999, are biased toward global warming.

Steven Goddard, writing in The Register, analyzed two different NASA reports of historic temperature anomalies – published in 1999 and 2007 – and showed estimates for years in the 1930s through 1970 were lowered while estimates for years from 1970 to 1999 were increased between the two reporting periods. The results, when graphed, described a temperature regime that was cooler than previously thought prior to 1970 and warmer than thought since – precisely what advocates of global warming argue but what earlier renditions of the data did not say so clearly.

That, said Goddard, defied statistical odds.

"So what is the probability of this effort consistently increasing recent temperatures and decreasing older temperatures? From a statistical viewpoint, data recalculation should cause each year to have a 50/50 probability of going either up or down – thus the odds of all 70 adjusted years working in concert to increase the slope of the graph are an astronomical 2 raised to the power of 70. That is one-thousand-billion-billion to one. This isn't an exact representation of the odds because for some of the years (less than 15) the revisions went against the trend – but even a 55/15 split is about as likely as a room full of chimpanzees eventually typing Hamlet. That would be equivalent to flipping a penny 70 times and having it come up heads 55 times. It will never happen – one trillion to one odds (2 raised to the power 40).

"Particularly troubling are the years from 1986-1998. In the 2007 version of the graph, the 1986 data was adjusted upwards by 0.4 degrees relative to the 1999 graph. In fact, every year except one from 1986-1998 was adjusted upwards, by an average of 0.2 degrees. If someone wanted to present a case for a lot of recent warming, adjusting data upwards would be an excellent way to do it.

(Story continues below)

NASA is not the only source of long-term temperature data used to evaluate climate change. Like NASA, the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies depends on a network of ground-based weather stations using thermometers. Both are limited by their number of stations, the heat-island effects on many of the sites located in urban areas, changes in thermometer types over time and the loss of station sites over the historical periods being measured. Data gathered from these systems often has to be adjusted to remove "noise" caused by the local environment so it can be standardized for analysis.

The University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems provide data gathered by Earth-observation satellites. Satellite temperature data has the advantage of being gathered across the entire surface of the Earth, except for regions near the two poles, but it is unavailable for the period prior to 1978.

How do these other data sources compare to NASA?

According to Hadley's data, worldwide temperatures have declined since 1998 and the Earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941.

Both the UAH and RSS satellite data agree with Hadley and show temperatures declining over the past decade with only a slight increase above the 30-year average between 1978 and 2008.

More recently, NASA temperatures indicated March 2008 was the third-warmest March in history. RSS and UAH showed the same month as only slightly above average globally and the second-coldest ever in the southern hemisphere.

As WND has previously reported James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warned in 2006 "we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most" – the same week the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report saying the U.S.'s hottest year was in the past, 1936.

For amplifying charts see source:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...mp;pageId=63360

UM?  -  It sure does sound like a massive con game is going to be tried UNLESS the real scientists are able to debunk the lies that are being told. YES - the real scientists can do this, but I doubt they have the money necessary to play the news media blitz game with the rich and powerful people who are determined to go forward with the most massive and costly con game in history.

If I remember correctly, the con men are spending 300 million dollars to sell their lies. Their prize will be over 35 BILLION DOLLARS, and we should all be able to easily figure out where this money will come from.

(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m301/lpopsicle/global-warming-newspaper-letter1.jpg)

(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff41/Flier8563/Globalwarming.jpg)

Oops!  Did hell freeze over?

Media frauds trip themselves up

North Pole fables: “On the NBC nightly news there was a heart-throb report of an attractive British teen-ager who had skied across the North Pole with her father to demonstrate how the Arctic ice pack is receding in the face of global warming. Oh, horror. Oh, how terrible. The pictures were beautiful: Her pretty face, her gentle smile, her soft voice, her snow-crusted parka, the blue skies, the brilliant white ice, the cascading chunks of ice calving from glaciers, the two penguins standing on an ice floe…. Wait a minute. Penguins? At the North Pole? Not that we ever heard of. So much for science, as reported by NBC News.

For any products of a modern education reading here, the South Pole has penguins but no bears and the North pole has bears but no penguins.

The young girl was also complaining about 40 below F in the middle of the day in summer with wind chills far below that.

 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

That's a classic PR!

You know, I was thinking............... again.............. ;D ;D

There will be a global warming, later on. In Revelation 16:8-9 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.  9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x125/luvmarley_bucket/cid_006701c66bbe0d2562b00900a8c0Dis.gif)

(http://img256.echo.cx/img256/1869/ditto8pi.gif)

Wow DW!  That's pretty impressive!  How long did it take ya?  I guess these no end to what you can do if you really put your mind to it!

About a minute, and a minute to post. :P :P :P

'We are going to tell you about global warming … you horrible people'
Posted: May 09, 2008
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Students at a California public school have written a series of letters to Chicago's Heartland Institute, which works to discover and develop free-market solutions to society's problems, attacking its members for "destroying our planet" by refusing to endorse the politics of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" film.

According to students in the sixth-grade class of teacher Michael Steria at David A. Brown Middle School, the institute consists of "fools" and "horrible people."

"I think your (sic) fools for denying G.W. you know it could kill us all & you're just adding to it. I want you to help stop G.W. not increase it," said one letter.

"We are going to tell you about global warming. I don't care if you don't want to read, but I'm making you read it you horrible people," said another.

Officials at the school, a part of the Lake Elsinore School District, declined to respond to WND requests for a comment. Officials at the district office also declined to respond.


But Maureen Martin, a senior fellow for legal affairs for the institute, told WND that it was heart-breaking to see the results of such indoctrination of students.

"It's tragic," she said. "The kids were terrified."

She said some of the students expressed their belief they would be dead in 10 years.

The district's allowance of such teachings is "shameful, especially when there's a divide in the scientific opinion," she said.

She said the lessons reflected probably don't even meet the requirements of the state's educational guidelines, which for sixth graders demand lessons in earth sciences and the scientific methods of examining data.

Among the students' other comments:

    * "We feel that it is wrong what you are doing. We know that you know that global warming is NOT we repeat NOT a myth, And we think it is selfish that you would take money over yours and your peers lives."

    * "We feel upset because you are making Global Warming worse instead of helping it. We know that almost half of the country knows that G.W. is a crisis. We know that you could help the environment with the $800,000 you have."

    * "We feel that they are destroying our planet by saying G.W. is not a crisis. You think GW is not a crisis but it is; you know deep down that it's a real thing that's happening. Everyone has a part in helping GW, and you're making worse."

