Sowing Alarmism? You will reap skepticism.

Over at my favorite global warming watering hole “RealClimate” where several distinguished (and some controversial) climate science dudes reside, there is a lot of hand wringing and whining about why the media does such a poor job reporting on climate change, most notably the recent spate of articles suggesting that it is pretty darn cold this winter.

RealClimate correctly notes that a cold winter or cold spell or cold day tells us virtually nothing about long term climatic trends, and they correctly point out that global warming is a long term and clearly established phenomenon.

However why was RealClimate so conspicuously quiet during the nonsensical stories suggesting that the European heat wave, Katrina, and various “hot days” were a sign of  impending globally-warmed-up-catastrophe looming within decades?

Even hinting over at RealClimate that climate hysteria may be out of control leads to a rash of criticism, comment moderation, and other intellectual intimidation and threats from a crowd who for the most part are very happy to see things exaggerated wildly and irrationally if that exaggeration supports their overall objective – massive intervention to reduce CO2 emissions.

Perhaps there is a lesson here?  Most climate Scientists failed to correct the thousands of overblown “heat waves and hurricanes!” stories and the naively alarming tone and half truths in the film “An Inconvenient Truth”.    I’m not sympathetic now that the shoe is on the other foot and the media is exaggerating cooling trends and bringing on the small handful of climate experts who are genuinely skeptical about global warming.

The scientific truth is far more nuanced and less alarmist than journalists like to suggest, since the object of journalism is not as much “truth” as it is  “readership”.

Journalism and many in science failed us during the hyperbole surrounding “An Inconvenient Truth” and too few scientists stepped in to correct the errors and explain how unlikely we are to have anything approaching a catastrophic climate disaster.

Now that the earth appears to be experiencing a cooling trend journalists are  suspicious and starting to ignore the mostly irrefutable evidence that GW is here to stay.

Stop whining RealClimateers,

You are reaping  skepticism because you helped to sow alarmism.


Don’t agree with me? Read this article from one of the world’s most influential climate researchers and then make your case.

59 thoughts on “Sowing Alarmism? You will reap skepticism.

  1. If you want to stick to what science says, could you link me to an analysis that demonstrates the earth is in a statistically significant cooling trend?

  2. JCH my understanding is that global mean temps show a cooling trend that started a few years ago and is expected to last a few more years. Have you heard differently?

    You need only check the GISS data above or other data to confirm this is the case. As I say above this does not tell us much if anything about longer term GW trends, it just suggests that the hyperbole at RealClimate and the many far more alarmist blogs is very one sided, and also is another data point to suggest a climate catastrophe … is not looming before us.

  3. I asked for a link to a statistically significant cooling trend.

    What you are sowing is sedation.

    There are fluctuations in the graph; the mean turns downward several times. Look at 1988 to 1992. That was not global cooling. The statistically significant trend, which is the trend that matters, is still doing what?

  4. Joe unfortunately the liberal biased media, UN, and other government organizations (globally) destroyed anyone that spoke out against GW. You can’t expect a scientist to step up and speak the truth when you have this wave of extreme environmentalism backed by serious money and serious power.

    The fact that schools systems around the world made Inconvenient Truth regarding material in the classrooms speaks volumes to how far this scandal and scam has gone.

    Teachers unfortunately are tied directly to this liberal ideology that is destroying the fabric of our country, communities and is quite frankly poisoning the minds of our children. If you have children take some time and see exactly what they are doing in the schools and what they are asked to do, etc.

    I have been shocked and appalled at the political agenda being taught within our school system. It is much better when you have your children in private schools that are more interested in educating your children to excel and actually learn mathematics, real science, proper english, etc.

    The entire point about the GW fiasco is really just don’t what is happening with climate change. There isn’t enough data (you need accurate trend information for billions of years to do this), we don’t understand all the variables in the climate equation, we don’t fully understand gamma bursts and other “invisible” space-based influences and quite frankly it is downright arrogant to think we can actually do something about it. Not to say we shouldn’t try but we need to remember we will probably make it worse before we could actually impact it to make it better.

    The price tag for this agenda is beyond compare. I think the money could be better spent on much more impacting programs to help people of this world.

  5. JCH if your point is that a cold winter or cold spell or cold day (or warm day) tells us virtually nothing about long term climatic trends, and that global warming is a long term and clearly established phenomenon….. I totally agree as I thought I made clear above.

    Yes, I’m sowing sedation on GW in the hopes we’ll pay attention to the problems on earth we can actually impact with changes. The response to Global Warming has been irrational, with many worrying that catastrophe is looming. It’s not, and the science clearly suggests it is not but I think folks want action and feel the only way to get action is to exaggerate the dangers.

    Glenn I’m also really interested in how political the debate seems to be – the science clearly has taken a back seat to the politics and although I used to think the scientists tended to keep things real it’s clear now to me that has become impossible as grants and jobs have a political component.

  6. Alot of things become polticized:

    Breast Cancer: “1 in 8” nonsense rarely gets challenged.
    Aids: Name change from Gay Related Immune Dysfunction to AIDS was a political act. “People living with Aids” rather than “Aids victims” was political. Scientists knew not to step up… AIDS was becoming a gravy train for researchers.
    Get Out The Vote campaigns.
    Boot Camp diversion programs.
    Drunk Driving campaigns.
    … Alot of things get politicized and the lone voice in the wilderness becomes lost amongst the din of acceptable comments that constitute the official pablum.

    Global Warming/Cooling? Beats me. I take a look at charts of Alaskan temperature and photographs and I see depiction consistent with warming. Elsewhere, I don’t know about.

    Its the same way on a local scale: when authorities warn of fire or flood dangers and little happens, the science of prediction is undermined. Evacuate needlessly half a dozen times and that next hurricane warning falls on deaf ears!

  7. (5) Unfortunately the science has turned to an actuarial game now with political influence.

    That is the problem with politicians…you can trust NONE of them.

    At some point in this country’s history we put these people high on a pedestal instead of holding their feet to the fire.

    Look at career politicians…they haven’t accomplished very much in our lives. We need term limits and we need to get people in office that will put the country first over self-interest. Until we can eliminate this self-serving model we will continue to see these scams.

    The real criminal acts here have been against the forthright scientists and professors that have spoken out against this insanity and their careers in many cases have been ruined. The media is part of a much larger picture of coercion for extreme liberal agendas and this has to stop.

    Perfect example of the UN conference in Dec about GW…650 well regarded scientists have spoken out against the case of human-based GW and yet we have seen NOTHING in the media about it.

