The Futility of the Paris Climate Talks

Starting on November 30th, world leaders convened in Paris at the behest of the United Nations to come to some agreements on countering Climate Change.  The semi-stated goals of those talks are as follows:

• Reduce green houses gases by 20 to 45% by 2030.
• Agree to limit global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2030.
• Wealthy countries should agree to redistribute $100 billion of their own wealth a year to poorer countries so they can contribute to the fight in global warming.

So, that's all that's needed to save the world!

The problem with the above is that it contradicts past statements made by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is made up of 2000 scientists.  As reported by the SFGATE.com -- one of the San Francisco Chronicle's online news sites -- the IPCC believed the following 11 years ago:

• It's already too late to stop extreme global warming because it would take 50 to 100 years to reverse the amount of CO2 already in our atmosphere.
• To avoid extreme global warming, the world must act now by reducing CO2 levels by 50% to 70%.
• A 2 degree Celsius rise would cause extreme and catastrophic weather events throughout the world.
• A new focus should be on preparing the world on the inevitability of our global warming fate.

Obviously, there is an extreme disconnect between what was said 11 years ago and the stated goals of this year's Paris talks.  In the Paris talks the earth's temperatures would be allowed to rise to the catastrophic levels of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.  Instead of a recommended 50% to 70% reduction in CO2, the Paris' goal is between 20% to 45%. Also, it should be pointed out that, as of 2015, the world is supposedly already at 1 degree Celsius+ above pre-industrial temperature levels.

In my opinion, getting the world to abide by whatever the Paris attendees try and agree on, will be a lot like herding cats.

Some might achieve or even exceed the targets while many others won't.  There's a long time between now and 2030.  Recessions, war, changes in political leadership and governments can easily alter a county's priorities away from focusing on global warming.  And, there will always be corruption.  Poorer countries, run by despots and receiving climate change funding, will never see those monies applied to the cause.  Instead the funds will be diverted to corrupt leadership.  Already, Latin America is asking for reparations from rich countries for any damage done to their countries.  Even if its unable to prove it was caused by global warming.

I think Paris will, in retrospect, turn out to be an exercise in futility.  Just as the original global warming initiative in Kyoto, was a farce.

References:

Paris climate summit: world leaders told to iron out differences before talks end: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/28/paris-climate-summit-world-leaders-talks-france

Warming set to breach 1C threshold: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036

SFGate: It's much too late to sweat global warming / Time to prepare for inevitable effects of our ill-fated future: http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/It-s-much-too-late-to-sweat-global-warming-Time-2699599.php

LatAm hands climate bill to rich world at summit: http://news.yahoo.com/latam-hands-climate-bill-rich-world-summit-050003973.html

The global warming dividend: Canada abandons Kyoto Protocol to protect its lucrative oil reserves: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073520/Canada-abandons-Kyoto-Protocol-save-14bn-penalties-missing-greenhouse-gas-targets.html

Bush Taunts EU Over Missed Kyoto Targets: http://neurope.eu/article/bush-taunts-eu-over-missed-kyoto-targets/

Kyoto Protocol, 10 years later: Did deal to combat greenhouse gases: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/kyoto-protocol-10-years-later-was-the-deal-to-combat-greenhouse-emissions-successful-and-what-of-its-future

UN Wants Zero Carbon Emissions By 2100

According to the latest report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the planet is doomed if we don't get down to zero carbon emissions by 2100.  Only, then, can the world begin to reverse the build up of atmospheric CO2 which they claim is causing global warming and climate change.

So, what would 2100 look like if the emissions did go to zero?

Well, I guess the world would be vegan.  All those CO2 exhaling and flatulence producing domestic cows, sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, turkeys that humans have a taste for will have to go.  Pets, too, would have be banned for the very same reason.

Somehow airplanes will need to fly without producing CO2.  Maybe using hydrogen as fuel.  You know, the gas that the Hindenburg was filled with when it exploded.

Of course, all of us will be driving electric cars.  Long haul truckers will have to park every few miles to recharge their batteries, and your packages and goods might take considerably longer to get to market or delivered to you home.  But, that's a small sacrifice to save the planet.

We'll also have to give up our fireplaces and gas stoves and, no more charcoal or gas barbecues.  For sure, no wood burning will be allowed in order to cook or keep warm.  Campers, you've been warned!

But, then, too, the world's beautiful and natural landscapes will become havens for solar panels and wind turbines as far as the eye can see.  Both of these green technologies will continue to kill off the world's birds and bats, but that will be a good thing since birds and bats also exhale CO2. 

However, there's one carbon producer that I can't predict the future for.  The world's population of humans.  They too, exhale CO2 and there will be an estimated 11 billion people pumping out 900 grams or roughly 2 pounds of CO2 per day per person by 2100.  That amounts to 724 lbs of carbon dioxide per person per year.  Short of killing off the world's population, I don't know how the "problem" of human respiration can be resolved.  But, maybe that will have to be done to save the human race from global warming and climate change. Right?

The point here is that the IPCC report is off-the-wall ridiculous and mentally unhinged.  Its this kind of silliness that is turning people off to climate change issues.  We've had 18 years of stagnant global temperatures and the link between rising CO2 levels (rising about 2% per year) is broken. Yet, the UN and most liberal politicians alike, keep getting even more dire in their predictions and more drastic in their CO2 reduction goals. 

