Guest Essay: Bjorn Lomborg on Climate Change Budgeting.


Reprinted with permission, copyright Bjorn Lomborg

A New Dawn

The benefits of climate-change policies are limited and costly. Instead, the president-elect needs to coolly evaluate competing priorities, says Bjørn Lomborg.

By BJøRN LOMBORG

Most generations face large and daunting challenges. But few generations have the promise of leadership that could address them rationally. Fortunately, President-elect Obama is uniquely positioned to achieve such a feat and help the world solve some of its most entrenched issues.

He will be swamped with suggestions as to what to do first — perhaps none more impassioned than those who advocate dealing with man-made climate change. He will be told that it is the biggest threat facing humanity and that its solution is the mission of our generation. In many quarters, global warming is now positioned as a kind of uber-issue: a challenge of such enormity that it trumps all others.

Science and economics say otherwise. The United Nations science consensus expects temperature increases of 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, leading to (for example) sea-level increases of between one-half and two feet. Yet such a rise is entirely manageable and not dissimilar to the sea-level rise of about one foot we dealt with over the past 150 years. And while warming will mean about 400,000 more heat-related deaths globally, it will also have positive effects, such as 1.8 million fewer cold-related deaths, according to the only peer-reviewed global estimate, published in Ecological Economics — something that is rarely reported.

Most economic models show that the total damage by the end of the century will be about 3% of global GDP — not trivial but certainly not the end of the world. Remember that the U.N. expects that by the end of the century the average person in the world will be some 1,400% richer.

And yet, macro policy-making such as the Kyoto Protocol has been supported by an ill-founded perception of impending doom. The framers of Kyoto will ask that the global economy spend $180 billion per year for each year of the coming century mitigating CO2 emissions, with an eventual reduction of global temperature of an almost immeasurable 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. It is perhaps time to ask if this can really be our first priority and generational mission.

This would not matter if we had infinite resources, and if we’d already solved all or most other problems.

But we don’t, and we haven’t. Especially in the current economic climate, we have to prioritize what we do — we have to coolly look at the costs and benefits of policies.

If we don’t do this, we in the developed world will preside over a moral tragedy: We will waste an extraordinary sum of money doing relatively little good, while millions of people suffer and die from problems which we could easily have consigned to history.

Take hunger. Impassioned pleas for climate action are based on the fact that agricultural production might decrease because of global warming, especially in the developing world. But again, we need context. Integrated models show that even with the most pessimistic assumptions, global warming would see a reduction in global agricultural production by the end of the century of 1.4%. Since agricultural output is expected to more than double over the same period, this means that climate change will cause the world’s food production to double not in 2080 but in 2081.

Global warming will probably in isolation cause the number of malnourished to increase by 28 million by the end of the century. Yet the much more important point is that the world hosts more than 900 million malnourished right now; though we will add at least three billion more people to humanity before the end of the century, the total number of malnourished in 2100 will probably drop to about 100 million. And in a much richer world, such remaining hunger is entirely a consequence of a lack of political will.

Crucially, focusing on tackling hunger through climate change policy is amazingly inefficient. Implementing Kyoto at $180 billion annually, we would avoid two million hungry by the end of the century. Yet spending just $10 billion annually, the U.N. estimates we could save 229 million people from hunger today.

Whatever is spent on climate policies saving one person from hunger in 100 years could instead save 5,000 people today.

This same point is true, whether we look at flooding, heat waves, hurricanes, diseases or water shortages. Carbon cuts are an ineffective response. Direct policies — such as addressing hunger directly — do a lot more.

Some say we just need to go much farther in cutting carbon. But more of a poor solution doesn’t make it better. Even if we could completely stop climate change through carbon cuts (an utterly unrealistic proposal), 97% of the hunger problem would remain, because only 3% of it will be caused by global warming.

More generally, since climate change mainly exacerbates many of the world’s existing problems, reducing emissions will only do marginal good. If global warming is the proverbial straw that will break the camel’s back, spending huge sums on removing the straw is a poor strategy compared to reducing the camel’s excess base load at much lower cost.

Mr. Obama has promised both an ambitious climate strategy investing $150 billion in new technologies and a doubling of foreign assistance to $50 billion. With a teetering U.S. economy, he has indicated that he may have to scale back the $150 billion investment. The Vice President-elect has clearly said that the doubling of aid might have to be postponed.

Now more than ever, there needs to be trade-offs between competing priorities. His foreign aid should focus on areas like direct malnutrition policies, immunization and agricultural research and development.

These would be some of the best investments possible. Why? This year a team of the world’s top economists, including five Nobel Laureates, identified the very best investments in improving the world in a process called the Copenhagen Consensus. They found that if Mr. Obama’s increased foreign development spending was focused on these areas, it could achieve 15 to 25 times more good than the cost.

We should also deal with climate change, but in a smarter way.

Kyoto shows what not to do. In 1997, politicians made lofty promises, which were to be fulfilled in the future. Well, the future has arrived and most countries did not want to pay enough — not just the United States, but the European Union, Japan and Canada.

Making even grander pledges at the next negotiation in Copenhagen in 2009 will likely just waste another decade. Mr. Obama’s undertaking to spend $150 billion over the next decade on clean technology could make a huge difference.

In climate change, the Copenhagen Consensus experts found that research and development of low-carbon energy technologies could do 11 times more good than the cost, whereas simple CO2 cuts produce a disappointing 90-cent return on the dollar.

Amazing good could come from using Mr. Obama’s $150 billion primarily to invest in creating new technologies, rather than simply subsidizing existing ones.

Investing in existing inefficient technology (like current-day solar panels) costs a lot for little benefit. Germany, the leading consumer of solar panels, will end up spending $156 billion by 2035, yet only delay global warming by one hour by the end of the century.

If Mr. Obama invested instead in low-carbon research and development, the dollars would go far (researchers are relatively cheap), and the result — maybe by 2040 — will be better solar panels that are cheaper than fossil fuels. Complex Kyoto-style political negotiations would become unnecessary because everyone, including China and India, will want to switch. The change will come because in large part Mr. Obama’s $150 billion will have made the technologies cheaper. Following Mr. Obama’s lead, countries should agree to spend 0.05% of their GDP on energy R&D — increasing the global R&D ten-fold, yet costing 10 times less than Kyoto. This could realistically and cost-effectively fix global warming in the medium term.

Harnessing the immense intellectual and scientific capital of the great nation of the United States to help solve the problems of the world in a rationally and morally defensible way is our true generational mission.

It will require true leadership, and the courage to fly in the face of much popular opinion — traits Mr.Obama has already exhibited in great measure.

Change is definitely needed. Focusing on investment in malnutrition and disease could do immense good at low cost, brandishing a world where healthier and stronger humans can take charge of their own lives and deal better with the many challenges of the future.

Global warming also needs strong leadership. Avoiding the lost decades and misused resources of a Kyoto approach would be paramount, and a focus on 0.05% of GDP R&D would fix long-term global warming at much lower cost and with much higher probability of success. This, truly, would be change we could believe in.

Copenhagen Business School professor Bjørn Lomborg is the organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus and author of “Cool It.”

Advertisements

About JoeDuck

Internet Travel Guy, Father of 2, small town Oregon life. BS Botany from UW Madison Wisconsin, MS Social Sciences from Southern Oregon. Top interests outside of my family's well being are: Internet Technology, Online Travel, Globalization, China, Table Tennis, Real Estate, The Singularity.
This entry was posted in climate change, Poverty and Development, science, Science & Technology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to Guest Essay: Bjorn Lomborg on Climate Change Budgeting.

  1. JoeDuck says:

    Earlier, on “As the World Warms…..”

    Joe Duck Wrote:
    JCH I find Hansen’s *research* to be good but his *generalizations* about the implications of that research to be sensational, especially his fretting over what he seems to think are signs of impending catastrophic global climate change. In my view most of the global warming scientists are doing good research but then focusing narrowly on either obscure points or very unlikely scenarios – sort of seeing the world through anthropogenically and catastrophic tinted glasses.

    There is global warming and humans contribute, but there is little reason to think catastrophe is looming. More importantly we simply cannot afford to implement most of the big money suggested mitigation efforts like the irrational Kyoto protocol (now largely discredited as a solution anyway).

    It is *very clear* from the historical record and projections of the IPCC that catastrophic change is very unlikely, yet the commercial media loves the “An Inconvenient Truth” angles even though most of them have been discredited now. That film is a travesty of science – e.g. showing pictures of Katrina and suggesting it’s a GW phenomenon!?

    JCH Wrote:

    Without his time scales, “impending” is loaded with disinformation. On the internet there are a multitude of incorrect time scales attributed to Jamaes Hansen. That is not his work; that is the work of individuals who can’t read.

    And that conclusion is not clear at all. Where on earth did you get that?

    Or are we back to 2100 again? Please don’t tell me that.

  2. JoeDuck says:

    JCH I agree impending is way too vague.

    Hansen and Gore have been suggesting that failing to act within 10 years may well lead to catastrophe because after that it’ll be too late. This specious nonsense has little to back it up in the literature as you surely know.