    * "I do not think that what you are doing is right because you are telling people that global warming is not a crisis. If this is not a crisis, how come floods have occurred in asia, Mexico, and India. Plus, how can you explain why the glacier glaciers are melting. they can't melt themselves, because they are in the coldest region in the world."

Martin told WND that by searching the Internet for key phrases used by the students, she was able to read seven of the 10 articles the students reported reading.

"Three of the articles have nothing to do with global warming or greenhouse gases. Two are dire predictions from non-scientists at the United Nations disaster relief agency, the U.N. Development Programme, and nongovernmental organizations engaged in disaster aid. One article relates state efforts at monitoring greenhouse gases," she said.

One other was an attack on Heartland for its funding procedures, accusing the organization of selling out to energy corporations.

But Institute chief Joseph Bast said such donations never have amounted to more than 5 percent of the organization's budget and more money comes in from individuals than from companies.

The facts, however, mattered little to the students doing the assignment.

"I am very unhappy with your disgracing actions to the world, because you guys and woman are trying to hide the facts about Global warming so you can make more money. Well you guys aren’t going to fool anybody except yourself. The reason is because if you were to look at a picture of Glacier National Park 50 years ago, you would see that there is less ice now then there was fifty years ago," said one letter.

Martin told WND one of the articles apparently came from a blog and condemned the organization's March conference in New York, which assembled hundreds of scientists and others who are skeptical of Al Gore's belief in the earth-threatening capabilities of temperature change, and his affirmation that man is at fault for whatever changes there are.

One phrase that appeared was "global warming denier group," which also had been used earlier on a critical blog article headlined, "Global Warming Denier Group Funded By Big Oil Hosting Climate Change Denial Conference."

"No. 1, no matter what people think, those who disagree ought not to be vilified," Martin said. "More than that, schools are supposed to be teaching kids about evaluating information. It's a life skill. We deal with it as citizens every day of our lives."

In this case, however, the students reflect teaching that tells them anyone who disagrees is "wrong and evil."

Martin said she currently is working on a project for Heartland to address what the United Kingdom determined was propaganda in the Gore film, and present balancing information to public school classrooms whose students now often are shown the Gore production.

"We're looking for parents, taxpayers, in the right situations. We're prepared to go to the schools and make a demand for equal time. We're not trying to stifle anything," she said.

What about the California school?

"I wrote to the superintendent. I said I'd be willing to provide information, DVDs, printed material, a book, we can send speakers… I haven't heard back yet," she said.

Such teaching, however, raises huge concerns.

"Global warming 'means that if we don't fix the climate, everything will be destroyed and we won't be able to survive,' two students wrote. Others found their global warming lessons similarly frightening," Martin wrote.

The students also left no room for discussion of the scientific issue.

"We've read article about global warming. And we know all the facts," said one, while another added, "Natural disasters have quadrupled in 20 years, 53 bird species face extinction, World must fix climate in 10 years, Air pollution shrinks fetus size. THIS IS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING!!!" said another.

When the Heartland Institute held its conference in New York in March, WND reported more than 100 internationally prominent environmental scientists argued that global warming is, instead, a natural process and not the result of human activity.

"The purpose of the conference is to provide a platform for the hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts who dissent from the so-called 'consensus' on global warming," said Bast.

"Is global warming 'An Inconvenient Truth,' as Vice President Al Gore charges, or a 'Global Warming Swindle?' Harriet Johnson, spokeswoman for the Heartland Institute asked in a statement distributed at the conference.

"The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say – over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films," a notice on the Heartland Institute website said. "But they have lost the debate."

In one of the papers released, environmental scientist S. Fred Singer's "Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate" summarized a three-year international scientific research project conducted by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC.

He said the climate is affected by many factors, but what can be ruled out by scientific evidence is that greenhouse gases are an important factor in causing global warming.

---

Yup, that our kids of today. (http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff133/onionethan/onion_Emoticons/071_.gif)

It is not the fault of the kids of today but rather it is because of the teachers insisting on indoctrinating children instead of teaching them.




But Maureen Martin, a senior fellow for legal affairs for the institute, told WND that it was heart-breaking to see the results of such indoctrination of students.

"It's tragic," she said. "The kids were terrified."

She said some of the students expressed their belief they would be dead in 10 years.

The district's allowance of such teachings is "shameful, especially when there's a divide in the scientific opinion," she said.


Yes, it is tragic that political indoctrination does this to kids.

That's not want I met, but I'm was wrong about all kids, thus. It's very tragic like you said.




Amen! (http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff133/onionethan/onion_Emoticons/085_.gif)
Sadly, most of these people are not thinking "what to think".

An excellent article that gives one real confidence in our scientists and environmentalists. The article gives information provided to various media by some well known geologists of their times as well as the claim to an ice age given by environmentalist at the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970.

Fire and Ice  By R. Warren Anderson,  Research Analyst and Dan Gainor, The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow

Following is a time line of articles posted in two well-known news papers that is excerpted from this article.

A New York Times-line

Sept. 18, 1924    “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age”

March 27, 1933  “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776;
                           Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise”

May 21, 1975       “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is
                            Changing; A Major Cooling Widely
                            Considered to Be Inevitable”

Dec. 27, 2005       “Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax
                            About New Warming”



A Time Magazine Time-line

Sept. 10, 1923     “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat
                            and the southward advance of glaciers in
                            recent years have given rise to conjectures of the
                            possible advent of a new ice age.”

Jan. 2, 1939         “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when
                             they were boys are quite right... weather men have
                             no doubt that the world at least for the time being is
                             growing warmer.”

June 24, 1974       “Climatological Cassandras are becoming
                             increasingly apprehensive, for the weather
                             aberrations they are studying may be the
                             harbinger of another ice age.”

The entire article is a blast. It shows the fallacies of climate change enthusiasts. I can't link to the article because of advertising and donations requests but I'm sure you can find numerous copies of it by doing a web search on the title.

This is a big statement and could apply to more than just what is taught about global warming in our schools.

Revelation 8:1

And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

For further study - Revelation 8:1-13

As we come to another chapter in the book of Revelation, we move into the second set of seven judgments, the seven "trumpet judgments". Actually the last of the seven "seal judgments" is found also in chapter 8, verse 1.

The seven "trumpet judgments" come out of the last "seal judgment" as is the case with the seven "vial judgments" coming out of the last, seventh, "trumpet judgment".