    If you really want to understand climate change in our solar system it is a much bigger picture that needs to be taken into account. The sphere of influence in regard to our climate goes way beyond anything man can do to affect either way. I think GW alarmism is more about human arrogance and the need to propagate an agenda through fear.

    Just the fact that other planets are experiencing climate change as well clearly tells us other factors are impacting climates where human don’t even exist.

    Unfortunately most of the liberal agendas have failed to deliver in most respects and they are just another tool for control, power and wasting vast sums of our hard-earned monies.

    There are many practical things we can be doing as proper stewards of our planet and we should be doing those but look at the stupidity of the ethanol program – yet another massive scam that has only increased food prices and made it more difficult for 3rd world countries. We need to shake our dependence on foreign oil, etc. Lobbyists need to be eliminated and programs/ideas need to stand on their own merits with solid scientific/engineering data behind them.

    To think we can actually positively impact climate change is absurd we are just as likely to damage more than help it. The key to human survival in our universe is adaptability. Just like exploring other planets…the only way we can do it is by adapting and we need to learn and invest in technologies that are going to allow us to adapt whether to an ice age or warmer trends.

    Time for humans and especially politicians to eat some humble pie and get serious about our future for we have screwed up so many things that our future is now fraught with many game-changing perils.

  8. James Lovelock offers up some interesting insight to the GW hysteria.

    Most of the “green” stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It’s not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it’ll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.

  9. James Lovelock’s website;

    The Revenge of GAIA:

    Why the Earth Is Fighting Back – and How We Can still Save Humanity

    The book argues that human society, through greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of environmental degradation, has brought the natural world to the brink of a crisis.

    Temperatures will rise, Professor Lovelock warns, reliable supplies of water will be disrupted, life in the oceans will be compromised, food production will decline, and there will be mass migrations to areas of the planet’s surface which remain habitable.

    With fossil fuels currently the dominant source of energy, he sees a large-scale switch to nuclear power as vital if electricity supplies are to continue reliably and carbon dioxide emissions are to be brought down.

    Yeah, he agrees with you, Glenn.

  10. Ofcourse we can also look at Easter Island where it is thought that felling of trees to make fishing canoes caused the erosion of soil so that Easter Island became a windswept rocky outcropping unable to support fishermen, farmers or those who constructed offerings imploring the Gods to save them. Its quite clear the society there would have been doomed well before the final tree was felled.

  11. Statement of William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

    Before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Senator Barbara Boxer, Chair

    February 25, 2009

    Madam Chairman and members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee on Environment and Public Works to testify on Climate Change. My name is William Happer, and I am the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I am not a climatologist, but I don’t think any of the other witnesses are either. I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences. I have done extensive consulting work for the US Government and Industry. I also served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where I supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change. I have come here today as a concerned citizen to express my personal views, and those of many like me, about US climate-change policy. These are not official views of my main employer, Princeton University, nor of any other organization with which I am associated.

    Let me state clearly where I probably agree with the other witnesses. We have been in a period of global warming over the past 200 years, but there have been several periods, like the last ten years, when the warming has ceased, and there have even been periods of substantial cooling, as from 1940 to 1970. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth’s surface to warm. The key question is: will the net effect of the warming, and any other effects of the CO2, be good or bad for humanity?

    I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind. I predict that future historians will look back on this period much as we now view the period just before the passage of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution to prohibit “the manufacturing, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors.” At the time, the 18th amendment seemed to be exactly the right thing to do – who wanted to be in league with demon rum? It was the 1917 version of saving the planet. More than half the states enacted prohibition laws before the 18th amendment was ratified. Only one state, Rhode Island, voted against the 18th amendment. Two states, Illinois and Indiana, never got around to voting and all the rest voted for it. There were many thoughtful people, including a majority of Rhode Islanders, who thought that prohibition might do more harm than good. But they were completely outmatched by the temperance movement, whose motives and methods had much in common with the movement to stop climate change. Deeply sincere people thought they were saving humanity from the evils of alcohol, just as many people now sincerely think they are saving humanity from the evils of CO2. Prohibition was a mistake, and our country has probably still not fully recovered from the damage it did. Institutions like organized crime got their start in that era. Drastic limitations on CO2 are likely to damage our country in analogous ways.

    But what about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated. Let me turn now to the science and try to explain why I and many scientists like me are not alarmed by increasing levels of CO2.

    The earth’s climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth’s temperature — on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.

    Since most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds, added CO2 must substantially increase water’s contribution to lead to the frightening scenarios that are bandied about. The buzz word here is that there is “positive feedback.” With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water. In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative. That is, water vapor and clouds may actually diminish the already small global warming expected from CO2, not amplify it. The evidence here comes from satellite measurements of infrared radiation escaping from the earth into outer space, from measurements of sunlight reflected from clouds and from measurements of the temperature the earth’s surface or of the troposphere, the roughly 10 km thick layer of the atmosphere above the earth’s surface that is filled with churning air and clouds, heated from below at the earth’s surface, and cooled at the top by radiation into space.

    But the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn’t this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models.

    The climate has changed many times in the past with no help by mankind. Recall that the Romans grew grapes in Britain around the year 100, and Viking settlers prospered on small farms in Greenland for several centuries during the Medieval Climate Optimum around 1100. People have had an urge to control the climate throughout history so I suppose it is no surprise that we are at it again today. For example, in June of 1644, the Bishop of Geneva led a flock of believers to the face of a glacier that was advancing “by over a musket shot” every day. The glacier would soon destroy a village. The Bishop and his flock prayed over the glacier, and it is said to have stopped. The poor Vikings had long since abandoned Greenland where the advancing glaciers and cooling climate proved much less susceptible to prayer. Sometimes the obsession for control of the climate got a bit out of hand, as in the Aztec state, where the local scientific/religious establishment of the year 1500 had long since announced that the debate was over and that at least 20,000 human sacrifices a year were needed to keep the sun moving, the rain falling, and to stop climate change. The widespread dissatisfaction of the people who were unfortunate enough to be the source of these sacrifices played an important part in the success of the Spanish conquest of Mexico.

    The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it. When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent “medieval warm period” at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious “little ice age” that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the little ice age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick. This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. We now know that the hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis. There really was a little ice age and there really was a medieval warm period that was as warm or warmer than today. I bring up the hockey stick as a particularly clear example that the IPCC summaries for policy makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts of climate change. It is a shame, because many of the IPCC chapters are quite good. The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information in the novel “1984:” “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” The IPCC has made no serious attempt to model the natural variations of the earth’s temperature in the past. Whatever caused these large past variations, it was not due to people burning coal and oil. If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future?

