Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Articles On Environment


Evan

Recommended Posts

Climate change nonsense

Adam Smith Institute

by Tim Worstall

 

"An awful lot of nonsense about climate change is spouted, as we know.

I think the thing that bugs me the most though is that people don't

seem to be understanding the very reports they rely upon for their

logic and calls to action. You know, things like various greenies

insisting that we should revert to local and regional economies ...

when the very IPCC report they rely upon for predictions of climate

change states that this would make things worse, not

better." (06/13/09)

 

http://tinyurl.com/l46snx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • nivek

    109

  • Outback Jack

    10

  • Evan

    6

  • Ro-bear

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Does climate catastrophe pass the giggle test?

Ideas

by David Friedman

 

"The argument for doing drastic things to prevent global warming has

two parts. The first has to do with climate change, with reasons to

think that the earth is getting warmer and that the reason is human

action, in particular the production of CO2. The second has to do with

consequences of climate change for humans. ... What I find

unconvincing is the second half of the argument. More precisely, I

find unconvincing the claim that climate change on the scale suggested

by the results of the IPCC models would have catastrophic consequences

for humans." (07/05/09)

 

http://tinyurl.com/qybdml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Article? Peanutting? Ahh, article...

 

A loony sect of modern flagellants

Las Vegas Review-Journal

by Vin Suprynowicz

 

"There is one good thing about the lunatic 'global warming' catechism

now taught our youth in the mandatory government youth propaganda

camps: When they are finally forced to admit that the globe has been

cooling again, not warming, for the past decade, yet proceed to demand

precisely the same remedies for 'global cooling' (which they will

cleverly dub 'climate change') as they did for 'global warming' --

that is to say higher electric bills, more government controls, taxes

sufficient to cripple our industrial economy and generally lower our

standard of living in keeping with the world socialist doctrine that

America and particularly the 'capitalist rich' must be 'punished' and

'made to sacrifice' in penitence for our former prosperity -- there is

finally a decent chance they'll simply be laughed out of

town." (07/19/09)

 

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/51133022.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global cooling hits Al Gore's home

 

It was delightfully appropriate that, as large parts of Argentina were swept by severe blizzards last week, on a scale never experienced before, the city of Nashville, Tennessee, should have enjoyed the coolest July 21 in its history, breaking a record established in 1877. Appropriate, because Nashville is the home of Al Gore, the man who for 20 years has been predicting that we should all by now be in the grip of runaway global warming.

...

A new study by an Australian analyst, Joanne Nova, based on official figures (available at the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute), shows that since 1991 US federal spending alone on climate change has been $79 billion. The cost of international carbon trading in 2008 was a staggering $126 billion, and is soon likely to run into trillions, making buying and selling the right to emit CO2 "the largest single commodity traded" in the world. Yet for all that money (along with countless billions more spent in Britain and elsewhere), "no one is able to point to a single piece of evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on global climate".

 

Are we all missing something – apart from all that money, of course?

 

I don't know how reliable that British source is, but the story is still kinda funny!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Everything you ever wanted to know about global warming

Heartland Institute

by James Taylor

 

"One of the greatest benefits of owning this book is having on-demand

access to a comprehensive assessment of just about any alleged global

warming scare imaginable. For example, the next time an evening news

story sends your spouse into conniptions regarding the plight of polar

bears, you can quickly thumb to Section 8.4 of Climate Change

Reconsidered and reassuringly note that polar sea ice is showing

little or no sign of shrinkage due to human activity, polar bears

survived extended periods of much warmer temperatures than today, most

polar bear populations are growing rather than shrinking, and

predictions of future population decline are dependent on heavily

flawed computer models." (08/12/09)

 

http://tinyurl.com/pt7rya

 

 

Global warming policies are the real national security threat

Competitive Enterprise Institute

by Iain Murray

 

"Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) is trying to win Senate support for the

ruinously expensive cap-and-tax global-warming bill, claiming it will

prevent threats to national security, according to the New York Times.

He argues that global warming will destabilize the developing world,

creating climate refugees and exacerbating conflict. The American

military will need to respond to these problems through either

humanitarian-relief missions or armed intervention. This argument is

flawed for two reasons. First, there is no reason to believe the bill

being debated will stop any of this. Second, there is every

possibility that the bill might make things worse." (08/11/09)

 

http://tinyurl.com/q8qhbb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2349/Desperation-Time-NYT-Promotes-National-Security-Climate-Fears--But-claims-are-merely-a-redux-of-1970s-laughable-scares-about-famines-and-resource-scarcity

 

'Desperation Time': NYT Promotes 'National Security' ClimateFears - But claims are merely 'a redux of 1970's laughable scares aboutfamines and resource scarcity'

 

 

 

Climate Depot's Inconvenient Rebuttal to 'National Security'Climate Argument

Sunday, August 09, 2009ByMarc MoranoClimate Depot

 

Climate Depot Editorial

 

Desperation time has arrived for the promoters of man-made globalwarming fears. As the science of man-made climate fears continues tocollapse, new tactics are being contrived to try to drum up waning publicsupport.