Notice that the seventh "seal judgment" is "silence in heaven about the space of half an hour", verse 1. The reason for the "silence", I believe, is because the "great cloud of witnesses", Hebrews 12:1, is "awestruck" by the six previous "seal judgments" and the seven "trumpet judgments" to follow.

I would like for you to notice what has been termed "ecological judgment" will be released on the earth in these first four "trumpet judgments". The fact is, we hear alot about "global warming" and "climate change" in the media these days.

I believe "global warming" is impossible because Jesus Christ created the heavens, the earth and all that is in them, Colossians 1:16, and He holds it all together, Colossians 1:17.

God is in charge and nothing can happen to this "earth" unless He allows it to. No act of man can overrule God's plan. However, as our text tells us, there will be "ecological judgments" upon the earth during the time of the seven year Tribulation Period in the future.

The first "trumpet judgment" is a third part of the trees and all the grass on earth burning up. "Trumpet" number two is a third of the sea turning to blood, one-third of the fish in the sea dying and one-third of the ships upon the seas being destroyed.

Next, the third "trumpet" judgment, is one-third of the rivers, ponds, lakes and fountains of water becoming bitter, so much so that many on the earth will die from drinking this water. The judgments now shift to the heavens, the sun, moon and stars lose one-third of their light and their is more darkness than usual upon the earth, which is the fourth "trumpet" judgment.

Verse 13 reveals that from here, continuing into the Tribulation Period, it gets worse. The three "woes" are to follow. which are the last three "trumpet judgments". We'll look at the "woes" in another devotional reading.

We all must make it a point to give out the gospel to lost people every day. The Rapture could happen, today.

The Bible and 'global warming'

I can certainly understand why neo-pagans like Al Gore believe, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, man-made, catastrophic global warming is the gravest threat to the planet.

What I can't understand is why people who claim to believe in the Bible as the inerrant, inspired Word of God do so.

Even more difficult to comprehend is why some evangelical Christians are caught up in the notion that government and international action are the proper methods to fight this phantom threat.

First of all, in Genesis 8:22, we're told of a promise by God never to use global floodwaters again as a means of destroying life on Earth. In that promise, the Bible explicitly states: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

In other words, no more cataclysmic floods – the result Al Gore promises in the near future as a consequence of global warming. Just as importantly, there is another promise there that cold and heat shall not cease.

What does that mean?

It means God controls the world's temperature, not man. God controls the climate, not man. God controls the earth's "eco-system," not man. God controls our environment, not man.

It is so presumptuous and haughty of believers and non-believers alike to think man is in control of the destiny of the planet God created for us.

If it were so, would he not have warned us? With all of the prophecies in the Bible, should we not expect to be told that such matters are actually in our hands? Why would we be told exactly the opposite throughout scripture?

It's not that the Bible tells us there are no consequences for our actions on the planet. In fact, it quite explicitly does. But it is not the production of carbon dioxide that God finds offensive. It is the commission of sin. Nowhere in the Bible does God ever suggest that producing CO2 is sinful.

Keep in mind, it is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring gas – just like oxygen. God created CO2, not man. And nature's God still produces a lot more of it than does man.

In Isaiah 49, in a passage evangelicals believe represent the words of Jesus Himself, there is another promise – that those who follow Him would never perish from the heat of the sun.

"They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor the sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them," it says in Isaiah 49:10.

If cataclysmic global warming represented a real threat to believers, would God have made such a promise through Isaiah?

That is not to say heat will never be used as a means of judgment. In fact, it will be according to the Bible.

We are told in:

Rev 16:8  And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
Rev 16:9  And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.


What this means is that scorching heat will be used as a judgment against non-believers, and, most importantly, that God and God alone has the power over such calamities.

Yes, there will come a time when the Earth is destroyed – and intense heat will be the mechanism God employs. But we are not talking about a rise of a few degrees over centuries. We're talking about heat so severe it melts the very elements that comprise the Earth.

That comes in a day that sounds very much like the time in which we live. It is described in 2 Peter 3:

      3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

      4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

      5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

      6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

      7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

      8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

      9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

      10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

      11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

      12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

      13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

      14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Are today's evangelicals who agree with the worldly that the greatest threat to mankind is represented in catastrophic, man-made global warming without spot and blameless?

It is sheer folly and ego for man to believe he controls the destiny of God's creation. But it is even more disgraceful when those who claim to believe His Word preach a false gospel of global warming that directly contradicts the entire body of scripture.

Good stuff!  Thanks PR!

Amen and  Hurray!  You go Pastor Roger!   

Obesity contributes to global warming: study

Obesity contributes to global warming, too.

Obese and overweight people require more fuel to transport them and the food they eat, and the problem will worsen as the population literally swells in size, a team at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine says.

This adds to food shortages and higher energy prices, the school's researchers Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts wrote in the journal Lancet on Friday.

"We are all becoming heavier and it is a global responsibility," Edwards said in a telephone interview. "Obesity is a key part of the big picture."

Here we go again. I can see another tax being implemented based on BMI or possibly legal prosecution.   ::)

At least 400 million adults worldwide are obese. The World Health Organization (WHO) projects by 2015, 2.3 billion adults will be overweight and more than 700 million will be obese.

In their model, the researchers pegged 40 percent of the global population as obese with a body mass index of near 30. Many nations are fast approaching or have surpassed this level, Edwards said.

BMI is a calculation of height to weight, and the normal range is usually considered to be 18 to 25, with more than 25 considered overweight and above 30 obese.

The researchers found that obese people require 1,680 daily calories to sustain normal energy and another 1,280 calories to maintain daily activities, 18 percent more than someone with a stable BMI.

Because thinner people eat less and are more likely to walk than rely on cars, a slimmer population would lower demand for fuel for transportation and for agriculture, Edwards said.

This is also important because 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions stem from agriculture, he added.

Maybe we better put an end to agriculture then.  ::)

The next step is quantifying how much a heavier population is contributing to climate change, higher fuel prices and food shortages, he added.

"Promotion of a normal distribution of BMI would reduce the global demand for, and thus the price of, food," Edwards and Roberts wrote.

NOTE: Body Mass Indices are not accurate to begin with. They do not take into account lean muscle mass or varied body shapes. If a person has a larger amount of lean muscle, such as some athletes or heavy work laborers, it throws the BMI way off. Certain populations have different height to weight variances that are not taken into consideration for BMI's. This is seen in populations where they are short but their body build is very stocky yet lean in fat compared to those that are tall and yet of thin body build.

This global warming garbage to promote different agendas is getting less intellectual by the day.