    Many of us are aware that we are living in an ice age, where we have hundred- thousand-year intervals of big continental glaciers that cover much of the land area of the northern hemisphere, interspersed with relative short interglacial intervals like the one we are living in now. By looking at ice cores from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, one can estimate past temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Al Gore likes to display graphs of temperature and CO2 concentrations over the past million years or so, showing that when CO2 rises, the temperature also rises. Doesn’t this prove that the temperature is driven by CO2? Absolutely not! If you look carefully at these records, you find that first the temperature goes up, and then the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere goes up. There is a delay between a temperature increase and a CO2 increase of about 800 years. This casts serious doubt on CO2 as a climate driver because of the fundamental concept of causality. A cause must precede its effect. For example, I hear my furnace go on in the morning about six o’clock, and by about 7 o’clock, I notice that my house is now so warm that I have too many covers on my bed. It is time to get up. It would never occur to me to assume that the furnace started burning gas at 6 o’clock because the house got warm at 7 o’clock. Sure, temperature and gas burning are correlated, just like temperature and atmospheric levels of CO2. But the thing that changes first is the cause. In the case of the ice cores, the cause of increased CO2 is almost certainly the warming of the oceans. The oceans release dissolved CO2 when they warm up, just like a glass of beer rapidly goes flat in a warm room. If not CO2, then what really causes the warming at the end of the cold periods of ice ages? A great question and one of the reasons I strongly support research in climate.

    I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.” This brings to mind another Orwellian pronouncement that is worth pondering: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.

    We are all aware that “the green revolution” has increased crop yields around the world. Part of this wonderful development is due to improved crop varieties, better use of mineral fertilizers, herbicides, etc. But no small part of the yield improvement has come from increased atmospheric levels of CO2. Plants photosynthesize more carbohydrates when they have more CO2. Plants are also more drought-tolerant with more CO2, because they need not “inhale” as much air to get the CO2 needed for photosynthesis. At the same time, the plants need not “exhale” as much water vapor when they are using air enriched in CO2. Plants decrease the number of stomata or air pores on their leaf surfaces in response to increasing atmospheric levels of CO2. They are adapted to changing CO2 levels and they prefer higher levels than those we have at present. If we really were to decrease our current level of CO2 of around 400 ppm to the 270 ppm that prevailed a few hundred years ago, we would lose some of the benefits of the green revolution. Crop yields will continue to increase as CO2 levels go up, since we are far from the optimum levels for plant growth. Commercial greenhouse operators are advised to add enough CO2 to maintain about 1000 ppm around their plants. Indeed, economic studies like those of Dr. Robert Mendelsohn at Yale University project that moderate warming is an overall benefit to mankind because of higher agricultural yields and many other reasons.

    I remember being forced to read Voltaire’s novel, Candide, when I was young. You recall that Dr. Pangloss repeatedly assured young Candide that he was living in “the best of all possible worlds,” presumably also with the best of all CO2 concentrations. That we are (or were) living at the best of all CO2 concentrations seems to be a tacit assumption of the IPCC executive summaries for policy makers. Enormous effort and imagination have gone into showing that increasing concentrations of CO2 will be catastrophic, cities will be flooded by sea-level rises that are ten or more times bigger than even IPCC predicts, there will be mass extinctions of species, billions of people will die, tipping points will render the planet a desert. A few months ago I read that global warming will soon bring on a devastating epidemic of kidney stones. If you write down all the ills attributed to global warming you fill up a very thick book.

    Much is made about tropical diseases like malaria and yellow fever devastating the populations of temperate climates because of the burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent warming of the earth. Many people who actually work with tropical diseases, notably Dr. Paul Reiter, a specialist on tropical diseases, have pointed out how silly all of this is. Perhaps I can add a few bits of history to illustrate this point. One of the first military expenditures of the Continental Congress in 1775 was $300 to purchase quinine for the Continental Army and to mitigate the effects of malaria. The Continental Congress moved from the then Capital of the United States , Philadelphia, to my home town of Princeton, New Jersey, in the summer of 1783 for two reasons. The first was that the Congress had not yet paid many soldiers of the Revolutionary War their promised wages, and disgruntled veterans were wandering up and down the streets of Philadelphia. Secondly, there were outbreaks of malaria in cities as far north as Boston. The Congress knew you were less likely to catch malaria in Princeton than in Philadelphia. In 1793 there was not only malaria, but a horrendous outbreak of yellow fever in Philadelphia. Many thousands of people died in a city with a population of about 50,000. And I should point out that Philadelphia was a bit cooler then than now, since the little ice age was just coming to an end. Controlling tropical diseases and many other diseases has little to do with temperature, and everything to do with curtailing the factors that cause the spread – notably mosquitoes in the case of malaria and yellow fever.

    Many of the frightening scenarios about global warming come from large computer calculations, “general circulation models,” that try to mimic the behavior of the earth’s climate as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. It is true that climate models use increasingly capable and increasingly expensive computers. But their predictions have not been very good. For example, none of them predicted the lack of warming that we have experienced during the past ten years. All the models assume the water feedback is positive, while satellite observations suggest that the feedback is zero or negative.

    Modelers have been wrong before. One of the most famous modeling disputes involved the physicist William Thompson, later Lord Kelvin, and the naturalist Charles Darwin. Lord Kelvin was a great believer in models and differential equations. Charles Darwin was not particularly facile with mathematics, but he took observations very seriously. For evolution to produce the variety of living and fossil species that Darwin had observed, the earth needed to have spent hundreds of millions of years with conditions not very different from now. With his mathematical models, Kelvin rather pompously demonstrated that the earth must have been a hellish ball of molten rock only a few tens of millions of years ago, and that the sun could not have been shining for more than about 30 million years. Kelvin was actually modeling what he thought was global and solar cooling. I am sorry to say that a majority of his fellow physicists supported Kelvin. Poor Darwin removed any reference to the age of the earth in later editions of the “Origin of the Species.” But Darwin was right the first time, and Kelvin was wrong. Kelvin thought he knew everything but he did not know about the atomic nucleus, radioactivity and nuclear reactions, all of which invalidated his elegant modeling calculations.

    This brings up the frequent assertion that there is a consensus behind the idea that there is an impending disaster from climate change, and that it may already be too late to avert this catastrophe, even if we stop burning fossil fuels now. We are told that only a few flat-earthers still have any doubt about the calamitous effects of continued CO2 emissions. There are a number of answers to this assertion.