 

A series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-madeglobal warming fears continues unabated, includingnew peer-reviewed studies,real world data, agrowing chorus of scientists dissenting (includingmore UN IPCC scientists),open revolts inscientific societies, more evidence thatrising CO2 is a boon for the atmosphere, and the Earth'sfailure to warm. In addition,publicopinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion and evenactivists atgreen festivals are now expressing doubts over man-made climate fearsand a Nobel Prize-winning economist is wishingfor 'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans ofa climate threat. (See "Related Links" at bottom of thisarticle for more inconvenient scientific developments.)

 

The core of the claims made in the August 8, 2009New York Times article by John M. Broder are stated as follows:“Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, theMiddle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of foodshortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climatechange that could demand an American humanitarian relief or militaryresponse.”

 

The heart of the “national security” argument is merely a redux of the1970's laughable scares about famines and resource scarcity. Those samebaseless claims and fear mongering arguments are simply being shamelesslyupdated with a military uniform. It is sad to see members of our armedforces wearing their uniforms promoting such unsubstantiated andembarrassing drivel. (See:'Just When You Thought Global Warming Couldn't Get More Stupid, In WalksJohn Kerry': 'Of all the ridiculous arguments in support of climatelegislation, national security has to be the most idiotic' : Alsosee:Sound Familiar? 1977 CIA book warned a coming 'ICE AGE threatened tocause major migrations and mass starvations' )

 

Climate Depot's Inconvenient Rebuttal to “National Security” ClimateArgument:

 

1) The "national security" angle is based on unprovencomputer models which even the United Nations IPCC admits are not“predictions.” UN IPCC lead author,Dr. Kevin Trenberth refers to climate models as “story lines.” “Infact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been.The IPCC instead proffers 'what if' projections of future climate thatcorrespond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journalNature's blog on June 4, 2007. So the mighty New York Times is reportingthat some members of the military, led by Sen. Kerry, are essentiallyplaying no more than “what if” “war games!”

 

Memo to New York Times and Senator Kerry: Climate Models “predictions”are not evidence.

 

In addition, Ivy league forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of theUniversity of Pennsylvania, found that the climate models used by UN IPCCto make these scary “predictions” or “what if projections” of the future,violate the basic principles of forecasting.“Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the UN IPCC violated 72,” Armstrong'sresearch revealed on January 28, 2009. (Also See:Climate Models Likened to Sony 'PlayStation' Video Games & 'TinkerToys' )

 

2) Aside from the fact that the "national security"angle rests on speculative doomsday scenarios, perhaps the biggestwhopper of the new movement is the implication that we must pass theCongressional climate bill to "address" or "remedy"the problem and thus “avoid” future wars and loss of life. Leftunanswered in this argument is how a climate bill that will haveno detectable impact on global temperatures will help"solve" the alleged looming national security threat. Mostshockingly, the Congressional climate bill would not even impactatmospheric CO2 levelsaccording to the EPA!

 

3) The New York Time also makes the following remarkableassertion: “But a growing number of policy makers say that the world'srising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a directthreat to the national interest.”

 

NYT Claim: “World's Rising temperatures?”: Huh? Is NYT must not be privyto latest temperature data showing a lack of warming for a decade andglobal cooling in recent years and peer-reviewed analysis showing the20th century was notunusuallywarm?

 

NYT Claim: “Surging Seas.” Why did NYT reporter Broder fail to do amoment's worth of research on the alleged “surging seas?” If only Broderhad taken a moment to look at the latest data. See:'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise' says Royal NetherlandsMeteorological Institute – December 12, 2008; Report: Sea Level rise 'hasstumbled since 2005' – Meteorologist Anthony Watts – December 5, 2008;Renowned Sea Level expert predicts sea level 'will rise in the 21stcentury by about 8 inches' - April 23, 2009 & Global warming may notaffect sea levels, study finds - January 11, 2008; Plus see June 2009comprehensive sea level report,)

 

NYT Claim: “Melting Glaciers”: Contrary to the NYT's assertions, manyglaciers are advancing. See:Alaskan glaciers at Icy Bay advance one-third of a mile in less than ayear ;Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier advancing ;Hubbard Glacier in Alaska Advances ;Western Canadian glaciers advance ;'Weather variations, not global warming cause Himalayan glaciers to melt'- August 8, 2009 ;Research Reveals global warming not cause of Kilimanjaro glacierreduction – September 24, 2008

 

4) The New York Times notes Sen. Kerry and others are “nowbeginning to make the national security argument for approving the[Congressional] legislation.”