Just when I think that I've heard everything, I find out that I'm wrong.  Pretty soon they will find that turning the pages of our Bibles causes Global Warming and we will be asked to quit it. 
I think that those that are trying to use their dead brain cells to come up with this junk, are wasting too much valuable energy and maybe we should harness some that and put it use elsewhere.  Maybe light our homes or something?  I don't know.

I'm wondering how much energy they used at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and how much they got paid to do this research.

31,000 scientists reject
'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims
no informed expert endorses'

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"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 the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

At least someone is taking an "action" by signing a petition.  This a good sign to me.  Whatever the out come, someone has decided to DO something at least.

9,000 Ph.D.s 'entitled to their opinion'
Presidential spokeswoman declines comment on global warming petition

The spokeswoman for President Bush says the thousands of scientists from across the United States that reject the theory of "global warming" about human-caused greenhouse gases posing a major threat to future life can have their "opinion."

But no further comment came from Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, when asked about the issue by Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House.

At today's White House news briefing, he asked, "WorldNetDaily reports that more than 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.s, now [have] signed a petition rejecting global warming, the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases is damaging the Earth's climate. My question: What is the White House reaction to these 31,000 U.S. scientists?"

"I would say that everyone is entitled to their opinion," Perino responded. "What's your next question?"

"That's all?" Kinsolving asked.

"That's all I'm going to say," she said.

As WND has reported, more than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"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 the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Bush hasn't been a significant promoter of any "global warming" antidote promoted by the United Nations, among others, to set vast new rules for the release of such greenhouse gases.

However, just weeks ago he laid out his global warming policy that seeks to stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, officials said, disappointing the faithful who claimed his plan fell far short of what they want done to reverse "global warming."

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

The campaign condemns the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, as potentially harmful to the environment itself.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," Robinson said. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology."

He said unfavorable energy plans damage the U.S. energy production, increase dependence of foreign oil and actually have nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

In a second question, Kinsolving asked, "As you know, the California Supreme Court, by a one vote majority, has legalized same-sex marriage. And my question: Does the White House believe that there is any more legal and moral right for same-sex marriage than for marriages that are polygamous? And if so, why?"

"I'm just going to decline to comment. That's a – the subject that you're talking about, in terms of the court case, is still in litigation, and the president believes in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman," Perino said.

I would comment on this but right now I'm looking for something sharp to poke in my eye.

Amazing that we haven't heard anything from "Al-the-earth's-pal", since his movie.  I wonder, did he know how his movie of comedy would snow ball like it has?  That's why is been under the wire ever since?  Or have I just missed something from him since I haven't had T.V. in couple of months?

He's been doing a lot of small lectures here and there at colleges trying to convince the students that he's right, mostly with those that already believe him.

Al Gore and his band of thieves have a considerable investment for advertising and education so that they can SWINDLE the world. I, for one, would love to see them lose every penny and go to prison for FRAUD. YES - they are taking money under false pretenses. If their con game goes much further, most of the first victims will be poor people and poor countries. Their CON GAME will accomplish NOTHING but stealing money for already rich people. Huge numbers of people will suffer in this CON GAME in the form of hunger, loss of medical care, and much worse. The longer their CON GAME continues, the worse the suffering will be. It will take some time for the negative effects to mount up. Some of the negative effects can be reversed if we are able to STOP this CON GAME soon enough. It should be obvious that each individual person and family has different financial circumstances. Some are capable of paying more and longer without suffering major effects, but many families were barely surviving before Al Gore and his band of thieves went to work. SO, all it takes is a small THEFT to cause SUFFERING for many people. At this point, I don't think that anyone knows how many prices are effected by this CON GAME. Could we guess that the CON GAME probably effects the costs of transportation? YES! If so, this involves the ability to get to work and is the work of many people. The costs of transportation obviously involves the costs of every necessity that people must buy - JUST TO SURVIVE. MANY PEOPLE ARE ALREADY SUFFERING!

(http://hp93.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/vignetta-al-gore.jpg)
(http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/06132006a.jpg)
(http://ts2.images.live.com/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1574816779737&id=3b28b5b9615e78360910123fa4fa3cd6)(http://ts3.images.live.com/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1502799728030&id=14c29d3a71859414196e3f120883ee65)(http://ts4.images.live.com/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1640123210883&id=e571aa3a3fb5c4df443949945bfb48cd)

 ;D   ;D   ;D    ROFL!


Great Graphics! - Consider them snagged. I don't have any good ones on this issue, so I'll try to give you something else for a laugh.

 

I found those on a news website after I typed in "Al Gore"!  I hadn't seen those ones yet either, but as usual, I couldn't resist sharing them!
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x125/luvmarley_bucket/cid_006701c66bbe0d2562b00900a8c0Dis.gif)

On Sept 25, 2007 the The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge announced that it raised to $125,000 the cash award to the first person to prove in a scientific manner that human emissions of greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic global climate change. Since that time it was raised again to $150,000 and now all the way up to $500,000 American dollars.

For some odd reason no one has even attempted to come forward to claim this money. In fact the global warming alarmists, with Al Gore in the lead, are running with tales tucked away from this challenge.  With their desire for so much money and the fact they say "The Science Is Settled" I would think that they would have jumped at this chance a long time ago. I guess it tells the truth about their so-called science.

There are indications that there is a lawsuit pending against Al Gore in regards to the picture that he and many other global warming alarmists have been using of the Polar Bears on an ice flow. The picture was taken by Amanda Byrd and has been used without her permission. The following is the story behind the picture:


Carole "CJ" Williams
January 26, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Last March, global warming fanatic Al Gore used a picture of two polar bears purportedly stranded on melting ice off the coast of Alaska as a visual aide to support his claim that man-made global warming is doing great harm to Mother Earth. The one he chose, but didn’t offer to pay for right away, turned out to be a photo of a polar bear and her cub out doing what healthy, happy polar bears do on a wave-eroded chunk of ice not all that far from shore in the Beaufort Sea north of Barstow, Alaska.

The picture, wrongly credited to Dan Crosbie, an ice observer specialist for the Canadian Ice Service, was actually taken by Amanda Byrd while she was on a university-related research cruise in August of 2004, a time of year when the fringe of the Arctic ice cap normally melts. Byrd, a marine biology grad student at the time, was gathering zooplankton for a multi-year study of the Arctic Ocean.