    First, what is correct in science is not determined by consensus but by experiment and observations. Historically, the consensus is often wrong, and I just mentioned the incorrect consensus of modelers about the age of the earth and the sun. During the yellow fever epidemic of 1793 in Philadelphia the medical consensus was that you could cure almost anything by bleeding the patient. Benjamin Rush, George Washington’s Surgeon General during the War of Independence, and a brave man, stayed in Philadelphia throughout the yellow fever epidemic. He worked tirelessly to save the stricken by bleeding them, the consensus treatment of the day. A few cautious observers noticed that you were more likely to survive the yellow fever without the services of the great man. But Dr. Rush had plenty of high level-friends and he was backed up by the self-evident consensus, so he went ahead with his ministrations. In summary, a consensus is often wrong.

    Secondly, I do not think there is a consensus about an impending climate crisis. I personally certainly don’t believe we are facing a crisis unless we create one for ourselves, as Benjamin Rush did by bleeding his patients. Many others, wiser than I am, share my view. The number of those with the courage to speak out is growing. There may be an illusion of consensus. Like the temperance movement one hundred years ago the climate-catastrophe movement has enlisted the mass media, the leadership of scientific societies, the trustees of charitable foundations, and many other influential people to their cause. Just as editorials used to fulminate about the slippery path to hell behind the tavern door, hysterical op-ed’s lecture us today about the impending end of the planet and the need to stop climate change with bold political action. Many distinguished scientific journals now have editors who further the agenda of climate- change alarmism. Research papers with scientific findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe. Speaking of the Romans, then invading Scotland in the year 83, the great Scottish chieftain Calgacus is quoted as saying “They make a desert and call it peace.” If you have the power to stifle dissent, you can indeed create the illusion of peace or consensus. The Romans have made impressive inroads into climate science. Certainly, it is a bit unnerving to read statements of Dr. James Hansen in the Congressional Record that climate skeptics are guilty of “high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    Even elementary school teachers and writers of children’s books are enlisted to terrify our children and to promote the idea of impending climate doom. Having observed the education of many children, including my own, I am not sure how effective the effort will be. Many children seem to do just the opposite of what they are taught. Nevertheless, children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science. Many of you may know that in 2007 a British Court ruled that if Al Gore’s book, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was used in public schools, the children had to be told of eleven particularly troubling inaccuracies. You can easily find a list of the inaccuracies on the internet, but I will mention one. The court ruled that it was not possible to attribute hurricane Katrina to CO2. Indeed, had we taken a few of the many billions of dollars we have been spending on climate change research and propaganda and fixed the dykes and pumps around the New Orleans, most of the damage from Hurricane Katrina could have been avoided.

    The sea level is indeed rising, just as it has for the past 20,000 years since the end of the last ice age. Fairly accurate measurements of sea level have been available since about 1800. These measurements show no sign of any acceleration. The rising sea level can be a serious local problem for heavily-populated, low-lying areas like New Orleans, where land subsidence compounds the problem. But to think that limiting CO2 emissions will stop sea level rise is a dangerous illusion. It is also possible that the warming seas around Antarctica will cause more snowfall over the continent and will counteract the sea-level rise. In any case, the rising sea level is a problem that needs quick local action for locations like New Orleans rather than slow action globally.

    In closing, let me say again that we should provide adequate support to the many brilliant scientists, some at my own institution of Princeton University, who are trying to better understand the earth’s climate, now, in the past, and what it may be in the future. I regret that the climate-change issue has become confused with serious problems like secure energy supplies, protecting our environment, and figuring out where future generations will get energy supplies after we have burned all the fossil fuel we can find. We should not confuse these laudable goals with hysterics about carbon footprints. For example, when weighing pluses and minuses of the continued or increased use of coal, the negative issue should not be increased atmospheric CO2, which is probably good for mankind. We should focus on real issues like damage to the land and waterways by strip mining, inadequate remediation, hazards to miners, the release of real pollutants and poisons like mercury, other heavy metals, organic carcinogens, etc. Life is about making decisions and decisions are about trade-offs. The Congress can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently. Or they can act on unreasonable fears and suppress energy use, economic growth and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth.

    William Happer Testimony to Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, February 25, 2009

  12. Evidence suggests that CO2 is probably not the culprit of AGW, or the most pernicious of GHG. That doesn’t mean that AGW as a whole should be rejected (though the Al Gore/IPCC models may have done more harm than good). Temperatures are still rising in many areas, and lack of rainfall remains an issue. California, for instance, now faces another year of moderate to severe drought (it’s actually worse up north). AGW most likely has some relation to the drought conditions though few of the experts and Agua-crats have made the connection.

    Irrigation to farms has already been cut back, and Ahhnuld will probably implement water rationing. Really, blame the produce business: were it not for H20 going to massive citrus farms, industrial vineyards, and many other mostly inessential fruits and vegetables there would be ample quantities of water, AGW or not. The Peoples must have their cabernet, pistachios, and naranjas, however. When the CA citrus market busts, expect the worst: thousands of people (not only los campesinos) depend on the orange and lemon business.

  13. Glenn I think we won’t see much about the “mainstream scientist” backlash against alarmist science, esp. if we have a hot few summers in a row. The alarmism is easier to write about cuz there really is not much of a story here due to nearly imperceptible and gradual AGW changes that are usually swamped out by much greater natural forces (e.g. now and for the last few years as the earth appears to be cooling rather than warming).

    Horatiox good one: “Agua-crats”

    The Peoples must have their cabernet, pistachios, and naranjas

    Yup. I’d feel less frustrated with all the shrill concerns about CO2 and environmental issues if I saw more people proposing solutions that inconvenienced *them*, rather than *others*.

  14. Joe it is breakthroughs like:

    That could possibly change everything we know…unfortunately until people like Al Gore figure out a way to make millions for themselves and their cronies this stuff will probably never see the light of day.

    The world governments should pour billions into something like and make everyone almost self-sufficient…but hey that actually goes to solving the problem not just patching.

    It certainly is better than those polluting battery based vehicles…

  15. The hypocrisy and fraud continues…LOL

    House drops ‘carbon neutral’ plan

    Washington — The House of Representatives has abandoned a plan to make its offices “carbon neutral,” a sign that Congress is wrestling with a pledge to become more green even as it crafts sweeping legislation on climate change.

    The promise that the House would effectively reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to zero was a centerpiece of the Green the Capitol program in which the new Democratic leadership sought to use Capitol Hill as a kind of a national demonstration project.

    But last week, a spokesman for the House’s chief administrative officer said the chamber’s leadership had dropped an essential part of the plan, the purchase of “carbon offsets” to cancel out emissions from its buildings. Offsets are a controversial commodity that promises that a certain amount of pollution was captured or avoided elsewhere.

    “Right now, there is no plan to purchase more offsets,” spokesman Jeff Ventura said. The House paid $89,000 for offsets to cover the last session, in 2007 and 2008.

