The Death of the Global Warming Myth

[Ryan Ruck]

Levels of this gas in the atmosphere have not been measured, but scientists say it is a concern and are calling for it to be included in any future emissions cutting agreement.

So, we should curb this because of something it might do?

If I were doing this, I would be taking an umbrella with me everywhere I go because there is a chance, even on days it is sunny, where it could rain.

[PsycoJoe]

Or start shooting everyone you meet on the off chance they MIGHT attack you.

[Ryan Ruck]

Exactly...

[Brian Baldwin]

Or start shooting everyone you meet on the off chance they MIGHT attack you.

You mean that's not what I'm supposed to do? Ah crap!

[American Patriot]

Be Ashamed. Be Very Ashamed.
The Daily Grind ^ | 07/08/2008 | ALG News

Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:18:59 AM by Captain McAllister

Environmentalist despotism is on a roll. From every corner of the globe, the Green movement has unceasingly inundated world citizens with a deluge of documentaries, articles, “hard facts,” “reliable models,” and “common sense” in an attempt to rally eco-warriors and build their cause.

Having used nearly every method at their disposal, the movement has now turned to the merciless and unrelenting strategy of shame tactics.

According to an article published yesterday at GreenBiz.com, the state of California has issued a mandate that all 2009 model cars be stamped with a “Global Warming Score” label. The label would display the carbon emissions score on a scale of one to 10 with the most earth-friendly, low-emissions vehicles earning a higher number. Logically, those vehicles deemed “earth-unfriendly” will earn a lower number.

This sticker will go hand in hand with the already-required smog score sticker which accomplishes the same task with regard to smog emissions.

Before the anger and indignation (or worse yet, resignation) sets it, however, it is vital to understand that tactics such as these are far from unique and that there really is nothing new under the sun. Consider World War II, for example.

Just as the German Nazi regime commanded its Jewish citizens to display a prominent yellow star to serve as a symbol of inferiority, so too have today’s Green despots mandated this “Global Warming Score” label. If you drive an SUV, a pickup, or any other type of vehicle with a low “score,” the Green police want the world to know that you are an inferior citizen. You are sub-human. You are despicable. Shame on you.

It would be foolish to assume that the totalitarianism ends here, though. When the shaming proves not to be enough, we can expect nothing less than blitzkrieg economic oppression of all types.

Frighteningly enough, this monster has already begun to raise its ugly head.

While our own government recently postponed a proposed carbon cap-and-trade system for America’s industry, a Wall Street Journal article pointed out yesterday that the British government is also considering a cap-and-trade system—for its own citizens. As the article articulates, a Parliamentary committee recently proposed issuing “carbon allowances” to all British adults. They would be required to spend this—along with your typical pounds—on anything that carries carbon-baggage. This includes gasoline, airline tickets, electricity and natural gas. Britons could have the “freedom” to trade carbon credits among themselves as the government sees fit.

The article quotes Environment Minister Hilary Benn as calling the proposal “ahead of its time.”

The only time this should remind us of, however, is the aforementioned Second World War. As the article argues:

“War-time-like energy rations are a clear illustration of the extent to which environmentalists hope to control every aspect of modern life…The global warmists want you to sacrifice for their cause. And the duration of their war on carbon will make the decade-and-a-half of British rationing during and after World War II seem like a fleeting moment.”

So how far will the carbon regulation go? Will each and every one of our carbon dioxide emitting breaths be regulated by the Government as well? Will we be rationed as to how many carbon-polluting pets we can own, or, eventually, how many children we can bear? While this question may seem absurd, it is worth considering.

Just how much regulation are we truly willing to allow?

All of these questions underline the stark reality that the entire Global Warming paranoia is merely a vehicle for Big Government expansionism. It was tried under the guise of fascism and was subsequently tossed out by the people. It was tried under the guise of communism and was subsequently tossed out by the people.

And one has to wonder: just how long will the Green elite be allowed to foist the new despotism of environmentalism upon the world before the people rise up and toss it out, too?

[American Patriot]

Skip to comments.
Wikipropaganda - Spinning green.
National Review Online ^ | July 08, 2008 | Lawrence Solomon

---

---

July 08, 2008, 6:00 a.m.