Crosbie, who was also on the trip, pilfered the polar bear photo from a shared computer onboard the Canadian icebreaker where Ms. Byrd downloaded her snapshots; he saved it in his personal file. Several months later, Crosbie, who is known as an avid photographer, gave the photo to the Canadian Ice Service, which then allowed Environment Canada to use it as an illustration for an online magazine.

Today that photo, with credit given to photographer Dan Crosbie and the Canadian Ice Service, can be found all over the Internet, generally with the caption “Two polar bears are stranded on a chunk of melting ice”.

It’s a hoax, folks. The bears, which can swim distances of 100 miles and more, weren’t stranded; they were merely taking a break and watching the boat go by when a lady snapped their picture.

On Feb. 2, 2007 Denis Simard, a representative of Environment Canada, distributed that lady’s photo to 7 media agencies, including the Associated Press, and timed it to coincide with the release of the United Nations’ major global warming report in Paris, France on Feb 3rd. When the press called Simard in Paris to ask if it was his picture and could they print it, he says, “I gave them permission because Dan said it was his picture.”

Al Gore saw the picture shortly thereafter and contrived to use it in a presentation about man-made global warming that he staged at a conference of human resource executives on March 22, 2007 in Toronto, Canada.

With an enlarged version of Amanda Byrd’s polar bear picture on the screen behind him, Gore said, “Their habitat is melting… beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet. They’re in trouble, got nowhere else to go.”

Of course, after those words were spoken, the audience, being under the impression that polar bears are in imminent danger, gasped with concern and sympathy for the plight of the poor, pathetic polar bear population, whose diet, by the way, can include convenient humans, though attacks, like wolf-human attacks, are said to be rare.

According to Ms. Bryd, when she took the picture, the mother bear and its cub didn’t appear to be in any danger and Denis Simard seems to have backpedaled when quoted by Ontario’s National Post as saying that you “have to keep in mind that the bears aren’t in danger at all. It was, if you will, their playground for 15 minutes. You know what I mean? This is a perfect picture for climate change, in a way, because you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die with a coke in their hands. But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim.” (The “Coca Cola Polar Bears” were introduced in 1992, and it would seem that Mr. Simard believes polar bears drink it after a swim.)

Al Gore, who was awarded a 2007 Nobel Prize for drawing the world’s attention to the dangers of global warming, as well as a coveted Hollywood Oscar in ‘07 for his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, stands to make millions of dollars selling carbon offsets through his London based corporation, Generation Investment Management.

Gore, who apparently can’t tell a polar bear with nowhere to go from one that’s playing on an over-sized and wave-beaten ice cube, offered to pay non-Canadian Amanda Byrd for the use of her photo after the fact.

Perhaps the former University of Alaska-Fairbanks grad student and managing editor of “Mushing Magazine” let the world’s Global Warming Czar off the hook for super-sizing her photo, but others who used it without permission may not be so lucky.

Though she now charges from $500 to $700 for its use, Canadian courts will award photographers as much as $20,000 for each time one of their photos is published without permission, and it’s almost certain that Simard and Crosbie will be paying off Amanda’s school loans.

So there you have the real story about Gore’s endangered polar bears, but there’s more balderdash to come.

It’s predicted that during his January 28th State of the Union address, Pres. Bush will mention the plight of the polar bears whose habitat is purportedly melting due to man-made global warming. Perhaps he’ll surprise the environmentalists and claim otherwise, but either way, shortly after his address, Sec. of the Interior Kempthorne stands ready to announce his decision about whether or not to list polar bears as “threatened” according to Endangered Species Act (ESA) guidelines.

You may think what happens in the artic won’t concern you, but if polar bears are listed as threatened, as the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned them to be, it will substantiate the global warming claim and adversely affect the lives of everyone in the United States.

The claim that global warming is largely man-made is based on computer modeling and supposition, and it’s being used as a manipulative tool to force us to restructure our nation’s industriousness and greatly curtail our personal energy consumption. Moreover, because other countries, i.e. China and India, won’t have the same onus, US citizens will have to mitigate bogus man-made global warming for them, too.

According to information from the American Land Rights Assoc., under the ESA any activity regulated by the Federal Government (i.e. air or water quality) would be subject to further regulation because of claims that “greenhouse gas” emissions have a potentially adverse effect on polar bear habitat.

Virtually everything people do involves fossil fuels and greenhouse gases, and since 85% of our energy comes from fossil fuels, almost every heating, cooling, transportation (including shipping) and electricity decision will be affected. Utility and manufacturing companies will be required to slash CO2 emissions, forcing an increase in prices to cover escalated new costs.

But it won’t stop there. All other sources of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases will also be regulated and restricted by environmental alarmists; bakeries, breweries, chicken and dairy farms, cattle ranches, dry cleaners, auto manufacturers, cement and other industrial facilities, and on and on, ad nauseum.

As their costs go up, so will consumers’ costs to heat and cool homes, drive cars, and clothe and feed their family. And, as costs go up, companies may further reduce their workforces or outsource jobs to other countries so as to stay in business.

Blue collar, poor, and fixed income families will be hit the hardest, but everyone’s jobs and cost of living will be affected. However, the likes of Al Gore and other elitists will still be flying around in private jets and cashing in on their investments in a newly created multi-billion dollar alternative energy industry and carbon offset scheme designed to supposedly mitigate the man-made global warming scam.

Just as Gore’s endangered polar bear picture was a hoax, so is the assertion repeated by politicians and global warming/climate change criers that “2,500 scientists of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis”.

According to an article authored by John McLean and Tom Harris, published in the Dec. 14th Canada Free Press, only 600 of the 2,500 IPCC scientists reviewed the specific multi-chaptered report related to the possibility of man-made global warming adversely affecting the environment. Of those 600 scientists, 308 made comments, but only 62 reviewed and made comments regarding the critical Chapter 9 related to man and his activities being the primary cause of climate change. Of those 62, fifty-five are said to have a serious vested interest, which leaves very few credible IPCC scientists out of the 2,500 who supposedly agree that global warming is manmade.

Virtually hundreds, if not thousands, of qualified and well respected scientists who have studied global warming and its causes and effects disagree with the IPCC scientists who were hand-picked by the notoriously corrupt United Nations organization to come to a consensual agreement regarding global warming. However, for the most part, those who disagree are being ignored by mass media, appointed bureaucrats, and our elected government officials.