    I base most of what I say on the IPCC 4 projections of likely climate and sea level changes over the next century:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

    Note however I’m more skeptical than many IPCC folks and FAR more skeptical than Hansen about the importance of the uncertainties with respect to ice sheet melting, which I think is drama not science.

    I think many scientists – certainly those posting at realclimate – routinely focus too much attention on scenarios that are extremely unlikely but have unbounded risks – again a drama not science scenario akin to worrying about meteors striking earth.

    Like Lomborg and most of the economist folks who study climate change and related costs, I think it is not responsible to focus so much attention on expensive mitigation schemes to reduce the risk of highly improbable catastrophic events.

  3. JCH says:

    As you have been told many times, the IPCC SLR stuff was purposefully incomplete. Why stick on it? Because you like the incomplete numbers?

    “We do not state anywhere in our paper that 2m or more of SLR by 2100 has been published as a peer reviewed and “informed estimate”. We do state that this has been ‘inferred’ and ‘argued’ as a “viable 21st century scenario”. …”

    So they are left with the feeble position that it has been inferred. Where? By whom?

    “Your main criticism seems to be reserved for Jim Hansen. Despite the fact he is my boss, he is certainly not immune from criticism on that score. However, you are, I think, wrong in this case and have misread him. …” – Gavin S.

    Even Gavin agrees with my conclusion, and that is not going to be the case more than once out of a million. 🙂

  4. horatiox says:

    Freeman Dyson link–cool. FD’s thoughts on “global warming” remain relevant, and, thankfully, he’s not another soy-milk-swilling PC liberal:

    Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet.

    —–

    While Lomborg make a few decent points, he seems a bit tame, if not milquetoast. Cockburn has said much the same contra-AGW, but does not, shall we say, lick boots, whether of the IPCC people or American politicians.

  5. JoeDuck says:

    JCH I’m not sure I follow your conclusions from my little exchange with Gavin over at http://RealClimate.org , but telling me the same things over and over as they love to do at RC does not move me to change my common sense positions which I’d suggest are – to an *unbiased observer* – about as obvious as the fact of warming itself, to wit:

    1) There is global warming

    2) It is *very likely* that humans are responsible for most of that warming from GHG emissions.

    3) It is *very unlikely* that expensive mitigations will justify their cost.

    4) It is *very unlikely* that catastrophic climate change due to AGW will happen this century.

    JCH as I said my concerns are with Hansen’s alarmist tone. Surely you have at least some issue with the tone of this testimony?
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf

    I think you might go to jail if we followed his advice? We don’t want that!

  6. JoeDuck says:

    Horatiox – I think Lomborg’s style is partly from his personality but also helps avoid some of the contentious babble that surrounds the issue. If he was more strident he’d be easy to brush aside as a ranting skeptic. Also he *believes* IPCC is in general a good scientific document (because it is). Lomborg is NOT an AnthroGW skeptic – a position that is almost as hard to justify as being a GW skeptic 10 years ago.

    cf Lomborg with http://climateaudit.org ‘s Steve McIntyre who has been doing some great work to challenge the math and data underlying many warming assumptions, but takes a very confrontational style. http://RealClimate.org won’t even link to his work which represents some of the best amateur climate related work and some of the best statistical approaches anywhere.

    It has become very unfashionable to suggest anything but the partly line on global warming – ie that catastrophe is looming and we must reduce CO2 immediately, regardless of cost or consequence. This view strategically begs the more important question which is “If we spend it all on mitigations, what do we do about all the other problems that we CAN solve?”

  7. JCH says:

    4) It is *very unlikely* that catastrophic climate change due to AGW will happen this century.

    4) is beyond insignificant.

    The exchange was between group of scientists who concluded, I believe, that SLR would be 2 meters or less by 2100. Th scientists misread Hansen to have said that 5 meters, nonlinear, was more likely than 23 inches, linear. What he was saying is that nonlinear is more likely than linear.

  8. JCH says:

    “he seems a bit tame, if not milquetoast …”

    He’s in retreat – a beaten man.

  9. JCH says:

    Joe – the scientists in the exchange found that SLR due to Greenland alone would not exceed 2 meters by 2100, but could not rule out it reaching 2 meters by 2100.

  10. JoeDuck says:

    JCH I agree your view is correct (ie consistent with most available science) that the likelihood of catastrophic change is “beyond insignificant”. That should begin, not end a conversation about how much to worry about and how much to spend on mitigating risk.

    Given the plethora of other potential catastrophic risks and current health conditions the tiny chance of climate catastrophe should be put in perspective. I would argue that a massive human influenza epidemic, a moderate scale nuclear war, and a devastating global economic depression are all *far more likely* than climate catastrophe. So why not mitigate those risks first? They are also unbounded risks, a point foolishly made at RC to “justify” massive climate spending.

    On what point do you disagree with Lomborg? Do you think he has not assessed the risk properly? Do you think his other priorities are insignificant? I’ve never read a critique of Lomborg that actually takes him on point by point. Even Scientific American just did an ad-hominem attack issue The reason is that …. he’s right on all the main points.

    Update: Kare Fog, a biologist from Denmark, does take Lomborg on point by point but when I’ve reviewed that site I generally feel Fog as a very strong personal axe to grind rather than seeking the bottom line truth: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

  11. JoeDuck says:

    JCH I think a lot of the differences in opinion about how to proceed come very simply from differences in how one wants to discount costs/activities/catastrophes/mitigations based on present vs. future considerations. I favor conventional discounting and risk assessment models, almost all of which suggest *moderate cost mitigations* and a non-alarmist approach to the problems.

    Stern, a respected economist in the UK, suggests that normal economic discounting should not be applied to climate issues. Few economists agree with him on that but if he’s correct then we should be mitigating the sh** out of CO2 emissions even if the costs are huge.

    Here is a good NYT summary of the debate that may determine if we squander only billions or *trillions* on mitigations that will at best delay the warming a few years:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/business/21leonhardt.html?ex=1329714000&en=846690277bf060af&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

    I have a great personal note from Mendohlson about this issue as well – will try to dig that up …

  12. JCH says:

    What i meant is that 2100 has no significance. Whether catastrophic climate change happens in 2075 or 2099 or 2130 or 2201 or 2500 or 3000 makes zero difference to me. What matters to me is whether or not what we are doing will result in catastrophic climate change.

    We have burned somewhere around 40 to 50% of the extractable fossil fuels. I have zero doubt that if we burn far enough into the remainder there absolutely will be catastrophic climate change.

    I cannot understand at all why you keep coming back to 2100 as though is is some sort of decision point. It’s not a decision point. It’s not a date that has any significance. That is is unlikely to happen before 2100 is devoid of argumentative value. It’s telling me the grenade will not go off within a half second. That’s not what I want to know. I want to know first: is the grenade activated; and second, if activated, do I have enough time to either get away or pick it up and throw it away.

    If it’s not activated, fill’er up.

    I’m sorry, but Stern’s discount approach makes good economic sense. It would be foolhardy as heck to value this like a savings bond. Lunacy, frankly.

  13. JoeDuck says:

    JCH 3000 😯 ! Are you time jiving? You cannot reasonably remove time from these equations or all hell breaks loose with any analysis.

    Without a time constraint we start talking about the fact that eventually the sun will start to expand and fry the earth. It’s not something to worry yourself about now.

    Sure, 2100 is somewhat arbitrary but IPCC seems to like using that time frame to discuss changes. In fact part of the reason to doubt the alarmists is that somewhat contrary to what Hansen seems to infer there is little data to support “tipping points”, basically one of the holy grails of alarmism.

    No discounting? Surely you jest again…. It is why you would refuse to loan me $1000 today even if I promise to pay you back $2000 …. sometime in the future.

  14. glenn says:

    Another mistake by Hansen’s insano team at GISS…error found by a blogger.

    GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm– a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month’s data.

    Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at Climateaudit.org. They noted that NASA’s data didn’t agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.

    McKintyre, the same man who found errors last year in GISS’s US temperature record, quickly noted that most of the temperature increase was coming from Russia. A chart of world temperatures showed that in October, most of Russia, the largest nation on Earth, was not only registering hot, but literally off the scale. Yet anecdotal reports were suggesting that October was actually slightly colder than normal. Could there be another error in GISS’s data?

    An alert reader on McKintyre’s blog, climateaudit.org, revealed that there was a very large problem. Looking at the actual readings from individual stations in Russia showed a curious anomaly. The locations had all been assigned the exact temperatures from a month earlier– the much warmer month of September. Russia cools very rapidly in the fall months, so recycling the data from the earlier month had led to a massive temperature increase.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Deja+Vu+All+Over+Again+Blogger+Again+Finds+Error+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article13410.htm

  15. JCH says:

    Lol.

    “Could there be another error in GISS’s data? …”

    Yes, there could be. Is it likely that human beings are not causing global warming? Nope.

  16. JCH says:

    Joe, where did I say “no discounting”?

    Stern uses a discount rate. His rational is not a lot different than your disapproval of my flippant 3000.

    I once earned $577,000 on one discount rate bet. I’m not so bad at it.

