Articles Tagged "Opinion"

The latest propaganda from the Global Warming pseudo scientists is an article titled, "Leaking Siberian ice raises tricky climate issue," stating that because of a warming world, methane gas and carbon dioxide, which have been trapped under Siberia's frozen soil for 10,000 years, are now escaping to the surface at an accelerated rate. This is said to be because of thinning permafrost in the region over the past five years.

They go on to say that they have no idea of how much permafrost has thinned or disappeared. The main reason they admit to not knowing how much ice has thinned or disappeared is basically because none really has. This report is just another propaganda tool, released to the public to try and convince us of the idea that Global Warming is real and happening now.

Since these regions of the world first became frozen wastelands some 10,000 years ago or more, both Methane and CO2 have escaped into the atmosphere. The bottom line is nothing has changed today from what the situation was then.

As I have stated many times in the past, there is absolutely no physical proof of Global Warming viewed anywhere on the planet.

Many scientists believe that the level of carbon dioxide, as well as the earth's temperature has been steadily increasing in recent years as the result of the burning of fossil fuel. Yet many other scientists have challenged this thinking.

The world governments are pushing a massive world-wide reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide. The Cap and Trade scheme will cap the level of emissions in developed countries and trade this reduction to the developing nations resulting in a massive redistribution of wealth.

One doesn't have to be a climatologist to simply apply some critical thinking to this issue. The geologically recent ice age resulted in massive ice sheets extending to the middle of this continent, but subsequent warming long ago melted them back to the polar regions. What mechanism caused that massive reduction of ice? It was not the result of burning fossil fuels.

One interesting fact heading into the mid-term elections: Almost none of the GOP Senate candidates seem to believe in the idea that humans are heating the planet. A few hedge their bets—John McCain says he’s no longer sure if global warming is “man-made or natural.” (In 2004, he told me: “The race is on. Are we going to have significant climate change and all its consequences, or are we going to try to do something early on?”) Most are more plainspoken. Marco Rubio, for instance, attacks his opponent Charlie Crist as “a believer in man-made global warming,” explaining, “I don’t think there’s the scientific evidence to justify it. The climate is always changing.” The most likely cause of that change, according to Ron Johnson, who is leading the Senate race in Wisconsin: “It’s far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity.”

The political implications are clear. Climate legislation didn’t pass the current Congress, and it won’t have a prayer in the next one. If the Republicans take the Senate, James Inhofe has said that the Environment and Public Works Committee will “stop wasting all of our time on all that silly stuff, all the hearings on global warming.” And in the House, Representative Darrell Issa says that he would turn his Oversight and Government Reform Committee over to the eleventeenth investigation of Climategate, the British e-mail scandal. But, for the moment, it’s less the legislative fallout that interests me than what this denial of climate change says about modern conservatism. On what is quite possibly the single biggest issue the planet has faced, American conservatism has reached a near-unanimous position, and that position is: pay no attention to all those scientists.

Click source to read FULL report from Bill McKibben

Award-winning filmmaker, photographer and mountaineer David Breashears spoke at the University of Southern California Monday about the dramatic reduction of glacier size in the Himalayas and the human impact on global climate change.

Breashears urged the audience to reduce global climate consequences starting with their own commitment, actions and reduction in personal use of energy.

While he used compelling photographs to show the changes in glacier mass in the Himalayas, he forgot to use facts to link climate change to human impact.

Breashears was extremely critical of U.S. government officials for failing to be proponents of climate change. “Our leadership has failed us,” said Breashears, later adding that, “our country is a mess.”

He pleaded his case that global temperatures were quickly changing with amazing photographs that show the ice of the Himalayan glaciers vanishing over time.

Global warming supporters are trying to recover from the recent email scandal but their science is as flawed as ever.

Globally, annuallyaveraged surface temperature has increased by just under 1 C since the late 1800s. The rate of increase over the past 50 years is nearly twice that of the past century. However, this warming trend is not uniform across the planet. National Climatic Data Center: US Department of Commerce-

One should point out that temperatures in the " troposphere" where "weather" occurs in our atmosphere, upward temperature is NOT global and in the areas of the troposphere which show temperature changes- there has been only a slight increase. According to global warming theory- temperature change and rate' of temperature change in the troposphere should be much higher than surface temperatures- they are NOT. This sort of kicks the theoretical structures behind global warming right in the face. In fact, measurements of troposphere temperatures were so at odds with global warming theory, that "NEW" " ADJUSTMENTS" were made in climate models used by the IPCC in order to show that yes- indeed the troposphere was warming up "just as predicted" how convenient when one can just adjust' the numbers, models, methods of analysis of raw data to fit YOUR version of the truth.