The truth of the matter is that the man-made global warming fear factor is based on little but computer modeling, conjecture, hype, contrived hysteria, and the desire of bureaucrats, politicians and radical greenies to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and gain control of people’s lives. Regardless, SB-2191, a bill to lower the boom on “greenhouse gas” emissions and people, is pending in the Senate.

cont'd

It’s you or the polar bears, folks, and you’re out of time. Call the White House, the Interior Department and your Congressmen now and politely tell them you do not believe man and his activities are the principal cause of global warming; that you do not want polar bears listed as threatened and do not want regulatory Senate Bill-2191 passed.

Every adult in Britain forced to carry 'carbon ration cards?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forced-carry-carbon-ration-cards-say-MPs.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions without penalising the poor.

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

Anyone who exceeds their entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven't used up their allowance. The amount paid would be driven by market forces and the deal done through a specialist company.

MPs, led by Tory Tim Yeo, say the scheme could be more effective at cutting greenhouse gas emissions than green taxes.

But critics say the idea is costly, bureaucratic, intrusive and unworkable.

The Government says it supports the scheme in principle, but warns it is 'ahead of its time'.

The idea of personal carbon trading is increasingly being promoted by environmentalists. In theory it could be used to cover all purchases - from petrol to food.

For the scheme to work, the Government would need to give out 45million carbon cards - each one linked to a personal carbon account. Every year, the account would be credited with a notional amount of CO2 in kilograms.

Every time someone makes a purchase of petrol, energy or airline tickets, they would use up credits. A return flight from London to Rome would, for instance, use up 900kg of CO2 credits, while 10 litres of petrol would use up 23kg.

MP Tim Yeo MP, says the scheme could be more effective at cutting Britain's greenhouse gas emissions

Mr Yeo, chairman of the committee said personal carbon trading rewarded those with a low carbon footprint with cash.

'We found that personal carbon trading has real potential to engage the population in the fight against climate change and to achieve significant emissions reductions in a progressive way,' he said.

'The idea is a radical one. As such it inevitably faces some significant challenges in its development. It is important to meet these challenges.

'What we are asking the Government to do is to seize the reins on this, leading the debate and coordinating research.'

The Government is committed to cutting CO2 emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010.

The Climate Change Bill going through Parliament aims to cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. The Government has said it backs the idea in principle, but it is currently too expensive and bureaucratic.

Environment Minister Hilary Benn said: 'It's got potential but, in essence, it's ahead of its time. There are a lot of practical problems to overcome.'

A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report into the scheme found it would cost between £700million and £2billion to set up and up to another £2billion a year to run.

Tory environment spokesman Peter Ainsworth added: 'Although it does have potential we should proceed with care. We don't want to alienate people and we want everyone to be on board.'

But critics say the idea is deeply flawed. The scheme would penalise those living in the countryside who were dependent on their cars, as well as the elderly or housebound who need to heat their homes in the day.

Large families would suffer, as would those working at nights when little public transport is available.

It would need to take into account the size of families, and their ages. There is huge potential for fraud.

Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance said the cards would be hugely unpopular. 'The Government has shown itself incapable of managing any huge, complex IT system.' he said.

How The Scheme Would Work

Every adult in the UK would be given an annual carbon dioxide allowance in kgs and a special carbon card.

The scheme would cover road fuel, flights and energy bills.

Every time someone paid for road fuel, flights or energy, their carbon account would be docked.

A litre of petrol would use up 2.3kg in carbon, while every 1.3 miles of airline flight would use another 1kg.

When paying for petrol, the card would need to swiped at the till. It would be a legal offence to buy petrol without using a card.

When paying online, or by direct debit, the carbon account would be debited directly.

Anyone who doesn't use up their credits in a year can sell them to someone who wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies.

666

Citizens fire back
with carbon 'belch'
Americans pledge to boost emissions,
wage war against proposed CO2 tax

Thousands of Americans are pledging to fire up their charcoal barbecue grills, bask in the infinite glow of numerous incandescent light bulbs, shun recycling of any kind and take spontaneous road trips in gas-guzzling vehicles to increase their personal carbon output – all in protest of the Senate debate over a bill calling for a "cap-and-trade" system.

Grassfire, one of the nation's fastest-growing grassroots organizations, has declared June 12 Carbon Belch Day and is enlisting citizens to expel more than 100 million pounds of CO2 to combat climate alarmist propaganda and to take a stand against a "$1.2 trillion carbon tax."

"We wanted to point out the absurdity of the climate alarmism of Al Gore and others who want to make us feel bad for just about everything we do and rally people for the battle over the carbon tax which is now underway in the Senate," Grassfire president Steve Elliott told WND. "We really plan to engage lots of citizens who have been under carbon-footprint guilt for far too long and give citizens an opportunity to make a statement that we reject climate alarmism. We're not going to stand for this carbon tax."

The Lieberman-Warner bill, named after sponsors Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., calls for imposed limits on U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions beginning in 2012. President Bush opposed the bill, saying it could create as much as $6 trillion in new costs on the American economy, though he has not threatened to veto it.

Elliott said, "We wanted to time Carbon Belch Day around the debate of that bill so we could rally people and have a platform to talk about this issue."

Grassfire provides a "Carbon Belch Calculator" with a checklist of activities citizens can take part in to celebrate their independence from climate alarmist-imposed blame. Suggestions include the following:

    * Super-cool your house (turn A/C down 5 degrees)
    * Don't recycle glass/plastic/aluminum/newspapers for one day
    * Take a plane trip
    * Eat meat with at least two meals (steak dinner a bonus)
    * Mow your lawn with gas-powered mower
    * Leave two light bulbs on for entire day
    * Hang/light one string of Christmas lights
    * Host a barbecue with lots of friends – charcoal (11lbs/hr) or gas (5.6lbs/hr)
    * Drink beer
    * Watch television
    * Light a campfire
    * Do partial load of laundry
    * Take an 8-minute shower
    * Leave computer on 24 hours
    * Drink bottled water

Elliott said Grassfire took research that climate alarmists put together to create the calculator. The organization has already surpassed its goal with 108,566,729 pounds of carbon emission commitments, and Elliott is planning for an even larger response.

"It shows that there are many tens of thousands of citizens who don't accept climate alarmism and who are not going to sit by quietly as Congress imposes another tax on the American people," he said. "We just want to see this continue to grow as we rally people in opposition to what the climate alarmists are doing."

Grassfire cites Britain's Environmental Audit Committee plan to implement a card system and require citizens to punch in when they pay for gas, plane tickets or household energy as reason for concern in the U.S. The organization warns, "Don't think for a minute that 'carbon ration cards' won't find their way to the Democratic-controlled Congress, especially when all the presidential candidates are pushing climate alarmism."