    The decision comes as legislators also struggle with the future of the Capitol Power Plant.

    Hundreds of demonstrators with Greenpeace, the Rainforest Action Network and other groups will protest today against the plant’s use of coal.

    The plant is burning more natural gas, which produces about half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal. But it continues to burn about 35% coal.

    Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wrote to the Architect of the Capitol, which runs the plant, proposing that it be converted to run only on natural gas. The conversion’s estimated cost: $7.78 million.,0,2258246.story?track=rss

  16. The bitter cold and record snowfalls from two wicked winters are causing people to ask if the global climate is truly changing.

    The climate is known to be variable and, in recent years, more scientific thought and research has been focused on the global temperature and how humanity might be influencing it.

    However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down.

    Scientists at the university used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years.

    When this all shakes out hopefully Al Gore will be investigated and put behind bars for a long time. I think most would be satisfied with 1 year for every million he has swindled from the public.

    Meanwhile a corrupt organization like the U.N. now is getting radical because they know their gig is up on GW. But of course Obama & crew want to entrust our future with them…

  17. I think there is plenty of alarmism but I do not doubt the sincerity of the folks who are overly concerned about negative GW impacts. As we keep learning I think we’ll find that even though there is a slight warming trend and slight sea level rise it is well within our range of tolerances and also often swamped out by natural forces (e.g. global average temps are cooler over the past few years, the slight GW trend has been swamped by natural variations in weather and climate).

    The response to the cooling trend has been interesting though, with the alarmist folks shouting even louder that the sky is falling/warming catastrophically. I think this comes from the frustration as regular folks shift attention away from “pending GW catastrophe” and towards other more pressing concerns. Sowing alarmism is now reaping skepticism.

  18. Also, there is no cooling trend. we have been in a warming trend. We remain in a warming trend. 2009 is likely to be warmer than 2008.

  19. Also, there is no cooling trend

    JCH are you defining “trend” as longer term, which would indeed mean we have no cooling trend since the cooler temps are only over the last several years.

    My understanding is that average global temps have trended lower for the past few years in what most believe is a cooling related to ocean currents that is swamping out the effects of global warming.

    This is well studied and documented – where have you been?

  20. (25) Joe you are absolutely right about the cooling trend and we are in the midst of one now and it will last for quite a while.

    In fact Canada is tracking to have the lowest average temperature on record this year. So far this year they are tracking to be the lowest since 1860.

    Al Gore and his GW is the biggest scam ever attempted. The irony of all the good environmental ideas are now being polluted themselves with the ongoing scams that are designed just to tax people.

    Finally with taxing carbon they literally open the door to tax ANYTHING they want for ANY reason. Anyone that falls for it is just another sucker. We ALL need to stand up to this insanity and put a stop to it.

    So much for Obama promising not to raise taxes on everyone…his extreme environmental plans are going to bring HUGE taxes on everyone in this country.

  21. “This is well studied and documented …”

    There is no cooling trend. If you want to talk silly, meaningless, insignificant uses of trend, then certainly, those are well documented.

    2008 was the coolest year since 2000,but also the 9th warmest year since 1880, and that in spite of a very strong La Nina.

    We have been in a warming trend, and we remain, for every second of the 2000s, in a warming trend. And that is well documented and studied.

  22. That is exactly right, and there is nothing surprising, or contradictory, about it. All during the warming trend there have been periods where there have been years both below and above the trend, but never, and including to to this very last second of the last 30 years of the warming trend, has there been a statistically significant cooling.

    And if it is not statistically significant, then it is absolutely silly to claim that it is happening, ’cause it ain’t happening. Now, if it were to cool long enough to achieve significance, that would a different matter, but it hasn’t.

  23. (29) Joe this is where the raging left loons proclaim…Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain!!!

    (30) JCH what isn’t statistically significant is all the climate and weather data we have collected. It is nothing more than a blip in the history of our planet and its climate. That’s the whole point they cannot accurately predict what is going to happen so it is foolish to spend trillions on it.

    But this has nothing to do with saving the planet…this is all about leveraging the U.N. and the New World Order all done through forced population control and taxes.

    Look at the absurdity of the cap and trade…it is actually designed to penalize the conservative leaning states in this country and the liberal states have been giving exclusions…the people are not stupid…they will revolt at these things are implemented.

    As I said from day 1 Obama is a fraud and this is all going to fall apart for the Democrats and hopefully their party will be completely vanquished because this time I don’t think there will be any compromise when the pendulum comes swinging back.

    Because America will reject a vision of penalizing the achievers in our society, it will reject an idea that we should further penalized our soldiers…it will reject an idea that provides unlimited medical care to 30 million illegals, prisoners, etc while rationing it for the elderly, sick and our soldiers.

    Pelosi/Reid/Obama are acting more and more like fascists every single day.

  24. The predominance of our understanding of the physical world around us is but a blink in terms of geologic time. So what does Glenn conclude? Because it’s a blink, we have to remain dumb as cavemen.

  25. Yeah if caveman were liberals and Democrats humans would have been extinct long ago…

    So I guess being dumb as a caveman is still smarter than being foolish as a liberal.

    JCH…that is your response…face it the lie and scam has been exposed…Al Gore’s view of alarmism is not based at all in reality but based on a fear mongering premise to promote an agenda that ultimately taxes and controls people. He is a fraud and so is the Democratic party.

    All of their days in power are now numbered. They are so greedy and corrupted for power they can only have one outcome now – complete failure.

    Once you lose the ability to govern based on principles as our fore-fathers envisioned you govern based on your inability to get elected so you manipulate the system for your own personal gain through various forms of corruption until ultimately it all fails. Shame of it though is the hard working Americans are the ones that get stuck with the bill and headache of rebuilding our country.

  26. Nothing has been exposed. The science marches on – every minute of every day.

    You lie about it all you want, but so understand, you are lying. And when you are not lying, you are usually making insane, hyperbolic statements.

    How is that Obama birth certificate thing doin’? A perfect example of the stupidly of which you will bite hook, line, and sinker.

    Some scientists think liberalism and conservatism are inheritable. Which means the hope for mankind is lunatic conservatism is survivable.

  27. The AGW truth probably lies somewhere between the Glennster and JCH. The original claims of Gore/IPCC were exaggerated. Man made CO2 does not appear to be as much a contributing factor. The temp data, however, does suggest a heating trend (though the reliability of the data still an issue); whether it’s anomalous or not remains to be decided. Methane (and other GHG) also pose an issue, though much of the methane is natural.