Wikipropaganda
Spinning green.

By Lawrence Solomon


Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works.

As you (or your kids) probably know, Wikipedia is now the most widely used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month.

In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it — anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming.

Of course Oreskes’s conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface.

Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.

I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.

I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out.

Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia “editor.” Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.

And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favors.

“Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an “edit war,” as they’re called. Trumping Wikipedia’s stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding.

Nor are Wikipedia’s ideological biases limited to global warming. As an environmentalist I find myself with allies and adversaries on both sides of the aisle, Left and Right. But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia’s entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people’s encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.

— Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers.

[American Patriot]

Doomed to a fatal delusion over climate change
Article from: Herald Sun
Andrew Bolt

July 09, 2008 12:00am

PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion" - and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.

Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".

"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."

(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)

"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."

But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.

Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: "If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands."

And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd's guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: "Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . ."

Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd's next campaign slogan?

Of course, we can laugh at this -- and must -- but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash.

Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide -- the gas they think is heating the world to hell.

The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they're even planning to tax farting cows, so there's no end to the ways you can be stung.

Rudd hopes this pain will make you switch to expensive but less gassy alternatives, and -- hey presto -- the world's temperature will then fall, just like it's actually done since the day Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth.

But you'll have spotted already the big flaw in Rudd's mad plan -- one that confirms he and Garnaut really do have delusions.

The truth is Australia on its own emits less than 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide. Any savings we make will make no real difference, given that China (now the biggest emitter) and India (the fourth) are booming so fast that they alone will pump out 42 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases by 2030.

Indeed, so fast are the world's emissions growing -- by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants -- that the 20 per cent cuts Rudd demands of Australians by 2020 would be swallowed up in just 28 days. That's how little our multi-billions of dollars in sacrifices will matter.

And that's why Rudd's claim that we'll be ruined if we don't cut Australia's gases is a lie. To be blunt.

Ask Rudd's guru. Garnaut on Friday admitted any cuts we make will be useless unless they inspire other countries to do the same -- especially China and India: "Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels."

So almost everything depends on China and India copying us. But the chances of that? A big, round zero.

A year ago China released its own global warming strategy -- its own Garnaut report -- which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions.

Said Ma Kai, head of China's powerful State Council: "China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments . . . our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth."

In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: "It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China's energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high."

Last month, India likewise issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and also rejected Rudd-style cuts.

The plan's authors, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases.

"It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people."

The plan's only real promise was in fact a threat: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries."

Gee, thanks. That, of course, means India won't stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). Given it has one billion people, that's a promise to gas the world like it's never been gassed before.

So is this our death warrant? Should this news have you seeing apocalyptic visions, too?

Well, no. What makes the Indian report so interesting is that unlike our Ross Garnaut, who just accepted the word of those scientists wailing we faced doom, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why.

Their conclusion? They couldn't actually find anything bad in India that was caused by man-made warming: "No firm link between the documented (climate) changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established."

In fact, they couldn't find much change in the climate at all.

Yes, India's surface temperature over a century had inched up by 0.4 degrees, but there had been no change in trends for large-scale droughts and floods, or rain: "The observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend . . ."

It even dismissed the panic Al Gore helped to whip up about melting Himalayan glaciers: "While recession of some glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses."

Nor was that the only sign that India's Council on Climate Change had kept its cool while our Rudd and Garnaut lost theirs.

For example, the Indians rightly insisted nuclear power had to be part of any real plan to cut emissions. Rudd and Garnaut won't even discuss it.

The Indians also pointed out that no feasible technology to trap and bury the gasses of coal-fired power stations had yet been developed "and there are serious questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories".

Rudd and Garnaut, however, keep offering this dream to make us think our power stations can survive their emissions trading scheme, when state governments warn they may not.

In every case the Indians are pragmatic where Rudd and Garnaut are having delusions -- delusions about an apocalypse, about cutting gases without going nuclear, about saving power stations they'll instead drive broke.

And there's that delusion on which their whole plan is built -- that India and China will follow our sacrifice by cutting their throats, too.

So psychiatrists are treating a 17-year-old tipped over the edge by global warming fearmongers?

Pray that their next patients will be two men whose own delusions threaten to drive our whole economy over the edge as well.