Elliot said Americans should break free of carbon footprint guilt and refuse to go along with "a huge government program with a huge government tax."

He encourages concerned citizens to sign a pledge stating, "I will do my best to increase my CO2 output and unleash a Carbon Belch on the planet. I do this with no fear or concern that I am destroying the planet. In fact, I think a good Carbon Belch can be healthy now and again."

Internet forums were ablaze with reactions to the Carbon Belch Day announcement. The following are responses to Grassfire's proposal:

    * Thanks for the heads up. I'll see how many things I can leave on at home that day while I take the old jalopy for a long, aimless ride.

    * Very mature everyone. Let's waste resources and pollute just to prove how immature and proud of our ignorance we are. Way to fit the stereotype of the dumb, arrogant, wasteful American. Fortunately, as you all get older won't have to put up with your 19th century ignorance. I just hope that you North Shore Nancies etc. don't screw up the world much more before we are rid of you.

    * Why not just have a barbecue in the middle of the week and have some old-fashioned fun? June 12 is a great day for a barbecue. I can smell the meat cooking, and PETA getting HOT over this, along with the global warming extremist pundits. Those guys have gone too far anyways … let's get some balance back!

    * That's messed up … Thank people like that for record high energy prices and climbing rates of environmental quality related health issues like asthma.

    * ["Sad" climate alarmists:] I'll light a candle for you on June 12 (In fact, I'll light a whole bunch of candles for you).

I think that I'm going to make a big pot of baked beans on the grill also.

 ;D ;D

 ;D   ;D   ;D


That sounds like a good idea for all of us, but I do think we need to add some hot polish sausage to those beans.

Polish sausage sounds alright but not the spices. I think that I would prefer some homemade brats.

I don't live anywhere that I can do any of these things, but don't count me out!  I'll EAT a can of beans and let the gases emit!  ;D

I know, I know...spoken like a true lady!

(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x125/luvmarley_bucket/cid_006701c66bbe0d2562b00900a8c0Dis.gif)(http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh260/lilbre15/fart.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/AnnieOakley.jpg)

I don't know about a rabbit, but I'll catch a fish, gut it, clean it and cook it up toot sweet!  ;D ;D

New tax on airline tickets
to fight global warming?
162 nation conference examining
ways of raising billions of dollars

A tax on airline tickets and an auction of pollution rights are just two ideas likely to be studied at a 162-nation conference examining ways of raising the billions of dollars needed every year to fight global warming.

More than 2,000 delegates opened the two-week meeting Monday, launching an 18-month process of intense negotiations on an agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Discussions began with a warning from poor countries and environmentalists that global warming already is harming millions of people, worsening the global food crisis and changing Earth more rapidly than scientists earlier predicted.

Climate change "for us is not a distant reality, but a present reality," said Amjad Abdulla of the Maldives, whose Indian Ocean island nation could vanish if sea levels rise just a few feet.

Recent cyclones that have battered Myanmar and Bangladesh "should be a wake-up call to all of us," he said, speaking for 49 nations grouped as Least Developed Countries.

The Bonn talks are to go into the details of an agreement to be concluded in December 2009 and signed in Copenhagen, Denmark. The talks are based on an accord reached in Bali last December when the United States, India and China indicated they would take part in a post-2012 arrangement.

"The critical issue will be financial engineering," said Yvo de Boer, the United Nations' top climate official.

"The developing countries made a major step forward by saying in Bali they are willing to take real, measurable and verifiable steps to limit their emissions—provided real, measurable and verifiable money is put on the table," he said.

The new climate change pact will succeed the first phase of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which requires 37 industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The United States agreed to the Bali accord after several of its objections were met. It had signed but refused to ratify Kyoto, largely because rapidly developing economies like India and China faced no climate obligations.

At least seven more major meetings are scheduled before Copenhagen, with the next in August in Accra, Ghana. Delegates say the new pact must be concluded by December 2009 so it can be ratified in time to smoothly replace Kyoto in 2012.

Few, if any, conclusions were expected from the Bonn talks.

The most difficult issues have been put off until next year, when a new and presumably more climate-friendly administration takes over in Washington.

De Boer told The Associated Press on Sunday that by 2030 the world will need to spend $200 billion to $300 billion a year to contain global warming and help developing nations adapt to their changing conditions—such as less rainfall, harsher storms, and the extinction or migration of species.

Several delegations have brought proposals to Bonn for raising those funds.

Mexico wants to create a pool of regular donations from each country according to its financial means, which would be distributed to developing countries according to need.

The European Union and several small countries are working on proposals for a climate tax on aviation and shipping.

The growing carbon market could be a major source of revenue. In the EU, industries are allocated pollution rights allowing them to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which they can trade on the open market. Companies that do not use all their credits can sell them to others that have exceeded their pollution limits.

Many delegations, supported by environmentalists, say those emission credits should be auctioned rather than allocated for free. Damien Demailly, of the environmental group WWF France, estimated such auctions could raise $40 billion annually.

De Boer has floated an idea to create a climate change bond that would be sold by developing countries to investors. The bond issue would evolve from the current system under which countries gain credit for projects they finance in another country that can verifiably reduce that country's carbon emissions.

Scientists warn the world's carbon emissions must peak within the next 10 to 15 years and then fall by half by mid-century to avert potentially catastrophic consequences.

Bill Hare, a scientist for the Greenpeace environmental group, said in the half year since Bali, a grimmer scientific picture has emerged regarding global warming. New reports say ice is melting at a record rate in Greenland and Antarctica, he said, and droughts in Australia, Ukraine and Russia have cut into food production.

"The negotiators here are gathering under a darkening cloud," Hare said. "The level of ambition is far too low."

Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change

 The Army is weighing in on the global warming debate, claiming that climate change is not man-made.  Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that "changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to ... the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles."

In an advisory to bloggers entitled "Global Warming: Fact of Fiction [sic]," an Army public affairs official promoted a conference call with West about "the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates [sic] some scientists and the media are indicating."

In the March, 2008 issue of Physics Today, West, the chief scientist of the Army Research Office's mathematical and information science directorate, wrote that "the Sun’s turbulent dynamics" are linked with the Earth's complex ecosystem. These connections are what is heating up the planet. "The Sun could account for as much as 69 percent of the increase in Earth’s average temperature," West noted.

It's a position that puts West at odds with nearly every major scientific organization on the planet. "The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling," Science magazine observes. So has the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, for their work on global warming.

