Articles Tagged "Web Article"

In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban “conspiracy theorizing.”

Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate “extremists who supply conspiracy theories” to disrupt the efforts of the “extremists” to propagate their theories.

In a 2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, “What can government do about conspiracy theories?”

“We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

THE global warming crisis is now being rebranded as a climate change crisis because it seems that instead of getting warmer, we may actually be getting colder.

Some years ago the New Scientist published a report based on an interview with an Indian glaciologist who predicted that the glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035 as a result of global warming.

This could have catastrophic water implications for people living in some of the most densely populated areas. As many as half-a-billion people are dependent on water from the Himalayas.

The new data, released in recent weeks, indicates that 30 of the 96 glaciers in the Himalayas actually increased in mass during 2007-2008. Glaciers are also expanding in the Antarctic, New Zealand, and Norway.

The findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often held up as representing “the consensus of scientists”—a pretty grandiose and presumptuous claim. And one that in recent days, weeks, and months, has been unraveling. So too, therefore, must all of the secondary assessments that are based on the IPCC findings—the most notable of which is the EPA’s Endangerment Finding—that “greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

Recent events have shown, rather embarrassingly, that the IPCC is not “the” consensus of scientists, but rather the opinions of a few scientists (in some cases as few as one) in various subject areas whose consensus among themselves is then kludged together by the designers of the IPCC final product who a priori know what they want the ultimate outcome to be (that greenhouse gases are leading to dangerous climate change and need to be restricted). So clearly you can see why the EPA (who has a similar objective) would decide to rely on the IPCC findings rather than have to conduct an independent assessment of the science with the same predetermined outcome. Why go through the extra effort to arrive at the same conclusion?

Click source to read FULL report from Chip Knappenberger

The continuing battle between climate realists and alarmists in 2009 will be most remembered for the leaked UEA CRU ‘Climategate’ emails, which provided an insight into the climate science ‘gate-keeping’ perpetrated by around 20 to 30 dominant, influential IPCC activist scientists. The unmasking of the ‘consensus’ where uncertainty is presented as certainty undoubtedly helped increase public scepticism about the computer modelled scare of a future CO2 driven climate catastrophe, which can supposedly be averted via more taxation and restrictions enforced by a global carbon dictatorship.

Fortunately, the Copenhagen orgy of climate alarmism, vested financial interests, environmental extremism, rich celebrity hypocrites, and politicians out of touch with reality and voters, failed to produce a meaningful agreement or legally binding treaty. Common sense would suggest that this marks the end of climate policy lacking a sound scientific basis and political feasibility. However, the global warming industry gravy train has so many passengers that the climate summit circus can’t afford to be diverted by reality. Meanwhile, the alarmist mainstream media, such as the BBC, continued to bombard the public with predictions of climate doom, which intensified in the run up to the Copenhagen Summit.

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even outright fraud, I’ve been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those columns, I even wrote: ‘And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science without the political spin.”

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists, concerned more with politics than with science.

25 Nov 09 - (Excerpts) "Not since Henry Kissinger fled a team of LaRouche organizers, in the back of a delivery truck in New York City's Central Park in the early 1980s, has an obese fascist moved so fast to escape an angry crowd, as Al Gore did today in Chicago.

Appearing at a bookstore in the downtown Loop, Gore was confronted by a team of demonstrators from a grass roots group called "We Are Change," as he was signing his latest fascist screed on the global warming swindle.

Gore bolted from the bookstore, raced down an alley, jumped into a waiting car, and tried to speed off, with protesters chasing after him and banging on the car. Midwest LYM organizers, who were also on the scene to confront the global warming swindler, provided an eyewitness account of Fat Albert's flight of fear.

H/T IceAgeNow Gore flees in panic from Chicago book signing

CLIMATE change sceptics in the Liberal Party will not be silenced despite Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull's contention there is ''overwhelming support … right across the board'' within party ranks for a carbon trading scheme.

The sceptics dominated debate on climate change in a meeting of the Victorian division of the Liberal Party yesterday.

One rank-and-file Liberal member was given rousing applause when he said global warming was a natural phenomenon and the theory that human activity had caused it was ''absolute rubbish''.

Another speaker said those proposing action on climate change were working towards creating a ''world government'', while a third said any engagement on the issue would signal that the Liberals had ''raised the white flag''.

Deconstructing Gordon Brown's speech to the Major Economies Forum on climate change.

On 19th October, Gordon Brown made a high-profile speech on climate change policy to the Major Economies Forum in London. As a lead-in to the Copenhagen conference in December, this was widely reported in terms such as '50 days to save the world'.

Of course, the Prime Minister did not exactly say that, but headline writers did not have to get too carried away to derive this from the actual statement: 'In every era there are one or two moments when nations come together and reach agreements that make history because they change the course of history, and Copenhagen must be such a time. There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course for the next few decades, so as we convene here we carry great responsibilities, and the world is watching.'

In the language of international summitry, this is still pretty eye-catching, so it is perhaps interesting to analyse some of the rest of the speech, which makes the case for how vital it is to reach an agreement in Copenhagen.

CNSNews.com) – As the world focused on President Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a small group of determined scientists gathered in a Senate office building to present evidence backing their claim that climate change is caused not by man but by nature, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the hope for a greener planet.

John Kwapisz, organizer and moderator at the panel discussion, recalled Obama’s speech at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, Pa., last month as a way of illustrating the dramatic tone used by those who embrace global warming as a dire and eminent threat.

“That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing,” Obama said on Sept. 22 at the summit. “Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”

“No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline,” Obama said. “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”

Have you heard the one about the international climate scientist buying land in New Zealand? An isolated, cold and elevated hideaway could be become de rigeur in family wills to try to protect future generations against rising sea levels, drought and heatwaves. Actually there's no punchline here. It's just a rumour. But it's also an uncomfortable realisation that some experts studying the data may have already decided what the future looks like.

Australian climate scientists argue about how vividly they should describe in public their global warming projections. I listened over lunch one day as a group of well-known scientists shared darkening, urgent observations while referring anxiously to their children's future. Publicly they've been more cautious. One of the older scientists counselled they should never cross over into rhetorical advocacy but always speak precisely to the science with all its attendant qualifications. That's how science works. The system of research, peer review and publication has spawned remarkable and reliable leaps in understanding and invention from medicine to technology.

But a younger, passionate scientist argued that such niceties were not observed by climate change deniers and corporate opponents of greenhouse gas mitigation who regularly launched sweeping statements with no facts at all. Those campaigns were holding back vital, stronger political measures, he said. Wasn't it time scientists spoke out more?