[American Patriot]

Mysterious California Glaciers Keep Growing Despite Warming
FOX NEWS ^ | July 09, 2008 | FOX NEWS


MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. — Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing.


Reaching more than 14,000 feet above sea level, Mount Shasta is one of the state's tallest peaks, dominating the landscape of high plains and conifer forests in far Northern California.


With glaciers retreating in the Sierra Nevada, the Rocky Mountains and elsewhere in the Cascades, Mount Shasta — the southernmost volcano in the Cascade range — is actually benefiting from changing weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean.


"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta's glaciers. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean."


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

[Ryan Ruck]

They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing.

Just how many other glaciers are there in the damn CONTINENTAL US? My guess, our geographic location isn't all that conducive to glacial formation than say... Antarctica.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta's glaciers. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean."

In other words, you have no fucking clue how the Earth works and would be better off throwing darts at a dart board for answers?

[American Patriot]

Well, more to it than that, Ryan. There's evidence that:

1) The oceans aren't warming AT ALL but COOLING.

2) The Liberals say that shrinking glaciers are evidence of global warming.
3) the Liberals say that growing glaciers are evidence of global warming.

Hmmm

I'd say there are at least two things there which are mutually exclusive and one is completely opposite of what the Liberal Globull Warming nonsense-chuckers are saying

[American Patriot]

Will MSM Report on 2008 Arctic Ice Increase?
NewsBusters ^ | July 18, 2008 | P.J. Gladnick Good news! Despite the recent global warming alarmism in the media that Arctic ice might melt away completely from the North Pole this summer, the latest scientific observations show that Arctic ice has actually increased by nearly a half million square miles over this time last year. This is in stark contrast to the Chicken Little hysteria that was being promoted less than a month ago on the CBS Early Show as reported by Kyle Drennen on June 27 here in NewsBusters:

On Friday’s CBS "Early Show," co-host Maggie Rodriguez teased an upcoming interview with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair about global warming: "Also ahead this morning, we'll talk about a disturbing new report from some scientists in Colorado who say that there is the very real possibility that for the first time we will see the ice in the North Pole melt away completely during the summer."

Well, the latest information on Arctic ice conditions is just in from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and Maggie Rodriguez can breath easy (emphasis mine):

Arctic sea ice extent on July 16 stood at 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 square miles). While extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average of 9.91 square kilometers (3.83 million square miles), it was 1.05 million square kilometers (0.41 million square miles) above the value for July 16, 2007...

So why the increase in the ice shelf over last year despite the MSM hysteria on this topic? An explanation is given:

How is this different from what we saw in the record-breaking year 2007? In early July 2007, an atmospheric pattern developed that featured high pressure over the Beaufort Sea. This pattern promoted especially strong sea ice loss. The pattern that has dominated the summer of 2008, so far, seems less favorable for ice loss...

So won't Maggie Rodriquez and other global warming alarmists be excited over this news about increased ice in the Arctic this summer? Don't hold your breath. Rodriguez and others in the MSM will probably just let their original dire global warming predictions stand without any later corrections when the scientific facts prove them wrong. So let us sign off on this latest example of global warming alarmism predictions gone wrong with a June 27 quote on this topic from Steve Connor, "science editor" of the Independent (U.K.):

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.
The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic – and worrying – examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.

Sorry, Steve, but just the opposite has happened. So can we also expect you to correct yourself with the latest data showing an increase in Arctic ice over last year? Your humble correspondent is not holding his breath waiting for such a correction from you, Maggie Rodriquez, nor any other member of the MSM that hyped an ice free North Pole for 2008.

[American Patriot]

Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published
MensNewsDaily.com ^ | July 18, 2008 | Roger F. Gay

A mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” has been published in a major, peer-reviewed journal; Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.


The article, entitled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered (page 6) demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results. “To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

• The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

[American Patriot]

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...oad/july08.pdf

[American Patriot]

Latest Media: The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://www.forces.org/Multimedia_Por...?selection=174


The Great Global Warming Swindle | Channel 4 of Britain | February 06, 2008
We are pleased to present an important documentary already known to many: 'The Great Global Warming Swindle.' More recent than the epidemiological frauds on smoking, the global warming creed is an ideological manifestation of the same type of paranoia that is sweeping the world about health.