  17. JoeDuck says:

    JCH fair enough – as you note Stern argues for a lower rate, not zero.

    577k? …yowza. I like that better than the 100 Euros I lost this fall in an Arctic Sea ice bet at RC.

  18. JoeDuck says:

    Glenn I like ClimateAudit though I wish he would spend less time being snarky and more on the implications of the findings. It’s not clear to me that the errors he uncovers are major ones – certainly nothing to challenge the conventional IPCC ideas about warming.

  19. JCH says:

    I thought betting on sea ice was sort crazy on both sides as the likely outcome wouldn’t have much significance.

    But I did think you would win that bet. Didn’t sea ice fail to reach last years level. What happened?

  20. glenn says:

    (18) Joe it is significant if you consider they were saying based on their numbers that October was the warmest month on record when in fact it turned out to be colder than normal.

    But that is the whole point right…they just don’t know.

    You would think if someone like Hansen wanted to put people in jail over climate violations he should be held to the same standard. They have made a lot of mistakes and it is absurd to think we can hold the world hostage to the tune of 10’s of trillions of dollars over an issue where they clearly have a lot more work to do.

    The fact is Hansen is just another raging whacko with an agenda – to hell with quality numbers and accuracy…let’s just spin it to get our agenda through.

    Another fine example of the hypocrisy from the raging left.

  21. glenn says:

    Joe here is an interesting interview with Chris Horner about Al Gore and the global warming alarmist. I stand corrected…Al Gore has received over 300 million in the last three years. This whole thing is another massive fraud by the raging left.

    http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3183249&referralPlaylistId=0bc56e415b2e04a215f6a3dba55a3402fc523c09

    It is unbelievable that the people of this world actually drink this kool-aid.

  22. JCH says:

    Where did GISS say the October in question was the warmest on record?

    In 1908 Arrhenius, a scientist, predicted that our growing combustion of fossil fuels would spew CO2 into the atmosphere and warm the earth’s temperature. Already has happened.

    He did not have computer models, or sophisticated scientific equipment. All the deniers have to do is prove one little test-tube tinkerer wrong. They can’t do it. All of ExxonMobil’s billions cannot prove Arrhenius’ basic notion incorrect.

    This is not a fraud of the raging left.

  23. glenn says:

    Gee I wonder why Al Gore would turn down a position in Obama’s administration to be the Climate Czar…

    President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is flirting with creating a White House “Climate Czar,” but climate change crusader Al Gore says he doesn’t want the job.

    Maybe because he would have conflicts of interest in his government position that would jeopardize the cash cow he has created?…shocker…more hypocrisy from the left. If Al Gore were truly interested in changing climate what better place than in the administration of the farthest left politician ever…

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/13/no-gore-in-any-climate-czar-post/

    The fraud continues…

  24. horatiox says:

    The global warming debate serves as another indication of ideology taking precedence over facts, evidence, and empirical science. Ideologues aligned with the Gore/IPCC side (left, if you will) are matched by rightist AGW deniers. The left may be just as ruthless and manipulative in its pursuit of truth (or what it perceives to be truth), and in advancing the cause of AGW, and that desire to “win” (instead of say offering lab. proof of C02 leading to warming on a macro scale) might include skewing data/evidence to suit its needs, or to obtain grant money–Crichton thought that a major factor in the AGW hype.

    Vilification of the enemy another key strategy of ideological battles, as the recent election amply demonstrated: it’s Obama the communist-jihadist, vs McCain the crypto nazi, or Palin the wolf-hunting hick in overalls, etc. Liberals, however, often seem to portray themselves as the party of Truth, justice, Due Process, “rights”, etc. while making use of the same nefarious and libellous tactics of the right (even the extreme right): Bush is a war criminal, but no one dares say anything about a Hillary (who has marched along with the GOP on nearly every issue), and the rest.

  25. glenn says:

    Gingrich always seems to nail it on the head on so many issues…

    Many of you have written to me to ask why I recently taped an advertisement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for The Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded by former Vice President Al Gore.

    I completely understand why many of you would have questions about this, so I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons. First of all, I want to be clear: I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.

    But here’s what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that’s a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can’t have a slogan of “Just yell no!”

    I have a different view. I think it’s important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we’re going to get the former. That’s why I took part in the ad.

  26. glenn says:

    Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests study on black carbon
    By Krishna Ramanujan

    A detailed analysis of black carbon — the residue of burned organic matter — in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions.

    A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper’s lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published.

    As a result of global warming, soils are expected to release more carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, which, in turn, creates more warming. Climate models try to incorporate these increases of carbon dioxide from soils as the planet warms, but results vary greatly when realistic estimates of black carbon in soils are included in the predictions, the study found.

    Gee shocker can you believe even Cornell is becoming skeptical. What will Al Gore and his loyal disciples do now?

    http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov08/SoilBlackCarbon.kr.html

  27. JCH says:

    Science is ongoing. Every week studies are published. Once published, other scientists get out the knives.

    Cornell is unlikely to be more skeptical about global warming, but whatever floats your boat.

    This is not a new area of research:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080323210225.htm

  28. glenn says:

    UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

    Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? – Warming Fears in ‘Dustbin of History’

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

  29. glenn says:

    Scientist fired by Al Gore was told, “science will not intrude on public policy”.

    Noted energy expert and Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer has sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming “mistaken”.

    “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect”, said Happer. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.”

    Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. “The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

    Gee SHOCKER…Al Gore and liberal Democrat extremists are just part of a massive fraud being perpetuated against taxpayers!!!

    http://www.dailytech.com/Princeton+Physicist+Calls+Global+Warming+Science+Mistaken/article13773.htm

    Hopefully someday we will have proper investigations and put these scumbags behind bars where they belong and not out making millions of dollars scamming people worldwide.

  30. glenn says:

    2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

    Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.

    The first, on May 21, headed “Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts” , reported that the entire Alpine “winter sports industry” could soon “grind to a halt for lack of snow”. The second, on December 19, headed “The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation” , reported that this winter’s Alpine snowfalls “look set to beat all records by New Year’s Day”.

    Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

  31. glenn says:

    Classic….

    LOL

    The 12 Days of Global Warming…

  32. glenn says:

    Environment minister Sammy Wilson: I still think man-made climate change is a con

    Spending billions on trying to reduce carbon emissions is one giant con that is depriving third world countries of vital funds to tackle famine, HIV and other diseases, Sammy Wilson said.

    “I think in 20 years’ time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all. Because there is now a degree of hysteria about it, fairly unformed hysteria I’ve got to say as well.

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html

  33. Joe Duck says:

    Glenn I still think the science suggesting human causes is accurate (simply put most of the climate people insist that the only way to account for the warming data is to bring “CO2 forcing”, which is human caused, into play in the equations.

    But I also think that the *action plans* many suggest are absurd and expensive. Catastrophe is not looming, esp. now that warming appears to be delayed due to other forces.

    What is happening is what often happens when we have science show us something – people argue about the mostly accurate science rather than the current course of action.

    Climate Scientists and politicians are *terrible* people to provide economic advice which is a big problem now – most have less understanding of basic economics than a truck driver. Hmmm – I’m not sure anybody understands economics anymore.

  34. horatiox says:

    LA, San Fernando valley, SoCal mtn areas
    have seen snow, ice, and record cold over last few weeks. Perhaps that was the “haywire phase” of AGW according to GoreTech.

    Dr. Chu, the new energy guy for the BO-Team appears to have fairly impressive scientific credentials–though he’s worked closely with BP and other oil corporations, and also with the Goreans.

    Hopefully Chu (and the BO-Team as a whole) will be an improvement over the GOP pro-Exxon energy/environmental tactics, or the eco-lite of Gore & Co, but don’t get yr hopes up–Big Oil’s still in charge (as is ChevvyFord, inc), it’s just that the sort of PC, slightly greenish corps like BP, Chevron, Occi. have come into power, instead of the outlaw Exxon, Mobil, Shell, etc. Happy Contrarian New Year

  35. glenn says:

    (33) Joe the more I read and researching dissenting positions I don’t believe man has as much impact on the climate change as they are predicting. Look at the sea ice…it is once again back at the levels of 1979.

    I think the sun has far more impact on this issue then they currently understand.

    One thing for sure…the GW alarmists are just scammers and they are trying to manipulate scientific data to promote an agenda and Al Gore is leading the way.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Year+at+Same+Level+as+1979/article13834.htm

    (34) Horatoix the oil lobby has been disastrous to this country in so many ways. It is a perfect reason to abolish paid and funded lobbying.

    Happy New Year!

  36. horatiox says:

    McIntyre has written some interesting things on GW, and possible data-manipulation on the part of AGW people:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4687

    For the usual semi-hysterical GoreBot, or real climate fan, anyone who quotes McIntyre also votes GOP, or admires Mein Kampf, eats pork, puts rufies in the sorority girls’ beer at keggers, etc.

    Of course, in real life questioning AGW models doesn’t mean anything specifically political at all: it’s standard practice in statistical research to question samples with wide confidence intervals/margins of error.