Fed up that their research is being quoted erroneously and used for advocacy, the international scientific community has rightfully ganged up on the credibility-plagued Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

An independent review group supported by the academies of science from 100 countries has demanded that the UN-sanctioned IPCC stick to the facts, avoid policy advocacy, and come up with a conflict-of-interest policy to ensure IPCC members are not moonlighting for agenda-driven companies or organizations. With global warming advocates criticizing skeptics for being in the pockets of Big Oil, it only stands to reason that the IPCC be held to the same standard.

The science community had no choice. The IPCC's litany of exaggerations and inexcusable mistakes -- including its erroneous and unfounded assertion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear in 30 years -- undermined the science community's work and gave fodder to critics that man-made global warming is a bunch of hooey. While reaffirming that global warming is real, the majority of the scientific community could no longer risk the public's lack of confidence. Although the review body did not refute the IPCC's core assertion that the world is heating up, neither could it allow the IPCC to meander along unchallenged. It is properly demanding an overhaul of the panel.

Click source to read FULL report

Global warming science is still evolving; will future IPCC reports reflect that?

On Monday an independent review found that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has downplayed uncertainties surrounding climate science. The review also found that the IPCC needs more robust safeguards against conflicts of interest, that it had committed "unnecessary errors" by failing to meet its own standards, that it had inadequately flagged its use of nonscientific sources, that it made claims with "high confidence" based on "weak evidentiary basis," and that it gave short shrift to dissenting scientists.

And for all that, the review added that the IPCC "has been successful overall and has served society well."

This week's report, in keeping with three earlier investigations into the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, limited its inquiry to the "processes and procedures" of the IPCC. While it found those wanting, it also saw no need to question their scientific result.

That's too bad, since the state of the science has moved on considerably since the IPCC concluded in its 2007 report that climate change was "unequivocal." A forthcoming paper in Annals of Applied Statistics details the uncertainties in trying to reconstruct historical temperatures using proxy data such as tree rings and ice cores. Statisticians Blakeley McShane and Abraham Wyner find that while proxy records may relate to temperatures, when it comes to forecasting the warming observed in the last 30 years, "the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature."

The latest news is most countries in the world are backing out of the pseudo scientists' wishes for limits on greenhouse gases and global warming legislation. Most industrial countries realize it is too expensive an endeavor to partake in at a time when the world's economy is teetering on collapse, since over two hundred billion dollars would be needed from wealthy countries to help poor countries conform to proposed climate change rules. Poor countries also do not need any more restrictions on industrialization than they now have which would limit what little growth they may have.

The actual quote of money needed from industrial countries is one hundred billion dollars, but all realize that the cost is expected to double or even triple in the coming years if all were to get on board. Such fantastic amounts of money have to come mostly from the American taxpayers in the form of double gasoline prices, tax amounts equal to energy use amounts of all energy bills, higher prices for all goods and services and across the board tax State and Federal tax hikes for all Americans.

In this time of having the worst economy since the Great Depression with most people just scraping by from day to day and some not making it at all, it is insane for any rational individual to even consider anything which would lessen what economy we have.

Three modern myths have been sold to the American people: the promise of a transparent administration (President Obama); the promise of a more ethical Congress (Speaker Pelosi); and the myth of “global warming,” or climate change.

The first two are daily proving suspect and now the third is sinking with greater force than melting icebergs, if they were melting, which many believe they are not.

After spending years promoting “global warming,” the media are beginning to turn in the face of growing evidence that they have been wrong. The London Times recently reported: “Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.”

It gets worse, or better, depending on your perspective. Newsweek magazine, which more than 30 years ago promoted global cooling and a new ice age — and more recently has been drinking the global warming Kool-Aid — headlined a story, “Uncertain Science: Bickering and Defensive, Climate Researchers Have Lost the Public’s Trust.” Newsweek does its best to cling to its increasingly discredited doctrine, but the growing body of contrary evidence only adds to the public’s disbelief.

In Canada, the polar bear — which has been used by global warming promoters to put a cuddly face on the issue — is in danger of not being endangered any longer. CBC News reported that the polar bear’s designation as a “species of special concern” has been suspended “while the government reviews the polar bear’s status and decides whether to renew the classification or change it.”

Well, I survived Earth Day. But only just. Thanks to all the hot air and greenhouse gases being spewed into the atmosphere, especially from that nasty Icelandic volcano, the global temperature likely went up by at least a couple of degrees.

But here it was simply a lovely spring day, the kind that reminds us we live in one of the cleanest, most pollution-free cities on the planet (except, of course, when the potheads cloud it over during their annual toke-in).

Nevertheless, the relentless drive to make the Lower Mainland ever cleaner and greener continues to consume our province's most creative minds.

The reason? There's a lot of green in it, especially when you consider the hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and subsidies up for grabs by environmental insiders -- and the excuse it gives government to grab those dollars back and more from regular taxpayers through various eco-levies.