 

The ridiculous assumption that mankind could realistically reduceemissions to alter future weather patterns has been exposed as"climate astrology." It is truly an insult to our men andwoman in uniform to have Sen. Kerry and a small contingent of militarybrass attempting to sell these spurious climate claims. If we suspendedbasic science and reality and assumed Sen. Kerry was correct and the"undecided" Senators may be swayed to support a climate billbased on these alleged "national security" fears, how would abill that did not impact CO2 levels or temperature be the"solution"? Sadly, the New York Times (and the ususallydependable Broder) did a completely one-sided article on this issuebased.

 

NYT reporter Broder could have noted that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tradebill is“scientifically meaningless” in terms of reducing temperatures.Broder could have noted that even Obama's EPA has conceded that theCongressional climate bill would not even detectably reduce atmosphericCO2 levels!! (See: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson:“U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”) So thequestion looms, why would “undecided” Senators be swayed to vote for aclimate bill for “national security” reasons when the bill is purelysymbolic?! Broder irresponsibly failed to inform NYT readers of thesebasic truths. (Also see:No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climatecrisis', we would all be doomed' &Climate policy reduced to 'magical solutions' -- 'all aboutsymbolism...with little or no impact on real-world outcomes')

 

5) NYT's shameless quote of the day: “We will pay for this one wayor another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former headof the Central Command. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissionstoday, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we willpay the price later in military terms. And that will involve humanlives.”

 

Gen. Zinni needs to do his homework on global warming claims. Had theGeneral done more research, he would quickly realize that the estimated1.6 billion people in the world without electricity who are leading anasty, brutish and short life, will be the ones who “will pay” for globalwarming solutions that prevent them from obtaining cheap and abundantcarbon based energy. (See:1)It is amoral issue! – 'People cannot cook'...Chad's Global Warming Inspired Banon Charcoal leads to 'Desperate' Families! - January 16, 2009 2)Black clergymen protestRobert Redford 'link his environmentalism to racism' 3)Poor Kenyansrebel as UK grocery store's “carbon friendly” policies may stop foodexports – 4)AfricanActivist: 'African life span is lower than it was in U.S. and Europe 100years ago. But Africans told we shouldn't develop' because wealthyWestern nations are 'worried about global warming': 'Telling Africansthey can't have electricity and economic development – is immoral; 5)India: 'It is morally wrong for us to reduce emissions when 40% ofIndians do not have access to electricity' ; 6)Obama Advisor Warren Buffett 'repeats criticism of cap and trade, sayingit would be a huge, regressive tax')

 

Sadly, Sen. Kerry and Gen. Zinni's unfounded “national security” climateclaims will be the object of public humiliation for them in the not toodistant future.

 

It is a testament to the growing strength of the skeptical scientificcase against man-made climate fears that Sen. Kerry and retired VA Sen.John Warner (who sadly embarrassed himself in his final year in theSenate promulgating such "national security" climate drivel --see:Fmr. Sen. Warner: 'There's a building base of evidence that globalwarming is contributing to much of the instability of the worldtoday') have to resort to such transparent and yes...laughableclaims.

 

Science and history will issue a harsh judgment against Sen. Kerry andothers for this silly "national security" argument. The realityis, global warming does pose a serious national security threat to theUnited States -- global warming "solutions"-- that is. TheSenate is deliberating on a global warming cap-and-trade bill that willincrease our dependence on foreign sources of energy, close refineriesand cost American jobs. (See Bloomberg News:report from June 26, 2009: U.S. oil companies may cope with theclimate legislation by "closing fuel plants, cutting capitalspending and increasing imports." Bloomberg also reported that"one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020" andthis could "add 77 cents a gallon to the price ofgasoline." )

 

Former Vice President Al Gore has touted the Congressional climate billas a first step toward"global governance." "National security" will bea threat to the U.S. if it contemplates an international treaty whichwill inevitably lead to a loss of sovereignty for the U.S. as well as theimposition of some form carbon taxes. Americans should welcome a fulldebate about the merits of “national security” threat from man-madeglobal warming. The more light that is shown on this line of reasoning,the more skeptical the public will grow. Dare we say: Bring iton!

 

[Update: Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo of IceCap.Us, notes that the new"national security" climate claims have a familiar ring tothem. D'Aleo writes: "Take for example theseexcerpts from a 1977 book ”The Weather Conspiracy, the Coming of the NewIce Age” written for the CIA on the consensus of the climatologistsof the time that an ice age threatened to cause major migrations and massstarvations."]

 

Get Climate Depot's editorial in pdf formhere.