    The AGW skeptics are on both sides (or all) of the political aisle. I doubt a McIntyre approves of the writing of an Alex Cockburn and the counterpunch crew, tho’ they do agree in terms of doubting the AGW/IPCC modelling. It’s sort of the “Hitler liked mozart meme”: that Der Fuhrer enjoyed Mozart, and Billy Bob enjoys Mozart (well maybe 15 minutes or so) does not all imply Billy Bob approves of Hitler, except to demagogues and leftist hysteria cases.

  37. glenn says:

    More interesting background on the continuing GW scam…

    http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2009/01/noaa-collects-global-temperature-data.html

    NOAA Collects Global Temperature Data at a Crematorium

    They moved their Max/Min Temperature System to a Crematorium because the previous location recorded temperatures too low.

    Move along folks nothing to see here! Just Al Gore making another $100 million personally off one of the biggest scams ever to face the people of this earth! This make Madoff look like Mother Teresa!

  38. horatiox says:

    Uh oh–more bad news for the Church of Gore/IPCC/AGW from Priceton physicist William Happer:

    http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/

    “””Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
    “This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
    Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change. He asked last month to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming.”””

  39. glenn says:

    Yet another group of scientists creates report that disputes Human Cause for Global Warming. This time for Japan. They don’t even blame Godzilla!

    http://www.dailytech.com/Japanese+Report+Disputes+Human+Cause+for+Global+Warming/article13934.htm

    But we can all blame Al Gore for wasting billions of taxpayer dollars from around the world. He should get 1 day in jail for every dollar he has earned off this scam.

    That should be the new benchmark for all our politicians…1 day in prison for every dollar they make off their corrupt practices! Talk about prison over-crowding this would make the drug arrests look non-existent!

  40. JCH says:

    If scientists who spew refuted crap had to spend time in jail, you would have 4 jailbirds right there.

  41. glenn says:

    Another American Hero that JCH would like to see in jail. Anyone else see the common thread with the raging left loons…reward the scumbags and marginalize true American heros!

    Astronaut Harrison Hagan “Jack” Schmitt has joining the growing rank of scientists exposing the global warming scam popularized by Al Gore (the Maddoff of climate change).

    http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-us-astronaut-jack-schmitt-joins-global-warming-skeptics

    Of course someone like JCH would state hey isn’t Jack the astronaut that fell down on the moon during a walk…doesn’t that make him wrong. It is the kind of logic we would expect from the raging left.

  42. horatiox says:

    Global warming skeptics are on both sides of political aisle, however, Glennster, are they not (for that matter, so are raging loons). What’s fairly typical of the leftist loon, however, may be his dogmatic insistence on the global warming ideology as espoused by Father Gore (who btw barely passed his Physics for Dixiecrats 101 course at Haw-vahd). Facts that conflict with that ideology–like experiments showing that CO2 is benign– no longer matter, and those who utter them are like assumed to be de facto members of the Klan, or something. (I do think some of the AGW people have said it could be GHG other than CO2, but that’s not always obvious…)

    For some reason, I trust say Freeman Dyson, and other academic scientists more than I do Big Al, tho’ Big Al did invent, or helped invent the Internet, supposedly. Big Al does have a hottie esposa–Big Miss Tipper– who helped invent internet censorship, and also concocted some tasty southern recipes–Tipper Bar-be Que. Mmmmmmmm

  43. Joe Duck says:

    The more I review the climate data ideas the more convinced I become that we are focusing on human-caused climate changes that are *real* but nearly as *important* as many suggest.

    Clearly there is a modest level of unusual warming and clearly human activity is likely to play a role in most if not all of that worming. However it is also clear that natural forces often swamp out those human impacts – this appears to be happening now – the earth is probably in a cooling phase for at least another few years.

    Also agree with one of the clear thinking climatologists out there, Roger Pielke, who suggests that it’s a mistake to primarily look at global changes when regional change is what really matters if you want to fret over consequences. For example in some areas warming will reduce the number of climate deaths where in others it will increase them.

    Glenn I still think you are discarding too many mainstream science points of view in favor of the outliers but certainly agree they should not be stifled as they have been. It’s very ironic that the folks who largely have controlled the global warming drama show for *decades* are constantly whining about how much political interference they face when in fact it is the reasoned skeptics who are far more disparaged – often without ANY scientific justification.

    I think one can fairly confidently predict based on IPCC data that in 30 years we’ll have a world for the most part unaffected by the approx <1 degree of extra warming we’ll see in that time frame and <1 foot of sea level rise. I only hope we don’t kill off millions of people in the mean time trying to mitigate that non-threat.

  44. glenn says:

    There is only major problem with letting any of this slide…

    A lot of good people had their reputations, names and careers ruined by the raging left. That needs to be corrected and the people that profited deeply from this scam need to be to justice just like Maddoff or anyone else the rips people off like this.

    And to your last point Joe…people are being severely affected by this propaganda and leftist extreme environmental agenda. I am starting to believe that many of the people involved in scams this size all share a common element – some form of mental illness. What possesses an individual to rise to the level that has gone here and allow people’s lives to be totally trampled.

    I can almost understand Al Gore’s perspective he’s in it for the money and power but it gets to a point where it is so absurd and the hypocrisy is staggering.

    There needs to be some amends made here.

  45. glenn says:

    Seriously Hansen should be arrested and put in jail. This is completely absurd.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

    Kermit could do a better job predicting the future than this idiot. This is a prime example where some has been all-consumed with an ideology and puts his ideology ahead of anything else…Hitler was the same kind of person as Hansen.

    When will we ever learn?

  46. JoeDuck says:

    Glenn I don’t think it’s reasonable to compare Hansen to Hitler! In fact Hansen’s exaggerations are getting increasingly hard to explain away and I think his very odd interpretations of data are going to come back to bite him in the butt very soon as they should. You can only call for global catastrophe so many times before folks stop believing you.

  47. horatiox says:

    President ‘has four years to save Earth’

    Ah note the normative claim: not part of the data itself, is it, Herr Doktor Hansen. Where is the argument (not to say data) which would prove the earth ought to be saved??

    Serio, I agree Hansen’s a quack with capital Q (and was corrected by US Govt re some of his faulty research), but not at all a Hitler.

  48. glenn says:

    (46,47) The comparison to Hitler was based on someone letting their ideology control their position and statements beyond any form of a sane perspective.

    The problem is when ideology overwhelms reasonable discussion and debate you end up a person that does a lot of damage. The whole idea…doesn’t matter if we are wrong it is the point of what we are trying to do that is what is important…as Colonel Potter used to say: “Horse Hockey!”

    I guess we can settle on calling him chicken little!

  49. JCH says:

    Back in the real world:

    http://www.ametsoc.org/awards/2009awardrecipients.pdf

    You can go back to your fairy tale now.

  50. glenn says:

    (49)…LOL…I get it…show an award given by the same organization that has been pushing this agenda since 2003…of course they are going to give him an award.

    They should open a play on Broadway called the GW Follies!!!

    It would be more entertaining than this falsified scientific data skewed to favor their political agendas. Never thought actuaries would be that helpful in the real scientific work being done…but I guess I was wrong.

    Never forget almost 30 years ago I asked an actuary about the result within a trend for insurance claim data and he responded well what do you want the number to be?

    JCH this will finally be exposed as the greatest scam ever put on the human race.

    Holman Jenkins said it best…

    In a million years, the time it takes the earth to sneeze, the planet will likely be shorn of any conspicuous sign we were ever here, let alone careless with our CO2, dioxins, etc. Talk about an inconvenient truth.

  51. JCH says:

    Like most gore haters, Holman Jenkins is a moron.

  52. horatiox says:

    Some recent studies on methane (like 20 times more potent a GHG than CO2–which may not be potent at all) in the arctic reveal another problem with Gore/IPCC AGW models: what if GW’s not primarily “A” (anthropogenic), but a natural phenomenon? Humans did not cause methane to occur in sea beds.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hundreds-of-methane-plumes-discovered-941456.html

    At any rate, the usual sentimental-liberal’s search for a culprit for GW should irritate us. Besides, even GOP hick conservatives weren’t the ones who built those factories and automotive plants (assuming they play some role in GW) in Illinois and Michigan, Ohio, etc.: thank unions and yankee industrialists–mostly demos–for that. Thank Ford and Chevy, and Co (pround sponsor of Gore, and now Team BO). The cowboy-conservatives–or zionists like BP– however, generally own the petroleum corps to fuel them.

  53. glenn says:

    Gee maybe the 650 top climatologists at the December UN Global Warming conference were all Gore-haters as well.

    Why is it when the liberals are exposed of their scams it is automatically a form of hatred (incl: racism)?

    At December’s U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world’s top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?”

    The earth’s temperature peaked in 1998. It’s been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.

    http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

  54. JCH says:

    Did Dr. Gee issue any opinions about Obama’s citizenship?

    You have to be one of the biggest suckers on the face of the earth.

    Anyway, can you link me to any of Dr. Gee’s peer-reviewed work on climatology?

  55. glenn says:

    JCH your party may have won the White House even though they scream about $50 million spent on Bush’s last inauguration somehow Obama & Co has managed to spend over $170 million on this one…during this economy…you my friend are the sucker!