West acknowledges that the IPCC and other scientific groups have "conclude[d] that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible." He argues that these groups have done a poor job modeling the Sun's impact, however, and that's why they have "significantly over-estimated" the "anthropogenic contribution to global warming."

In recent days, the science and politics of climate change have once again taken center stage. NASA's Inspector General just issued a report, acknowledging that political appointees "reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." Yesterday, the Senate began debating a bill that would cap carbon dioxide emissions -- considered one of the leading causes of man-made global warming.

After the jump: the Army's full press release.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dinklage, Lindy J. Ms OCPA <XXXXXX@XXXXXXXX.mil>
Date: Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Subject: Army Blogger's Roundtable: Global Warming (UNCLASSIFIED)
To:


Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

Army Blogger’s Roundtable

Global Warming: Fact of Fiction

11 AM Thursday, June 5

Is global warming really caused by humans, or is it simply the result of different aspects of the sun’s dynamics?

Dr. Bruce West, Chief Scientist, Mathematical & Information Science Directorate, Army Research Office, will discuss the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates some scientists and the media are indicating. Research conducted by Dr. West contends that the changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the sun’s dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.

Please reply to this message if you are interested in participating.

Lindy Kyzer

Public Affairs Specialist

Media Relations Division

Office of the Chief of Public Affairs

Department of the Army

703.XXXXXXXXX (w)

202.XXXXXXXXX (c)

XXXXXXXX@XXXXXX.mil



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

I wonder if Congress and the President will ignore the Army on this and will still continue with their carbon tax bills. Most likely.  ::) ::)

I am too nauseated to read more!  It is just totally unbeliveable how this lie has taken off and the ones that are paying for it is the PEOPLE.  It's a good thing I don't fly anywhere.  But even besides that, I was going to get a car when I moved into my new apartment (mine broke down right after taking this job), but the more I see and the more I think about it, I have to ask myself WHY?  Seattle has one to the best Public Transit systems in the nation.  The hard part would be getting my grandson to my place on my days off, but it can be done.  And a bit inconvient for grocery shopping, but I figure I'll get me one of the those "old lady" carts that you see em' pulling along behind them and I'll be just fine.
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j155/Crittersue/grocerycart.gif)

See!  Perfect! (Except for the beer.  I'll replace that with my addiction of.............................. Diet Pepsi!)

You've hit the nail square on the head there, my Brother!

 ;D   ;D

Hello GrammyLuv,

I think that I'll go in the opposite direction and get a mode of transportation that I can go where I want to and when I want to.


(Small Print: fully armed.)   ;D

and an excellent gas guzzler.

That's for sure!  Maybe I'll get on of these....

(http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd69/colinechevarria/mini-bike-frame.jpg)

Yeah!  THAT's the ticket!  I can just see me now!  ;D

Looks like that person is bowing down to the liberals.   :D :D

A DISASTER, GETTING WORSE

We wrote here about the economic disaster that goes by the name Lieberman-Warner, the carbon cap-and-trade system now being considered by the Senate.

The bill, as amended by Barbara Boxer, has now gotten even worse. Boxer's amendment adds more than 300 regulations and mandates.

Yesterday, four Republican Senators held a press conference on Lieberman-Warner. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma:

    [T]his would be the largest single tax increase in the history of the country. This is the -- using their own figures, it would be $6.7 trillion, with a maximum giving back over the life of this bill of $2.5 trillion. That leaves $4.2 trillion dollars.

Kit Bond of Missouri:

    According to EPA, under Lieberman-Warner, the average household power bills rise 44 percent by 2030. They lose $4,377 to higher energy prices and pay $1.40 more for gas by 2050.

    I, like Senator McConnell, toured my state this past week talking about energy. And you know something?

    When I told my Missouri constituents that the Senate this week would not be talking about moving a bill to open up the massive oil and gas supplies that we have in America to lower prices, that this body would be considering a bill to add huge price increases to all energy, they could not believe it.

    What is the Senate doing? That's a good question, because these higher U.S. energy prices would drive energy-intensive manufacturing jobs overseas to foreign countries with cheaper energy prices. Manufacturing workers are already suffering.

    We've seen half of U.S. fertilizer industry leave the country. Chemical companies and plastic companies are leaving the U.S. Just recently, Dow announced it was thinking of selling its plastic business because firms in Asia and the Middle East have access to cheaper energy.

    Adding to this misery, manufacturers estimate this bill will cost my state of Missouri over 76,000 jobs and cut between 3 million and 4 million jobs nationwide by 2030.

Flood of scientists continue to sign petition opposed to global warming alarmism, says Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
 
As the Senate prepares for floor debate on global warming legislation, the list of scientist signatories to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's petition against global warming alarmism is growing by about 35 signatures every day, announced OISM's Art Robinson.

On May 19, 2008, OISM announced that over 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs, signed a petition that states, There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate...

Signatories include such luminaries as theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, MIT's atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen and first National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz. More than 40 signatories are members of the prestigious national Academy of Sciences.

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of settled science and an overwhelming consensus in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

There is currently 31,072 signatures and still growing.

Brothers and Sisters,

This is one of those things where it is hoped by power and money-hungry thieves hope that a LIE told long enough and often enough becomes the truth. What they are attempting to do is ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL! It should be met with CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROSECUTION! It's a FRAUD where the connected will make huge sums of money and the unconnected will suffer greatly. Average people are the unconnected if you hadn't guessed, AND AVERAGE PEOPLE CAN FILE THE CHARGES! Average people can also sign petitions that would FORCE A VOTE on THIS LIE! If this much effort is expended, it would be a good thing to address many other issues at the same time that are also ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT'S TIME FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK!

Vote on climate bill is blocked in Senate

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would substantially raise gasoline and other energy prices.

Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote. The 48-36 vote failed to reach even a majority, a disappointment to the bill's supporters.

Majority Leader Harry Reid was expected to pull the legislation, in all likelihood pushing the congressional debate over climate change to next year with a new Congress and a new president.

The bill would have capped carbon dioxide coming from power plants, refineries and factories, with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century.

"It's a huge tax increase," argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal."

Supporters of the bill accused Republicans of muddying the water with misinformation.

"There is no tax increase," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., one of the bill's chief sponsors said. She said the emissions trading system would provide tax relief to help people pay energy prices. And supporters disputed that it would substantially increase gasoline prices.

Four Democrats joined most Republicans in essentially killing the bill.

Both presidential candidates, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, were absent, although supporters of the bill said they had sent letters advising they would have voted for the bill.