[American Patriot]

Watch that movie.

Or die.

(Ok, that was dramatic, lol, just watch the movie, the truth is out there)

[American Patriot]

I haven't seen this whole movie, til now.

These people are saying what I have known all along.

Greenies are nothing BUT anti-capitalists!

BASTARDS!

[American Patriot]

Al Gore is a clueless asshole. Why people suffer this insufferable idiot is beyond me.

Gore: Climate Crisis More Dire Than Terrorism
ABC News ^ | 7-18-08 | JONANN BRADY

Former Vice President Al Gore, delivering a speech in Washington on environmental issues, said global warming, not terrorism, is the No. 1 threat to America. The former V.P. encourages a national switch to earth-friendly power sources. (Video at Link) *barf alert is standard for algore

While he praised both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain for their stands on environmental issues, Gore challenged the next president to take bold steps to solve the problem.

"Both are serious and must be addressed. That having been said, I think that the climate crisis is, by far, the most serious threat we have ever faced," Gore told ABC News' Claire Shipman after the speech.

The one-time presidential candidate said Thursday that within 10 years, the United States should be able to produce all of its electricity with earth-friendly, carbon-free power.

Some critics have called Gore's ambitious plan an unachievable pipe dream. After Gore's speech, Obama issued a statement praising his idea. McCain said that while he and Gore differ on some environmental issues, he agrees that the country needs to move toward more solar and wind power.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...

[American Patriot]

Global Warming Scam for Travelers
Continental Airlines web pages ^ | continental airlines

Carbon Offsetting Option Continental is committed to promoting environmental responsibility within its culture, which includes helping our customers to respond to concerns about climate change with a carbon offsetting option. We've partnered with Sustainable Travel International ("STI"), a non-profit organization dedicated to providing education and services that support environmental conservation, to provide this option to customers. If you want to leave continental.com to learn more about STI or to purchase carbon offsets from STI for this itinerary, go to sustainabletravelinternational.org/sti_offset_air/flights/c/2.

CO2 Offset Calculation for your Continental Airlines itinerary Total Passengers 1 Flight segments VPS SLC VPS SLC

Flight type Round trip Total flight distance 3178 miles / 5114 km Metric tons CO2 0.4774 Please select one of the following Offset Projects $5.73 International Reforestation Projects Projects to recreate critical forests and provide incentives to protect critical forest land and avoid the cutting of trees. Projects are designed using the standards set forth by the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance (www.climate-standards.org).

$15.00 U.S. Renewable Energy Projects Renewable energy projects such as wind farms that are used to generate clean energy in the western U.S. Bonneville Environmental foundation provides STI with Green-e certified (www.green-e.org), 100% renewable green tags for this program.

$16.71 Gold Standard Projects Renewable energy and energy efficiency projects are inspected and validated by Clean Development Mechanism accredited Designated Operational Entities including The Gold Standard (www.cdmgoldstandard.org).

$10.79 Combination of several offset Projects (calculated based on 25% Gold Standard, 25% U.S. Renewable Energy Projects, 50% International Reforestation Projects)

For more information on the Donation Projects (note: a new browser window will pop-up):

[American Patriot]

American physicists warned not to debate global warming
The Register ^ | 21 July 2008 | Andrew Orlowski