    Here is the latest Rasmussen report…showing Americans are now changing their opinion on human caused global warming. See Americans are smarter than your average bear once they are given the facts. 44% now believe the climate change is part of a long-term planetary trend.

    Of course Democrats by majority still blame humans for global warming…well it is either humans doing something bad or Bush…LOL. The Democrats just want to control people’s lives so they use these scams to increase their own power and wealth…keep drinking their kool-aid!

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people

  56. JCH says:

    For 8 years the White House has lied to the American people about the science of climate change, so some of them are understandably confused. Like you, for instance.

    The lying just ended.

  57. horatiox says:

    The BO inauguration par-tay has now met and exceeded the criteria of Obscene: first, the Demo hoe-down featured only on HBO (yo, like change the f-n channel). Then a whole list of parties, celebrations, the usual preacherly-sentimental rhetoric. Note also that one-time Bush crony Colin Powell now has been welcomed onto the BO team; indeed the DLC has scheduled a private dinner celebrating Generalissimo Powell (what was that word the Kossacks formerly chanted? Transparency).

    …meet the old boss, same as the new boss…

  58. JCH says:

    As usual, Glenn is lying.

    Bush spent 43 million in private funds, which is 10 million more than Clinton spent. Obama is spending 50 million, which 7 million more than Bush spent.

    The 170 million is the combination of private and public sending. Much of the public spending is for security.

    If you want to believe Bush had no security? Well, self-delusion is your thing.

  59. glenn says:

    (56) The inconvenience in The Inconvenient Truth was the truth itself. Al Madoff Gore was caught red-handed with complete misrepresentations of scientific fact.

    But of course we can’t let facts get in the way. As he said to one of scientists as he fired him…science is not going to get in the way of policy!

    The day of reckoning is coming…

  60. glenn says:

    (58) As usual you only want to manipulate numbers for your own benefit and throw out insults…LOL

    Here are some important things you left out…are you having a little problem reading the facts?

    Obama is spending $42.3 million more in private funds than Bush in 2005 and $33 million more in private funds than Clinton spent in 1993.

    So now we have cleared up that Goreism in your statement…lol.

    DC, Virginia and Maryland have requested an additional $75 million of GOVERNMENT money to help pay for police, fire and medical services (this is just part of the bill).

    Among the expenses: a Bruce Springsteen concert, the parade, large-screen TV rentals for all-free viewing on the national Mall, $700,000 to the Smithsonian Institution to stay open and, of course, the balls, including three that are being pitched as free or low cost for the public.

    But there are plenty of rich donors willing to pick up the tab.

    “They are not the $20 and $50 donors who helped propel Obama through Election Day,” said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. “These are people giving mostly $50,000 apiece. They tend to be corporate executives, celebrities, the elite of the elite.” – LOL…50k.

    “The finance sector is well represented, despite its recent troubles,” Ritsch said. “Those who worked in finance still managed to pull together nearly $7 million for the inauguration.”

    The entire point…is why spend anywhere near $170 million dollars? It is pure absurdity and immoral considering the condition our country is in. But this is exactly what the liberal Democrats do…they are not servants to this country as the elected position was intended to be…but they think they are part of a ruling class and the hard-working Americans are the servants.

    If anything this should have cost less than any previous inauguration – that would set the right tone. We are about to see the biggest spending administration in our country’s history and we will get very little for our dollar except a deficit that will mortgage this country’s future indefinitely.

    When this spend-thrift era ends in 2-4 years the backlash is going to be monumental and unfortunately many programs that actually help are going to decimated as payback rings high in DC.

    The whole thing is foolish.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/Story?id=6665946&page=1

  61. JCH says:

    Dear stooge,

    George Bush spent, in total, 157 million, which is 7 million more than Obama is projected to spend.

    It’s a business reporter (Republican).

    If that was your point, why didn’t you make it in the first place?

    Clue: it was never his point.

    It became your point when it became apparent that you swallowed the lie hook, line, and sinker.

  62. glenn says:

    (61)…your number don’t even add up.

    I corrected your Goreism’s once again I will state it you so can clearly understand your mistake.

    You stated:
    “Bush spent 43 million in private funds, which is 10 million more than Clinton spent. Obama is spending 50 million, which 7 million more than Bush spent.”

    and you continued…
    “The 170 million is the combination of private and public sending. Much of the public spending is for security. ”

    So let’s break it down.

    Obama is spending $42.3 million more in private funds than Bush in 2005 and $33 million more in private funds than Clinton spent in 1993.

    That was stated to clarify you errors. Also the source is ABC…not really known for the heavy right perspective…LOL.

    And now you are saying Obama is projected to spend $150 million but in your earlier post you said $170 million. But hey what’s $20 million among liberal wasteful spenders…lol. Maybe if you can throw more numbers around you can confuse everyone.

    I am sure you can come up with a way to blame Bush for Obama’s outrageous spending…lol.

  63. glenn says:

    JCH you can rejoice your deity has been made into an ice sculpture in Fairbanks Alaska. I am sure Palin is behind or it is Bush’s fault but it is a bust of Al Gore…of course his teeth are chattering and it is sculpted out of ice.

    It should for about as long as his GW scam does.

    Pictures at the link:
    http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/jan/19/al-gore-ice-sculpture-unveiled-fairbanks-invitatio/

  64. glenn says:

    More discrediting of that clown Hansen and mentally ill view on global warming!

    James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’

    Gore Faces More Scientific Blowback

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

  65. JCH says:

    He was never James Hansen’s “supervisor”.

    So how is Obama’s citizenship lawsuit doing? You seem to like fantasy.

  66. glenn says:

    This sure doesn’t look like fantasy…the only fantasy is that you think people like Gore, Frank, etc are decent human beings!

    The founder of the Weather Channel is ridiculing Al Gore over his calls for action on global climate change, saying in a column that global warming is a “hoax” and “bad science.”

    Coleman wrote that the Environmental Protection Agency is “on the verge” of naming CO2 (carbon dioxide) as a pollutant, and that seemingly all of Washington is on board with such CO2 silliness.”

    “I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it,” Coleman wrote, describing the decades-old theory that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere leads to global warming.

    “Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history,” Coleman wrote.

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

    PS – JCH we will never know the real truth behind Obama’s birth certificate. It is a fact though that the one on Obama’s disinformation site was in fact NOT his birth certificate as he claimed. The principle isn’t whether he is a citizen or not…it is his claims for transparency and honesty…it is all a sham like the majority of the policies and plans of the liberals in the Democratic party – they are ruining our country.

  67. glenn says:

    Maybe Al Gore can reference the climate on this planet to help his scam along.

    A study published in the latest issue of Nature indicates there is a distant planet — HD 80606b — which is four times the size of Jupiter and is able to heat up more than 1,200 degrees in just six hours.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Distant+Planet+Has+High+Temperature+of+2240F/article14090.htm

  68. glenn says:

    Two below honey!

    Minnesotans for Global Warming have created a new song to address Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s scam. Done to Van Morrison’s hit “Tupelo Honey,” they call it “Two Below Honey”

  69. JCH says:

    You are the one who is running a scam.

    The Australians are singing “Sweltering Matilda”.

  70. glenn says:

    (69) Yeah JCH I have pocketed over a $100 million so far spreading the word about the liberal policy and bad science behind Al Gore’s scam to top all scams…LOL

    Follow the money…PERIOD

    Your Messiah Obama is doing a wonderful job…what a farce he is going to drive this country into complete financial ruin we will be thinking this past fall were the great times by the time the Obama/Pelosi team get done with us. That is of course if he doesn’t get us nuked first…aye yi yi.

  71. JCH says:

    It great to hear prevaricators like you can’t make money on their lies.

    When Al Gore purchased Google and Apple stock, who did he scam?

  72. glenn says:

    (71) Al Gore has made over $100 million dollars personally and directly off his GW hype scam. So he scammed everyone.

    His carbon credit gigs are just classic…what a fraud those are! Just like Catholic Indulgences…donate to the church and get a free pass on a sin…LMAO.

    Seriously folks if someone walked up to you and said hey get behind this idea (policy) and you will make over $100 million dollars as long as you hype it up…how many takers would we have?

    JCH of course you just want to deflect with your points about Google and Apple…of course if you said Tyson we might have something to talk about…LOL.

  73. JoeDuck says:

    Glenn I really think Al Gore is sincere though I disagree with many of Gore’s conclusions and the exaggerations in AIT. I am VERY Skeptical of the 100 Million number – where is that from? Gore has acted very consistently with his beliefs for decades not to mention that he should have been President in 2000 were it not for our messed up ballot system.

  74. glenn says:

    Joe,

    Gore’s net worth was around $1 million in 2001. Fast Company estimated his net worth at $100 million in 2007…that is a 10,000% increase in 6 years. Al Gore definitely isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

    Now you add the global warming scheme and how it has skyrocketed his net worth to over $250 million. What has Al Gore been doing since 2007? In paid speeches alone about global warming he grosses over $15 million a year (that is more than $1 million a month for spewing misinformation). He makes Ken Lay look like a saint.