    CA appears headed into another year of drought, unless there’s a great deal of rainfall: I have yet to hear any eco-expert connect the CA drought to AGW, however. That said, I think there are some alarmists among the Pelosicrats, who want to throw millions at AGW as the economy crumbles. Being slightly skeptical aboout AGW claims does not imply one approves of the GOP, or LimbaughLand, JCH.

  28. (34) JCH the COLB is becoming more of an issue every day. All Obama had to do was produce it…problem solved…but he didn’t…why not? Because he has something to hide. Why do you accept that the person you are entrusting our country’s future can arbitrarily hide what he wants but force others to another standard? It is the constitution that is important here not Obama’s ability to manipulate and trick the system.

    And here is a good one about your buddy Dodd:

    While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.

    Also, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to

    And what about Obama’s plans with veterans health benefits…no comment on that outrage…JCH you are such a hypocrite. You are incapable of independent thought. I can only imagine what it is like when you have to decide something from menu…I bet you ask the server to pick for you.

  29. (35) Horatiox…most reasonable people will accept there is climate change…it happens all the time on this planet as does change with our magnetic poles, the positions of our continents…NYC used to be located at the equator and was connected to other continents.

    The entire point on why Al Gore is a fraud is the reason he claims his support for GW…he wants to save the planet…BS. He wants to pad his wallet and usher in a new wave of control and taxation. He is corrupt and he is another disciple of IDEOLOGY TRUMPS ALL.

    Why would we make such drastic changes to our lifestyles, etc to support something we are not even close to understanding. We need entrepreneurial efforts on climate adaptability to produce new technologies and methods to adapt to climate change. It is fool’s errand to think we can control climate change. The forces at work are far more powerful than man could ever produce. It is the same technology that could be used for Mars and other planets, terraforming, etc. That all makes sense. It’s useful and has a purpose to further humankind.

    In order for long term survival we need to expand beyond our blue marble and not just adopt some extreme view like Ted Turner supports where we decide who gets to live and die, what you can eat and drink, what you can think and do.

    Supporting the U.N. in this quest is a major step backwards for mankind on this planet. We need to get back to being leader and stop being compared to other third rate countries. This whole Rodney King approach is an unfolding disaster.

    The fact that Al Gore and others are stating publicly that scientific discussion, inspection, dissertations are no longer allowed about GW are the exact proof that their premise is a lie. Science never stops on anything…the moment we stifle the scientific process is the moment we stop learning and growing.

  30. This is so typical of you:

    “Also, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to …”

    So what? What does it prove? Nothing. It means nothing. There is nothing illegal about donating money to a politician. One business unit of AIG, the London-based AIG FP unit, caused the vast majority of AIG’s problems. Did Dodd have anything to do with it? Do you have a single item that ties him to CDSs? CDSs were unregulated – what would they be buying off. It would be kind of stupid to buy off Senators for an unregulated product. Clinton signed that, but every conservative Republican on the planet was doing backflips and handstands in celebration.

    It was until your boy George built 10 million absolutely certain, almost instantaneous, foreclosures that CDSs ever had a single problem.

    Th claim that any science is not allowed is a lie. Every scientist is perfectly free to make observations and write a paper. If it’s a good one, it will get published. If he writes crap, then it probably won’t be. You would advocate publishing crap? So ask yourself, Glenn, what is stopping these scientists from becoming incredibly famous by uncovering the hoax? Should be easy, right? All they have to do is write a paper than cannot be shredded into confetti by a junior high physics teacher – like the last one you linked – the solubility fool.

  31. (38) JCH once again you take the bait…lol.

    I will remind you again that I was not a supporter of Bush. I was just as critical.

    Yes it will be proven that Dodd is corrupt and has broken many laws. The irony is somehow you think earmarks and campaign contributions the way they are today are just fine…they are fraught with the opportunity for corruption but as long as your “KIND” is elected you will look the other way. Once again…hypocrite.

    Of course no comment on the military health benefits…that would completely expose you.

    And what about Al Gore publicly stating to Bjorn just a couple of weeks ago that public debate on GW was over…the science was finished and there was no need for further discussion…did you miss that one? Or do you just want conveniently forget the facts?

    In regard to Obama’s COLB…here is a good article to read to see why this issue is important and why Obama needs to answers these lingering questions about his COLB and passport, etc…after all it is just the Constitution we are talking about here…but hey don’t let that old piece of paper get in the way of your IDEOLOGY.

  32. (38) JCH why not add the following language to Schumer’s huge tax for AIG.

    Amendment to the Schumer bill:

    Whereas Congress expressly authorized said AIG bonuses, and,

    Whereas Senator Chris Dodd wrote that exception into the AIG bailout legislation,


    Be it resolved that all members of Congress, who voted in favor of any of the bailouts, and all members of Congress who accepted any campaign funds from AIG, be taxed at the rate of 100% of their government salary plus 100% of the dollar amount of any political contributions received from AIG or AIG employees or PAC’s.

    Why don’t we start implementing policies that actually make sense? How can anyone that truly wants to serve our country right now be not willing to be taxed at 100%? In act ALL of congress should forgo their salaries and should agree to a limited pension?…I mean this is a crisis and we all need to be patriotic right?

  33. JCH look at your buddy Biden…ROFL…you just can’t make this stuff up!!!

    Vice President Joe Biden’s tone on the economy Monday night was a stark contrast from the upbeat message coming from the Obama administration over the past few days.

    In a 20-minute speech thanking supporters at a Democratic National Committee event, Biden said that the country’s dire economic situation was even more complex than the Great Depression.

    “This president has inherited the most difficult first 100 days of any president, I would argue, including Franklin Roosevelt,” Biden said.

    “Let me explain what I mean by that,” he added. “It was clear the problem Roosevelt inherited. This is a more complicated economic [problem]. We’ve never, ever been here before – here or in the world. Never, ever been here before.”

    He spoke just a day after Obama’s chief economic advisers took to the Sunday shows to say the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are sound.

    The vice president went on to assure Democratic donors that their support of Obama’s agenda – even if it gives them pause – is directly linked to their party’s political future.

    And whether they realized it at the time or not, Biden told them, Obama’s moves are the change they voted for in November.

    “I know some of you are holding your breath with what we’re doing,” Biden said in the lobby of the lobby of the Corcoran Gallery of Art. “This is about the change we meant. We meant fundamental, foundational change.”

    No wonder they hide him…lol…Does he make you proud JCH? Do you feel more American today than you did on Sep 12, 2001?

  34. JCH here is another one of your idols…listen to him speak about taxes now they are directly affecting him…man he isn’t very patriotic is he?