Bureaucrats at the American Physical Society (APS) have issued a curious warning to their members about an article in one of their own publications. Don't read this, they say - we don't agree with it. But what is it about the piece that is so terrible, that like Medusa, it could make men go blind? It's an article that examines the calculation central to climate models. As the editor of the APS's newsletter American Physics Jeffrey Marque explains, the global warming debate must be re-opened. "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion," he wrote (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...807/editor.cfm). American Physics invited both believers and sceptics to submit articles, and has published a submission by Viscount Monckton questioning (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm) the core calculation of the greenhouse gas theory: climate sensitivity. The believers are represented (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...afemeister.cfm) by two physicists from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, who state that: "Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality." But within a few days, Monckton's piece carried a health warning: in bright red ink. The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions. Not so much Medusa, then, as Nanny telling the children what not to think. "The first sentence is nothing more or less than a deliberate lie," writes (http://numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20July.htm) Professor John Brignell on his Numberwatch blog. "The second is, to say the least, contentious; while the third is an outrageous example of ultra vires interference by a committee in the proper conduct of scientific debate." Monckton has asked for an apology. In a letter to the APS President Arthur Bienenstock, he writes: "If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?" Believers and sceptics have spent the past few days examining the value of "peer review", and the weight of validity that should be placed on "publication". Monckton is a classics scholar and former journalist, which believers maintain is enough to disqualify him from holding an opinion. (Whether it's science is not in question - whether it's "good science" or "bad science" is the question. An earlier presentation by Monckton examining questioning climate sensitivity received was examined (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...uckoo-science/) by NASA's Gavin Schmidt on the believers' blog, RealClimate.org.) But for anyone without a dog in this race, and perhaps not familiar with the "state of the science" there may be a couple of surprises in Monckton's paper. One is how small the field of "experts" really is. The UN's IPCC is tasked with producing a summary of the "scientific consensus" and claims to process the contributions of some 2,500 scientists. But as Monckton writes: "It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted." [our emphasis] Another eye-opener is his explanation of how the believers' climate models are verified: "Since we cannot measure any individual forcing directly in the atmosphere, the models draw upon results of laboratory experiments in passing sunlight through chambers in which atmospheric constituents are artificially varied," writes Monckton. "Such experiments are, however, of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere, where radiative transfers and non-radiative transports (convection and evaporation up, advection along, subsidence and precipitation down), as well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate the picture." In other words, an unproven hypothesis is fed into a computer (so far so good), but it can only be verified against experiments that have no resemblance to the chaotic system of the Earth's climate. It is not hard to see how the scientists could produce an immaculate "model" that's theoretically perfect in every respect (all the equations balance, and it may even be programmed to offer perfect "hind-casting"), but which has no practical predictive value at all. It's safe from the rude intrusion of empirical evidence drawn from atmospheric observation. The great British-born physicist Freeman Dyson offered an impertinent dose of reality which illustrates the dangers of relying on theory for both your hypothesis and the evidence you need to support it. Since 8 per cent of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the planet's biomass every year, notes Dyson (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494), the average lifespan of a carbon molecule in the atmosphere is about 12 years. His observation leaves the "climate scientists" models as immaculate as they were before, but suggests a very different course of policy action. It suggests our stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2 mitigation strategies. That's not something we hear from politicians, pressure groups and, yes ... climate scientists.

[American Patriot]

U.S. Senate Hearing: Climate Scientist Says Warming of 'last 100 years is mostly natural’
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee ^ | July 22, 2008 | Dr. Roy Spencer

U.S. Senate Hearing on Climate Science - Study Finds 'Mostly Natural' Warming

[Note: Below is testimony from today’s hearing “Full Committee hearing entitled, “An Update on the Science of Global Warming and its Implications.” Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer was one of the scientists testifying and deatlied new studies showing “mostly natural” climate influences. ]

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA:

New Study Finds ‘warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural’ (Spencer is currently Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center University of Alabama in Huntsville

Spencer’s Testimony Excerpt: On the subject of the Administration’s involvement in policy-relevant scientific work performed by government employees in the EPA, NASA, and other agencies, I can provide some perspective based upon my previous experiences as a NASA employee. For example, during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject. […]

Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. […]

If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end -- if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now. […]

Based upon global oceanic climate variations measured by a variety of NASA and NOAA satellites during the period 2000 through 2005 we have found a signature of climate sensitivity so low that it would reduce future global warming projections to below 1 deg. C by the year 2100. […]

Obviously, what I am claiming today is of great importance to the global warming debate and related policy decisions, and it will surely be controversial. These results are not totally unprecedented, though, as other recently published research6 has also led to the conclusion that the real climate system does not exhibit net positive feedback. […]

I hope that the Committee realizes that, if true, these new results mean that humanity will be largely spared the negative consequences of human-induced climate change. This would be good news that should be celebrated -- not attacked and maligned. And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research. This Committee could, at a minimum, make a statement that encourages that goal.

To see Dr. Spencer's full testimony see:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a-7afbc4ee72f3