    His private equity firm GIM is one of the largest purchasers of carbon dixode offsets…interesting how he just happen to found an equity firm to directly benefit from his agenda. In fact GIM has basically taken control through its influence over the CCX in the US and CNC in Great Britain both which trade in the credits.

    Of course no one can get any information about GIM finance’s, etc…just wait until the US Govt makes participation in CCX mandatory.

    Then Joe follow the trail to the IPCC and see how Gore has direct influence with them and their formulas for measuring the carbon footprints, etc. We will see more of the IPCC under the Obama administration.

    Go to the World Bank and look at their participation in the carbon exchanges…it is a real eye opener. You can see how all of these players connected around Gore are positioning themselves to currently and in the future make vast sums of money of Govt enforced carbon credit requirements.

    Then look at Kyoto and the ECX.

    Of course I could realize that I have all of this completely wrong and Gore simply made money off the royalties from Google and Apple because he invented the internet!

    Think about it Joe…you said you think Al Gore is sincere yet he claimed he invented the Internet? He is in the elite power broker position that all “has been” politicians find themselves in. They are paid for their access and they provide access to corporations…the old quid pro quo. From my perspective it is just another form of corruption and is leading us down a path that is going to destroy existence long before the mythical global warming hysteria of Al Gore.

  75. JoeDuck says:

    What? Al didn’t invent the internet?

    Glenn it looks like his biggest net worth item was Google options? I’ve seen the 100M estimate but where do you get the 250M?

  76. JCH says:

    He never said he invented the internet.

    “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. …” – Al Gore.

    Time Berners Lee says politicians in Washington DC were very helpful.

  77. JCH says:

    Estimates of Al Gore’s net worth are most likely wildly incorrect. Nobody knows what Google paid him, so they just make up a number. Nobody knows how many shares of Apple he owns, so they just make up a number.

    They don’t like him, so thy make it sound like he’s getting rich running a scam. Why don;t they like him? Because they’re idiot morons – the ones who brought he country to its knees in 2008.

    Now you have to take these made-up numbers, and adjust them for the 2008 crash. I think it is likely that Gore is worth less than 50 million. As for the IPCC, yes, egotistic scientists from all over the world are under the spell of a C student from Harvard. He fills their minds with elaborate hoaxes. they’re helpless. This happens all the time. Good grief.

  78. JoeDuck says:

    Gore’s net worth:
    JCH I think it was FastCompany that estimated 100M, and they probably like Al (I like him too, but I am less a fan of him now that he’s all about AGW alarmism all the time. Do agree he’s a very honorable guy). Also agree you need to adjust the fairly questionable 100M to about 50M or so post meltdown because Google and Apple have both lost 50%+ so he probably has as well. I don’t have too much of a beef with him making money for promoting an agenda he believes in although I wish people would pay more attention and realize how political science … ain’t science.

    IPCC:
    IPCC – remains the best science summary to date by far. Glenn you cannot rationally dispute this – you can’t *possibly* think that the handful of fringe soviet sun watchers are more reputable than the legions of folks who contributed to IPCC! It’s hundreds vs. handfuls in terms of attributing human gasses to warming.

    Sure there are some questionable political issues IPCC addresses poorly in their latest reports but the science remains the best to date. I do think some of their action plans reflect the growing irrational levels of alarmism in the science community, but you can’t throw out the IPCC science with those bathwater alarmist views or you’ll have no science basis for a rational view.

    IPCC 4 – Summary for Policymakers: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

    Looks like Al and Dick Cheney are probably in about the same money league now?

    Politicians are generally honest:
    Glenn I don’t understand why you think politicians in office are so corrupt and greedy. Even in the “bad case scenario” of Blogojevich we see he’s more after power and influence than a suitcase of cash. There are exceptions but the rule is that these guys are not a bunch of crooks – on the contrary most of them sacrifice private sector jobs that would be 10x as much. I’m not a fan of Barnie Frank but he could pull in millions for years every year if he quit now and became a lobbyist. He won’t though because he’s not after money – he’s after power and influence. Look at Biden – he’s middle class.

    Money and influence/power are different motivators – it’s simply not an accurate reflection of how all this stuff goes down.

    IPCC 4 – Summary for Policymakers: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

  79. glenn says:

    God there is so much to respond to and I simply don’t have enough time during the day to keep up with you guys…lol.

    Joe you seriously think the majority of politicians are not corrupt?

    We have clear examples of bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft and embezzlement going on every single day and that is just name a few.

    You have politicians in positions of national power who currently have avoided taxes, one even had an escort service run out of their DC townhouse with underage escorts AND NOTHING WAS EVER DONE ABOUT IT.

    You have politicians who because of their personal ownership in stock of companies changed employment regulations and bills to profit the companies directly that they own stock in.

    You don’t go out to “save the world” and then create a company with over $1 billion in management that directly profits from your doom and gloom forecasts – think about that for one second – its immoral and unethical yet you think the person is an honorable guy.

    Blago is mild compared to what others have done. Look at Dodd, Rangel, Cheney, Schumer, the Clintons, Bush, go down the list of scandals over the last 30 years and look at the cast of characters. Our system is really broken both parties are at fault.

    Look at Clinton – he was disbarred for god sake! Being disbarred…seriously that is a major thing. Of course he was allowed to delay the inevitable because he was President – well the question that needs to be asked of all these clowns…why did you make the bad decision to begin with?

    You have to look at the massive foreign influence of money that is affecting all of these players. People will say…well their foundation does a lot of good so what does it matter? We have a new President that claims to be the most transparent, highest ethical standards, etc…yet everything he is involved is either covered up or tainted now. Pelosi stated during the 2006 start of congress that the Democrats were going to be most honest, ethical, hardest working congress that ever existed – COMPLETELY FALSE – plagued with corruption and they achieved the least amount of work EVER for a congress and yet somehow we think this has all changed now.

    If Obama really believed in the highest ethical standards we would have known everything about his campaign contributions yet he broke a SIGNED contract with McCain and will not divulge his donor list. But we think hey its ok…just a lot of people wanted to get him elected so they all paid small sums of money – yeah ok.

    Yet we trust these guys with trillions of our hard earned money and they continue to make wrong decisions and waste money every single second of every single day.

    Even Russia has realized bail-outs are the wrong way to go…LOL. The bail-outs of the banks was a bad move and it has failed, plain and simple. Now we want to dictate their salary? I can see the talent pool in NYC going elsewhere – $500k a year and to live in Manhattan is not a lot of money whatsoever. You can’t do it.

    Now we actually have a President that has made the statement if we don’t pass the biggest boondoggle in the history of the country we will NEVER get out of the recession. Anyone with a 5th grade education knows that statement is completely false. It is irresponsible for a leader to make a ridiculous claim like that just to get something passed. Sounds like the economics version of WMD’s.

    The biggest problem with the Democratic party is that is has been hijacked by the raging left loon squad where their IDEOLOGY trumps all common sense. Think about it…we have a system where someone like Pelosi is Speaker of the House – it is a national position yet she would NEVER win a national election for the position. There in lies a major flaw of our system where elected officials are given national positions based on all the WRONG criteria. The IDEOLOGY game is the same problem in most fascist or communist countries.

    Most of America is actually content now with some level of quid pro quo, nasty business, corruption as a requirement for our government to work. Have you ever noticed that somehow magically these people are involved in horrible things and yet they continue to reap more and more power. I think we owe it to our children to set a higher standard, not this lowest common denominator standard of punishing the over-achievers and purveyors of excellence and rewarding the so-call victims. Hey news flash – life isn’t fair and it isn’t easy and it SHOULDN’T be about entitlements. It should be about being the absolute best you can possibly be, paying it forward and leaving your surrounding in better shape than you found it whether it be the environment, your workplace or your family.

    I think it is time our country gets a Ctrl-Alt-Del so we can actually work on the real problems we are facing and do something about it as opposed to this pharmaceutical industry approach of masking symptoms and never curing a disease.

    We need term limits, we need national elections based on popular vote, we need a tax system that does not encourage corruption amongst our elected officials. We need lobbying that supports free speech but not the financial fleecing that occurs at the expense of the taxpayer.

    Doesn’t it bother you that someone can get elected, serve 4 years in a position but then have a pension for lifetime? Can’t we call have jobs like that?

    Don’t you want our government to stop wasting vastly huge sums of money every single day?

    Throughout the entire history of civilization of this planet every SINGLE great power has collapsed with great suffering of its people ALL because of the type of corruption that is happening now.

  80. glenn says:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766_pf.html

    Pretty much sums it up. The fraud and hypocrisy of the liberal left continues at our expense.

  81. JoeDuck says:

    Glenn what would you propose as an alternative to choosing the people we have? I don’t agree that most in congress are corrupt but even if they are, the responsibility belongs to voters more than anything else.

    I do agree with some of Krauthammer’s points in that piece. Soon we may make the drunken, reckless spending of the Bush years look modest, though if the stimulus works as planned we may go back to the Bill Clinton economic times when things were downright rosy, national debt was manageable, and more. I don’t think even optimists think this will bring that back.