    We’re constantly told that taxes don’t matter to business and investors, but listen to that noted supply-side economist, Alec Baldwin. The actor recently rebuked New York Governor David Paterson for threatening to try to help close the state’s $7 billion budget deficit by canceling a 35% tax credit for films shot in the Big Apple.

    “I’m telling you right now,” Mr. Baldwin declared, “if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it’s all going to go to California.” Well, well. Apparently taxes do matter, at least when it comes to filming “30 Rock” in Manhattan.

    Believe it or not, Mr. Baldwin’s views are shared across the movie industry, which is pleading in state capitals across the country for most-favored-tax status. Hollywood productions are highly mobile and can film just about anywhere. So they have taken to shopping around the country — and the world — for the most lucrative tax avoidance deal.

    According to the Motion Picture Association of America, nearly 40 states have corporate tax carve outs or generous cash rebates to lure movie studios to their states. In Michigan, producers negotiated a 40% tax credit on their production costs. A bipartisan bill introduced in the Texas legislature last week and supported by Governor Rick Perry would allocate $60 million into the Texas Film Incentive Program. Members of the Screen Actors Guild held a rally last week in front of the state capitol urging the tax breaks.

    ROFL…tax revolt in progress. What do you think is going to happen when people just decide to stop paying taxes?

  35. Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are – Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.

    Gee why isn’t this surprising? I wonder why they got so much in contributions…

    As they say just follow the money – like with Freddie and Fannie and low and behold you see the same cast of characters benefiting from these clowns!

    How much do you want to bet that if AIG announced tomorrow that they are unionizing that all this criticism from the left would stop…or maybe they would be allowed to double their bonuses…

  36. AIG gave Obama $107,332.

    They gave GWB $200,560. I guess they gave up when they realized that Obama, unlike GWB, was not for sale.

    McCain got $99,249. What is shocking is they got that far into him before realizing the dunce could not win.

  37. (44) As always JCH…you leave out key information.

    That was the amount GWB got over 8 years…Obama got half of what GWB got in just ONE YEAR. I guess they stopped giving money to GWB once they knew Obama’s price.

    Here is the list:

    American International Group: All Recipients
    Among Federal Candidates, 1989-2008
    Total: $4,362,625

    Name Total Contributions
    Dodd, Chris (D-Conn) $280,238
    Bush, George W (R-Texas) $200,560
    Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $111,875
    Obama, Barack (D-Ill) $107,332
    McCain, John (R-Ariz) $99,249
    Baucus, Max (D-Mont) $90,000
    Kerry, John (D-Mass) $85,000
    Johnson, Nancy L (R-Conn) $75,400
    Sununu, John E (R-NH) $69,049
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $59,515
    Lieberman, Joe (I-Conn) $57,900
    Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) $53,582
    Giuliani, Rudolph W (R-NY) $50,250

  38. Just shows how corrupt and out of touch the Democratic party is. Can you imagine even consider a new tax that would burden businesses and the economy with costs in the trillions? We will stay in a depression with decades!!!

    White House Admits Cap-And-Trade Tax Costs Triple Their Official Estimate

    By Phil Kerpen

    I’ve already explained here on the Forum how the cap-and-trade energy tax works, and would be the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. Now, amazingly, the White House is telling something closer to the truth about this tax hike, admitting that the official budget estimate of $646 billion over 8 years—already a mighty steep price to pay—is far, far lower than the real cost.

    The deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, Jason Furman, is giving us a glimpse at the real number, telling Senate staff the energy tax scheme would actually raise “two-to-three times” the budget’s official $646 billion revenue estimate. Dow Jones reports that 5 people at the meeting confirmed the statement—we can be pretty sure he said it.

    It make sense, because the budget estimate was only half the official score from the Congressional Budget Office for last year’s Lieberman-Warner bill, even though the Obama version is designed to have much steeper costs because it requires steeper emissions cuts.

    If Furman is right that the real tax hike would be two or three times the official budget estimate—and it’s likely still a lowball—that would mean the actual tax hike would run well into the trillions, roughly between $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion between fiscal years 2012 and 2019 by Furman’s own estimate.

  39. Of course as we meander through the environmental extremists views and policies of our messiah we learn that the Obama administration is actually instigating trade wars first with Mexico and now probably China.

    Gee don’t we all feel better that we had to be part of a historic moment by electing Obama only one problem this historic moment is turning out not what you thought it was. The Obama fraud continues…

    China will not cooperate with any cap and trade in greenhouse gases, even though in terms of absolute emissions, China exceeds that of the U.S. In terms of per capita pollution, China is still behind. Nonetheless, any attempt to penalize China’s exports because of carbon emissions may start a trade war:

    Li [Gao, director of China’s climate change office] said it would be a “disaster” – and possibly the start of a trade war – for the U.S. to impose tariffs on imports from China or other countries that didn’t have mandatory emissions controls. He said the tariffs would be unfair and a violation of trade rules.

    China shouldn’t have to take responsibility for the 15 percent to 25 percent of its emissions that result from making products for the rest of the world, said Li, the director of the Department of Climate Change in China’s National Development and Reform Commission. He spoke at a briefing sponsored by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a nonpartisan research organization.

    “For many developing countries, not only China, we produce the products for the consumers, especially in developed countries,” Li said. He argued it wouldn’t be fair to hold China accountable because “we are on the lower end of the economic chain of the global economy.”

  40. Obama: A Study in Presidential Arrogance

    The whole world was supposed to fall at his feet. He was supposed to spend the next four to eight years (or four to ten as he once said during the late campaign) just making airy pronouncements while everyone danced lemming-like to his tune of hope-n-change. It was supposed to be easy. Heck, The One himself even pronounced that he enjoyed being president. “And it turns out I’m very good at it,” he assured everyone during a luncheon with TV anchors a few weeks ago.

    Obama simply didn’t imagine that he had to worry too much about those nagging details like making sure his nominees were vetted and had paid their taxes. He didn’t think that those silly 8,500 earmarks in his omnibus budget needed eliminating like he kept talking about in the campaign. For that matter, he didn’t even realize he was supposed to become involved in creating that stimulus bill. And foreign policy? Why our enemies were supposed to want him to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony while our allies were supposed to simply take it all on faith that we still love them like bosom buddies. Move along. Nothing to see here.

    You see, Obama is a campaigner. And, him being the Obammessiah and all, he thinks that all he has to do is be there, his God-like presence healing all rifts, fixing all errors, causing the sun to shine. He is the change he has been waiting for, after all. I mean, he didn’t imagine he’d actually have to do anything once he got to the White House, to be sure.

    Sadly, he’s more like Chauncey Gardner than Jesus Christ, quite despite the constant religious iconography lovingly bestowed upon him by the lapdog media.