 

Related Links:

 

'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More than 60 German Scientists DissentOver Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears 'Pseudo 'Religion'; UrgeChancellor to 'reconsider' views – August 4, 2009

 

Climate Revolt: World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring ofScientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to BeRemoved! – July 29, 2009

 

American Physical Society to review its current climate statement after agroup of 54 prominent physicists petitioned APS revise – May 1,2009

 

American Physical Society editor conceded a“considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists - 2008

 

Polish National Academy of Science 'published a document skeptical ofman-made global warming' – April 2008

 

Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,'peer-reviewed study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009

 

Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible forrecent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming andcooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009

 

Peer-Reviewed Study Demonstrates Anthropogenic Contribution to GlobalWarming Overestimated, Solar Contribution Underestimated - GeophysicalResearch Letters- March 3, 2009

 

March 2009 U. S. Senate Report:'More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made GlobalWarming Claims'

 

India Issued a report challenging global warming fears –2008

 

Canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagreethat global warming science is “settled” – 2008

 

Japan Geoscience Union symposium 2008 survey'showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCCreport'

 

Skeptical scientists overwhelm Prestigious Geologist conference in Norwayin 2008: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, evendismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reportshere &here

 

UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCCscientists deal with climate

 

Climate Fear Promoters Try to Spin Record Cold and Snow: 'Global warmingmade it less cool' - July 27, 2009

 

'Find ways to exaggerate': Nobel Prize-winning economist wishes for'tornadoes' and 'a lot of horrid things' to convince Americans of globalwarming threat! - July 14, 2009

 

Professor William Calvin Unhinged! Calls on scientists to use'interventional activism' to combat global warming! Climate will changeour ways of doing science' - Claims 'long term thinking can be dangerous'– August 3, 2009

 

Economist disses farmers?: 'The big problem with climate change, frankly,is that farmers think it's a hoax' - August 3, 2009

 

MIT Climate Scientist Lindzen: 'Ordinary people see through man-madeclimate fears -- but educated people are very vulnerable' - July 6,2009

 

Climatologist Dr. Spencer: 'where are all of the news stories about factwe've had no tropical storms yet this year?' - August 3,2009

 

AGW RIP? Is It Time for Next Eco-Scare Already? Gore's producer LaureDavid touts plastic crisis: 'Plastic waste is in some ways more alarmingfor us humans than global warming' - July 31, 2009

 

Spoof:NYT in 2019: Scientists Now Say Global Warming Fears Fading Away - ClaimThere Never Was Warming Consensus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Global warming: Get facts right first

Orange County Register

by staff

“Beforeoverhauling the U.S. economic system and imposing Draconianrestrictions on nearly every aspect of life, it’s advisable to get thefacts straight. That’s why we join the U.S. Chamber of Commerce indemanding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hold a full hearingon arguments for — and against — the theory that man-made globalwarming poses catastrophic consequences. And if the government refuses,we support the Chamber’s plans to seek a court trial and judicialdetermination of whether warming even is continuing and whether it’s athreat if it is. We also concur with thousands of Californians whogathered at a Sacramento ‘tea party’ last week, demandingreconsideration of the state’s own Global Warming Solutions Act thatimposes economy-numbing regulations similar to those considered by theEPA to save us from a problem that may not exist.” (08/30/09)

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/nz5jec

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.

 

The average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. August was also below the long-term average. The analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.

 

For the 2009 summer, the average temperature of 71.7 degrees F was 0.4 degree F below the 20th Century average. The 2008 average summer temperature was 72.7 degrees F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
What happened to global warming?

BBC News [uK]

by Paul Hudson

 

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact

that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but

in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed

any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not

forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to

be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what

on Earth is going on?" (10/09/09)

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Alrighty, I have stayed mostly out of all the global warming discussions, and I did so on purpose. Therefore the following may well have been posted before - if so, sorry for that. I have but recently stumbled over it and I think it can do much good for those who like discussing the whole thing.

 

The talkorigins.org of global warming

 

*waves and disappears again*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

"Envoronmental thinker and independent scientist" admits what AGW deniers have claimed for years. That AGW is a tool to eliminate democracy.

"Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Envoronmental thinker and independent scientist" admits what AGW deniers have claimed for years. That AGW is a tool to eliminate democracy.

"Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

This is really tin-foil hat stuff. There is no conspiracy to "take away democracy" because of global warming. It doesn't constitute anything but a bunch of legislation at the most. Maybe take away people's money...

 

If there were a catastrophic event, that might scrap representative government for a while, but then that would mean that global warming was real to begin with. In that case, it would be the catastrophic event, not some conspiracy, that would destroy democracy. By this logic, we should do whatever we can to prevent the catastrophy.

 

If you're looking for a conspiracy to "take away our freedoms" by either side, look to terrorism.

 

He thinks only a catastrophic event would now persuade humanity to take the threat of climate change seriously enough, such as the collapse of a giant glacier in Antarctica, such as the Pine Island glacier, which would immediately push up sea level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.