    But it’s totally unfair to blame “liberals” for the current mess – Government, whether liberal or conservative, spends recklessly and Wall Street acts greedily. That’s the way it works and we need systems that keep those forces in check.

  82. glenn says:

    (81) Joe the problem is that people don’t even know or understand who they are voting for. Media has decided an ideology is more important than the truth and anyone that commits to support and promote the ideology pretty much gets a pass and even worse gets pandered to by the media.

    We need an open system of voting records (btw: you can’t even get all of Obama’s voting records when he was in the state senate). We need full access. We need accountability on all the programs so that they can be measured.

    We need to change the reasons that people run for office. It needs to radically move from personal benefit to service above self and for the good of the country.

    We need candidates that can stand on issues clearly and we need access to information about them that isn’t slighted, twisted or spun. Wouldn’t it be nice to really understand who we are voting for? Do you really know anything about the candidates?

    Al Franken is a perfect example…for a person of such low IQ and caliber to even have a chance of winning is proof of how people don’t know who they are voting or that the process is manipulated.

    Go back and look at the Congressional record of the Fannie/Freddie hearings. Every single one of those people that blatantly lied about the status of those organizations should be held accountable and EVERY single media channel should be reporting it.

    Everyone wants to slam Fox but they are the only news network independently verified to actually be the most balanced for news reporting by a wide margin over everyone else. Take the talk show hosts out of the equation and Fox is actually telling us both side of the story. Our news media is turning more like Pravda every day. That has to change.

    We also need people to be of a standard and we need to encourage people to strive to achieve a high standard in their personal life. Look at Dave Ogden…seriously why would you ever even consider someone like that?

    Of course Obama & crew know that in four years the gig will be up and they have to get checks into as many people’s hands as they can so they will vote to keep those checks as opposed to voting for who is best to run this country. THIS SHOULD BOTHER EVERYONE. Today you might like Obama but this type of political manipulation is going to someday deliver someone into power that you DON’T like and there will be nothing you can do about it.

    Even at the early stage of Obama’s presidency it is clear he doesn’t understand the depth of the problems we face and his decisions so far are very naive and dangerous. For someone who supposedly was very thoughtful about his decisions he sure isn’t showing a lot effort put in to address these things. Biden was right when he said it would like we wouldn’t know what we are doing and now Biden is estimating the chance that they will be wrong is around 33%…ROFL…you know that has been spun so what do they really think…that they will be wrong 50% of the time?

    How can we afford that kind of risk with what is at stake right now?

    People voted this year to be part of something…something historical…but I think history will show what they voted for was not a historical highpoint in our history.

  83. glenn says:

    (81) Joe I blame them all for this mess. You can’t blame one more than the other. They are all part of the problem.

    My core issue with all of this as we find out what people have been doing the damage we do NOTHING about it. Until you clear out ALL the bad apples it will never change.

    It is systemic and part of the fabric of our political system, it is clearly broken, highly wasteful, corrupt and going to destroy our way of life.

    The stimulus is little to do with addressing our problems it is a package of far liberal left programs that would never get to see the light of day.

    My issue with Obama from the very beginning is that he couldn’t possibly deliver on the vast majority of his promises. That is why I called him a fraud. He isn’t delivering and EVERYONE is going to be disappointed. How does that help our country? He scammed every single voter – isn’t about time we say…enough of the campaign BS…if you make a statement you better back it up or your out via recall. Why does everyone have such a problem with honesty in our political system?

    It’s too bad we can get the Bush haters to hate the terrorists as much as they hate Bush because that would go a long way to solve our problems.

    The other issue regarding Wall-Street…our elected officials knew what was going on. People in both parties and all the way to the top. It was like they were just hoping it was all going to keep together or maybe they wanted everything to fail so they could usher in a socialistic agenda through fear. The fact that Obama is making the statements that he is about the stimulus package is proof enough that this is just another big wasteful boondoggle of our government. It is completely absurd to think for 1/10 of 1 second that if we don’t pass this stimulus bill that we will NEVER get out of recession – that is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard.

    Our biggest problem is we continue to manipulate the markets and our economy through the guise of regulation. Nobody is trying to solve the core issues so it will never actually be fixed…it will just go through another cycle and within a hundred years we will see the exact same set of problems.

    The government knew Maddoff was a ponzi scheme almost 7 years ago…and yet nothing was done…how come…because he was politically connected? This goes on every day and we just let it ride. We let Cheney get his oil contracts and Halburton deals, Frank and Dodd to get their ride from Fannie/Freddie/Country Wide for themselves and their buddies. Rangel doesn’t have to pay taxes and gets a free parking space, etc.

    The entire system is broken and quite frankly we are now flat broke. Its time to stop playing victim and time to get our house in order, get on a positive path of personal responsibility (credit, etc) and starting demanding higher standards from everyone.

  84. JCH says:

    “It’s too bad we can get the Bush haters to hate the terrorists as much as they hate Bush because that would go a long way to solve our problems. …”

    Pathetic.

    Frank and Dodd have done nothing that harms the country. They had no authority to do anything. You can’t figure it out. You’re like a rat in a maze with cheese around and every corner and you’re going to starve to death because they’re all left turns.

  85. JCH says:

    “My issue with Obama from the very beginning is that he couldn’t possibly deliver on the vast majority of his promises. …”

    First, no President since FDR has inherited such an incredible mess from his predecessor. Second, under delivering on campaign promises differentiates him exactly how. That’s the most populated freakin’ photo finish of all time.

    A convenient excuse for a hater, though.

    “He isn’t delivering and EVERYONE is going to be disappointed. …”

    You know this after what, about 17 days in office? LMAO.

  86. glenn says:

    Here you go JCH…go remind yourself of the stupidity of Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, etc…lest you forgot how they really got people pissed off in this country. This is the kind of insane thinking that gets us into trouble.

    (84) Funny how do you defend Cheney…using your logic he did nothing wrong. At least I am able to call a spade a spade and don’t follow an ideology blindly so that my ability to understand basic right and wrong is skewed to the world of…”depending on what your definition of is – is?”

    Interesting how you mention FDR…we didn’t learn from all the bad choices FDR made…we somehow think we are going to do it better this time. Obama even stated the reason FDR’s program were not as successful was because they didn’t spend enough. That isn’t rational JCH. We know for a fact that the stock market didn’t recover for decades because of the liberal spending programs FDR implemented. Think about the stock market not returning until 2035 because that is what we are about to do to ourselves.

    How many more Americans need to be killed by released Gitmo prisoners before we wake up and stop this Rodney King approach to treating these scumbags with any sort of rights. They don’t even deserve to be breathing. You liberals don’t get it. They will take advantage of our weaknesses and there is no compromise with them. The end game is our destruction so you can’t play by some “rules” with this type of mindset. You just have to destroy them.

    It doesn’t matter how many days Obama will be President there is no way he can deliver on a small percentage of his promises and what he has done in the first two weeks is pathetic.

    Do you actually believe it is credible at all to make a statement that if we don’t pass this stimulus bill we will NEVER get out of this recession?

    Does that sound like an intelligent person to you – or someone trying to scam you?

    You have the VP stating the odds that they will probably be wrong…seriously…is that leadership?

    You blindly support the ideology and the people behind and you claim they can do no wrong – that is a very dangerous perspective to have. I suggest you go live in a fascist or communist country for 6 months and see what it is like to get basic internet service, water, electricity.

    I was no fan of Bush and that was because of the unbelievable amount of stupid choices he made at least I am honest about it. For anyone to claim Dodd and Frank have done NOTHING to harm this country is most definitely the representation of a disingenuous person.

    You obviously have missed the truth being reported out there.

  87. glenn says:

    Now the Grammy’s just re-affirms its position right along with the Nobel Peace prize that it is 100% political and has nothing to do with achievement or talent.

    An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore has won the 2009 GRAMMY Award for Best Spoken Word Album.

    An Inconvenient Truth is read by Beau Bridges, Cynthia Nixon and Blair Underwood.

    With wit, smarts and hope, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH ultimately brings home Gore’s persuasive argument that we can no longer afford to view global warming as a political issue – rather, it is the biggest moral challenges facing our global civilization.

    http://broadwayworld.com/article/An_Inconvenient_Truth_by_Al_Gore_Wins_GRAMMY_for_Best_Spoken_Word_Album_20090208

    Now look at all the raging left loon climate BS is doing to what would be ordinary good people:

    Last year, an anxious, depressed 17-year-old boy was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. He was refusing to drink water. Worried about drought related to climate change, the young man was convinced that if he drank, millions of people would die. The Australian doctors wrote the case up as the first known instance of “climate change delusion.”

    Robert Salo, the psychiatrist who runs the inpatient unit where the boy was treated, has now seen several more patients with psychosis or anxiety disorders focused on climate change, as well as children who are having nightmares about global-warming-related natural disasters.

    Such anxiety over current events is not a new phenomenon. Worries about contemporary threats, such as nuclear war or AIDS, have historically been woven into the mental illnesses of each generation. But global warming could have a broader and deeper effect on mental health, even if indirectly.

    http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/02/09/climate_change_takes_a_mental_toll/

    This insanity must end.