    Everyone talks about his ability as an orator and we saw a prime example of what he is capable of when he followed the teleprompter right off the cliff when he read verbatim what was running across and he ACTUALLY THANKED HIMSELF in a speech yesterday that was supposed to be read by Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen. Obama is a fraud.

  41. God help us!!!

    Barney Frank…what a corrupt blubbering idiot. Let’s suspend the Constitution…now Frank and Schumer both stating that is the way to go with AIG.

    This move in itself would make our country socialist. As soon as the government suspends the rights in our Constitution regarding contract law we have become a socialist country. Still don’t think they have us on a path to socialism?

    It is interesting that these guys wanted to keep AIG out of bankruptcy…why do you think that is? Because if they have to go to bankruptcy court then we will ALL have a right to know everything that has gone on and I would suspect if the truth about AIG and our politicians ever came to the surface we would have some very nervous corrupt politicians.

    It is amazing how corruption just breed more and more bad destructive decisions.

  42. More brilliance from the Obama administration…on Meet the Press…

    GREGORY: So back then during the campaign when Senator McCain talked about the strong fundamentals of the economy, it was then-candidate Obama and his team that roundly criticized McCain, saying he was out of touch, he didn’t get it, he didn’t understand how bad the economy was. And yet now the president’s talking about the strong fundamentals of the economy. So what’s different between then, the campaign, and now, except for the fact that the economy’s gotten dramatically worse?

    ROMER: I think when the president says he’s focusing on fundamentals, what he means is — is we’re focusing on fixing the fundamentals; that we’ve always said we’re not looking at the ups and downs of the stock market, we’re looking for those crucial indicators: when are jobs turning around; when are sales turning around; when do we see consumers coming to life? That’s the kind of thing that — certainly that I’m looking at in terms of when’s the economy going to be doing better and when can we see some hope.

    GREGORY: Are the fundamentals of this economy sound?

    ROMER: Well, of course the fundamentals are sound in the sense that the American workers are sound, we have a good capital stock, we have good technology. We know that, that temporarily we’re in a mess, right? We’ve seen huge job loss. We’ve seen very large falls in GDP. So certainly in the short run we’re in a — in a bad situation.

    GREGORY: All right, but then what’s different between now and then, when the economy was in even better shape than it is now, when McCain was saying the fundamentals were strong and then-candidate Obama criticized him?

    ROMER: I think — again, I think what we’re saying is that the, you know, where we are today is obviously not good. We have a plan in place to get to a good place. I think that’s the crucial — a fundamentally crucial difference, is to make sure that you have put in place all of the comprehensive programs that’ll get us back to those fundamentals.

    Wake up sheeple this is the crew you put in office…

  43. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is “un-American.”

    The speaker, condemning raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, referred to the immigrants she was addressing as “very, very patriotic.”

    “Who in this country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?” Pelosi told a mostly Hispanic gathering at St. Anthony’s Church in San Francisco.

    “It must be stopped….What value system is that? I think it’s un-American. I think it’s un-American.”

    Now this is completely unbelievable. The only thing “un-American” are the illegals that refuse to comply with our immigration laws and rules. Our ancestors all had to do it but for some reason these are now unfair.

    The solution to this problem is simple…comply with our immigration requirements or get out.

    30 million illegals costing us taxpayers billions and billions a year. Meanwhile these idiots in power want injured soldiers to provide their own health care but lets give everything to illegals….geesh. I wonder why that could be…ah…could it be that most of the military will NEVER vote for a liberal.

  44. “30 million illegals costing us taxpayers billions and billions a year. Meanwhile these idiots in power want injured soldiers to provide their own health care but lets give everything to illegals….geesh. I wonder why that could be…ah…could it be that most of the military will NEVER vote for a liberal. …”

    You can never stop lying, can you?

    The proposal does not require any veteran who has a service-related injury/disability to purchase private health insurance.

    Anybody making that claim is a liar.

    The proposal does not allow the VA to deny benefits to veteran who has a service-related injury/disability who does not have private health insurance.

    Anybody making that claim is a liar.

    What Obama proposes is that veterans who have service-related injuries/disabilities and who also have private health insurance – for which they have paid their good money – have some of the treatment costs provided by the VA to the veteran be paid by the veteran’s private carrier – so they can get something for the good money they are paying for their private health insurance.

    This is exactly how it is done for veterans who do not have service-related injuries/disabilities.

    This perfectly reasonable and it allow the VA to shift about 500 million a year to other VA programs – thus enhancing veteran benefits.

  45. (52) Gee JCH guess you didn’t get your daily briefing from Obama…he is killing the plan because it wasn’t good for our vets and it was requiring them to switch to their own private insurance.

    Looks like your buddies are in a steep decline now…ROFL…the liberals seize power and it took less than 90 days to completely screw up our country.

    The backlash coming is going to be so strong…hope your ready.

  46. (53) JCH what will you be saying once the dollar drops like a rock today after the Fed actually announced it was monetizing our debt…Geithner is really out of his league. Let’s see how China and the other treasury holders play this.

    I would expect to see the dollar drop like a rock now. This could really sink our country very quickly.

    Then of course we will experience massive inflation and then of course we need another recession to counter the inflation…it will be many years before we can see the light of day again.

    Obama and Geithner are destroying our country…hope you are proud.

  47. We can’t even have intellectually honest debates anymore in this country.

    Washington DC — UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

    “The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

    “The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

    “Waxman knows there has been no ‘global warming’ for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years’ global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore’s mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, ‘the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,’” Monckton explained.

    Hopefully the raging loons in our government will go too far with their show trials, etc…so that the next wave can focus on really putting the elected crooks behind bars.

    The cap and trade and other scams perpetuated by Gore and company are the biggest ponzi schemes ever envisioned.

  48. Seriously you can’t make this stuff up…

    Ecopsychology. It’s a new branch of psychology that helps you reduce your worries while while simultaneously helping reduce your carbon footprint. It helps you work on personal relationships and your relationship to nature.

    In other words, you still tell the psychologist that your mother didn’t understand you. But now you can add that your elm tree doesn’t understand you, either.

    “Global warming has added an extra layer of anxiety to what people are already feeling,” said Sandy Shulmire a practicing ecopsychologist.

    Some psychologists think the whole thing is a giant load of bunkum.

    “If the patient has generalized anxiety disorder, he or she is going to be worrying about almost everything,” noted Dr. Scott Lilienfeld, a psychology professor at Emory University.

    Odds are you won’t be able to see your own doctor under Obama’s new healthcare plan, but will be able to see an ecopsychologist.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s