    BTW…Joe and JCH…how do you reconcile all the years the Al Gore and his father raped the TN environment and made buckets of money from it. Did Al suddenly become enlightened?

  88. glenn says:

    Al Gore now refusing to deal with “inconvenient” questions even from Bjorn…lol.

    Gore refused to answer questions about GW at the WSJ Economics conference in bankrupt CA. He said – its kind of silly to keep debating the science…

    Seriously does anyone take this man serious anymore. No one can question the outrageous fear mongering…

    No wonder the world is growing more skeptic by the minute.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/05/a-heated-exchange-al-gore-confronts-his-critics/

  89. glenn says:

    Crisis offers new chance for climate: Clinton.

    The financial crisis offers a new chance to rebuild economies based on a greener model with less dependence on unreliable overseas energy imports, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday.

    “Never waste a good crisis,” Clinton told a hearing at the European Parliament. “And when it comes to the economic crisis, don’t waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security.”

    Now that is exactly what Rahm would say. So think about this for a second. This administration believes we should leverage the absolute worst economic crisis in the world to further their eco-extreme leftist agenda. Wow…how ethical… I would suggest that they focus on solving our problems first and get us back on the right track and then we can look at their kooky ideas.

    It never ceases to amaze me how twisted their logic to rationalize and justify their punitive measures ultimately to control people and their votes.

    http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINTRE5251VN20090306

  90. glenn says:

    Of course the MSM completely missed reporting on the fact that Bjorn challenged Gore to a debate and of course Gore claimed it was silly to discuss the science any further.

    I mean speak about the perfect scam…no one can prove it one or another, no one will be around if it comes to fruition, and yet we take a politicians word for it.

    Of course the MSM will skip coverage of the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York. You will love this…the theme of the climate change conference:
    “Global Warming: Was it ever really a crisis?”

    Yet Al Gore think it is silly to discuss…the global warming scam by Gore will slip into the PT Barnum world of “there is sucker born every minute” by June and by this time next year he will go back to being a nothing and feeling guilty about his father’s crimes on the environment.

    Here are some key points that are going to be discussed this year:

    • Does the plateau in global temperatures during the past eight years contradict computer model predictions, and therefore requires a reexamination of the greenhouse theory?

    • Do proxy records of ancient climates contradict how computer models characterize the role of carbon dioxide in climate change?

    • Does the modern warming have the “fingerprint” of having been caused by greenhouse gases, or is it more likely the result of other forcings?

    • Is there a case—either in science or economics—for governments to legislate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? Should such efforts be suspended until the case for anthropogenic global warming is stronger?

    All you had to do was look at the science and then follow the money trail.

  91. glenn says:

    yeah they won’t tax humans creating CO2, just like they won’t tax them on their mileage or even better yet…the tax on cows producing methane…

    Seriously the environmental whackos are totally out of control in their quest for control and manipulation of the population and what we are allowed to do.

    http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/senators-have-beef-with-cow-tax/?hp

  92. glenn says:

    Higher taxes on vehicles and fuel are in store for Swedish motorists, transport companies and industry as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the government said Tuesday. Finance Minister Anders Borg, Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren and Enterprise Minister Maud Olofsson said in a joint statement that the measures would take the current financial slump into account.

    As of 2011 taxes on diesel fuel were to be raised in two stages by 0.40 kronor (0.04 dollars), as would taxes on carbon-dioxide emissions while the forestry and agriculture sectors would be included in emissions trading schemes. The measures that included taxes on heating were part of a pending bill on energy and enviroment, and the goal was to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a further 2 million tons by 2020. “A price tag on climate changing emissions underlines that emissions carry a cost that have to be paid,” Carlgren said.

    Interesting this guy is named “Borg”…resistance is futile you will be assimilated.

  93. glenn says:

    “The Taliban are united, have one leader, one aim, one policy…I do not know why they are talking about moderate Taliban and what it means?,”

    “If it means those who are not fighting and are sitting in their homes, then talking to them is meaningless. This really is surprising the Taliban.”

    Obama is way out of his league…he is going to get a lot of innocent people killed.

  94. glenn says:

    One of the reasonable voices in regard to climate change: William Gray. But why would anyone suspect the alarmist view…when they continue to prop up people like Al Gore and James Hansen…ROFL.

    Seriously the liberals and the Democrats would allow Bin Laden to run on their ticket if he supported the GW alarmist view.

    “I am appalled at the selection of James Hansen as this year’s recipient of the AMS’s highest award – the Rossby Research Medal,” Gray wrote. “James Hansen has not been trained as a meteorologist. His formal education has been in astronomy. His long records of faulty global climate predictions and alarmist public pronouncements have become increasingly hollow and at odds with reality. Hansen has exploited the general public’s lack of knowledge of how the globe’s climate system functions for his own benefit. His global warming predictions, going back to 1988 are not being verified.”

    According to Gray’s statement, Hansen’s famous 1988 prediction of global warming had turned out “to be very much less than he had projected,” but Hansen is still out campaigning about the issue as a global crisis.

    “Hansen and his legion of environmental-political supporters (with no meteorological-climate background) have done monumental damage to an open and honest discussion of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) question,” Gray wrote. “He and his fellow collaborators (and their media sycophantic followers) are responsible for the brainwashing of a large segment of the American public about a grossly exaggerated human-induced warming threat that does not exist.”

    Although many have called for Hansen’s dismissal, including his former supervisor John Theon, a retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Gray explained why he thought Hansen has survived at NASA with his political stances concerning global warming.

    “It is surprising that Hansen has been able to get away with his unrealistic modeling efforts for so long,” Gray wrote. “One explanation is that he has received strong support from Senator/Vice President Al Gore who for over three decades has attempted to make political capital out of increasing CO2 measurements. Another reason is the many environmental and political groups (including the mainstream media) who are eager to use Hansen’s modeling results as justification to push their own special interests that are able to fly under the global warming banner.”

    Gray also wrote that the AMS had been commandeered by a number of global warming activists, hence the decision to bestow Hansen with the organization’s highest honor.
    “We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think,” Gray wrote. “This small organized group of AGW sympathizers has indeed hijacked our society.”

  95. glenn says:

    Socialists of the World, Unite!

    OK, maybe these are just coincidences.

    On Monday, Climate Wire reported that Danish Socialist MEP Dan Jørgensen, vice-chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, called for Europe’s cap-and-trade scheme to be more purely socialist like — wait for it — Barack Obama’s.

    Today, E&E News reports (subscription required) that Obama “climate czarina” Carol Browner — who was, until her appointment to a new post created to skirt constitutional Senate confirmation requirements for such influential posts, was an official of the Socialist International — is behind Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal and particularly the effort to sneak it in the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation measure.

  96. glenn says:

    What is becoming more increasingly obvious is the massive scheme behind the global warming/climate change Gore-folk…

    It is ALL about power and control. It is now all about how the U.N. will try to take over and control the world. It is all about how to knock America to it’s knees to create the “equal result” world these socialists all want.

    A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

    Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations “information note” on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an “effective framework” for dealing with global warming.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html

    What is clear is that the Democrats and Obama have gone ALL in on this far left agenda to usurp the American dream and turn it into the U.N. nightmare.

  97. glenn says:

    Gee shocker…like I said before how are the environmentalists going to control and tax volcanoes? Al Gore and the rest of the global warming pundits are no different than any other crook that tries to take advantage of people. They should all be in jail.

    American scientists say that variations in atmospheric dust levels affect the temperature of the Atlantic ocean far more than global warming. Research indicates that 70 per cent of the change in Atlantic temperature over recent decades has resulted from reduced dust, rather than climate change.

    The new analysis comes from scientists in the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Wisconsin. They say that the Atlantic temperature trend has been warmer by approximately a quarter of a degree each decade since 1980: but that most of this is actually because more sunlight is reaching the sea due to reducing levels of dirt in the air above it.

    “A lot of this upward trend in the long-term pattern can be explained just by dust storms and volcanoes,” says Amato Evan of Wisconsin uni. “About 70 percent of it is just being forced by the combination of dust and volcanoes, and about a quarter of it is just from the dust storms themselves.”

    “This makes sense, because we don’t really expect global warming to make the ocean [temperature] increase that fast,” he adds.

    Evan and his collaborators at Wisconsin and the NOAA produced their figures by combining satellite dust data with Atlantic temperature records over the last 26 years.

    The researchers say that predicting what will happen to atmospheric dust levels in future is difficult, with volcanoes notoriously random and African dust storms poorly understood. Nonetheless, according to Amato, future ocean-warming models will need to make allowance for them somehow or their predictions will be well out of whack.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/27/atlantic_dust_temp_hurricane_study/

  98. kim kardashian video free [url=http://members.fotki.com/KimKardashiannude21/]kim kardashian video free[/url] kim kardashian video free [url= http://members.fotki.com/KimKardashiannude21/ ] kim kardashian video free [/url]

  99. pamela anderson nude [url=http://members.fotki.com/PamelaAndersonnude21/]pamela anderson nude[/url] pamela anderson nude [url= http://members.fotki.com/PamelaAndersonnude21/ ] pamela anderson nude [/url]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s