References:

Carbon Emissions Need to Be Zero by 2100, UN Panel Warns: http://en.ria.ru/world/20141102/195006448/Carbon-Emissions-Need-to-Be-Zero-by-2100-UN-Panel-Warns.html

US Wind Turbines Kill 1.4 Million Birds and Bats Every Year: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/07/24/us-wind-turbines-kill-14-million-birds-and-bats-every-year

New Solar Power Plants are Incinerating Birds: http://www.weather.com/news/solar-plants-birds-20140818

World population to hit 11bn in 2100: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/18/world-population-new-study-11bn-2100

Math! How much CO2 is emitted by human on earth annually?: https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

It's official: no global warming for 18 years 1 month: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/

52 Reasons Why CO2 Is Not Responsible For Global Warming: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/09/52-reasons-why-co2-is-not-responsible.html

Obama, TV Weathermen, Climate Change, and Dr. Easterbrook

Most of us know that, in order to sell Americans on some agenda item he's pushing, Obama likes to use people as props; especially those with individual life stories that help promote his goal.  When it was learned that doctors weren't supporting ObamaCare, he gave a Rose Garden speech surrounded by lab-coated Physicians; even though no doctor actually goes out of his office wearing a lab coat.  When it's a woman's issue, he surrounds himself with women; all with some heartfelt story to tell.  So, it's no wonder that, when releasing his latest alarmist report on Climate Change, he enlisted 8 TV Meteorologists -- led by Al Roker -- to help sell the fact that we need to act now on reducing green house gases.

The problem that I have with Al Roker and those 7 others being used in this way is that they are being  hypocritical to their own profession.  Al Roker and the rest all know that weather forecasting is an imperfect science.  Usually, a 5-day forecast can be fairly accurate. But, even so, precipitation predictions are always dealt with as "chances" of rain or snow, and, when it comes to 7 and 10-day forecasts, the accuracy of those predictions are always subject to revision.  So, with that in mind, every meteorologist worth his/her salt should be the most skeptical of people when it comes to predicting global warming and climate change.  They, more than anyone, understand that they "cannot" accurately predict temperatures 10-days out; let alone, what they will be at the end of this century. 

This is why the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change has been 95% wrong on all of their decades-out temperature forecasts because, stupidly, their computer models neglected to predict the current nearly 18 year halt in global warming.  It is also why the Hurricane Prediction Center is almost always wrong. For example, last year, they predicted an Atlantic hurricane season that would be above average in activity.  Yet, 2013 was one of the quietest on record.  Despite dire predictions of extreme weather, 2013 was also the quietest in many other areas.  There were the fewest 100 degree days than had been seen in the last 100 years.  It was one of the quietest years for tornadoes.  Antarctic ice returned to record levels; and, because the ice was getting so thick, one scientist says polar bears are at risk because they can't break through to find food.  This despite Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth movie showing polar bears struggling to survive by desperately holding onto increasingly smaller sections of  ice.

The fact is simple. Climate Change is a political ruse to push a liberal, environmental agenda and promote the also-liberal agenda of redistribution of wealth.  The core belief that increases in green house gases has been blown out of the water due to the fact that, despite rising carbon emissions, global warming has been on hold for 17 years and 9 months. Now, if you really want to know the truth about climate change, look at this chart:

As shown, temperatures are actually lower, now, than they have been in the last 1000 years.  The chart was developed by a climate scientist by the name of Dr. Don Easterbrook; and, in 1998, he was the only one to predict the current halt to global warming. What's even more significant about his prediction is the fact that it was during the very same year that the world had a record spike in temperatures, but, from that year forward, the rise abated; just as Easterbrook predicted.  Further, he predicts the trend to continue for at least two more decades.  Now, I ask you. Have you ever heard of him?  No. That's because his work is being ignored since it doesn't support the current political agendas.

References:

Obama Uses Your TV Weather Guru to Show How Wind Blows on Climate: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-06/obama-looks-to-weathermen-to-make-case-on-climate-change.html

On Climate Change, Would You Trust People Who Have Been 95% Wrong: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/01/on-climate-change-would-you-trust.html

‘Least extreme U.S. weather year ever?’ 2013 shatters the record for fewest U.S. tornadoes — 15% lower than previous record — 2013 also had the fewest U.S. forest fires since 1984: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/27/2013-shatters-the-record-for-fewest-tornadoes-15-lower-than-previous-record/

What Happened to the 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season?: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/what-happened-to-the-2013-atlantic-hurricane-season-16616

Another Climate Embarrassment: Fewest 100+ Degree Days: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/another-climate-embarrassment.php

What Global Warming? Too Much Ice Endangers Polar Bears: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/043014-699080-its-too-cold-not-too-warm-for-polar-bears.htm

Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/04/global-temperature-update-no-global-warming-at-all-for-17-years-9-months/

Dr. Easterbrook: Global Cooling Is Here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783

Donald J. Easterbrook At ICCC4: Don J Easterbrook ICCC4

Where's the Real Climate Science?

The world over, people who question global warming and climate change are called deniers of science.  So, I guess if I question why such a scarce gas, carbon dioxide, which only makes up less than four-one hundredths of a percent of our atmosphere is so impacting that any increases in it would produce unbridled global warming, then you can call me a denier.  Or, you can call me a denier if I find it illogical that, since 1998, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise and, yet, world temperatures have remained flat when averaged. Then, too, I must be a denier when I find it hard to trust a United Nations panel on climate change when in fact 95% of their 72 supercomputer world temperature predictions since 1988 have been wrong; and, are continuing to be wrong because they all fail to recognize the current hiatus in global warming and have no scientific reason as to why it is happening.

My problem is that billions of dollars are being paid to scientists to prove that carbon dioxide is driving global warming and nothing is being paid to dispute it.  This lopsided  kind of scientific research and analysis is probably why temperature predictions have been so wrong.  Sort of scientific wishful thinking. So, it was interesting to me to find a study that may have, inadvertently, disproved the theory that man-made carbon dioxide was the evil it is being purported to be.  

Recently, a climate team at Princeton University published the results of their research whereby they, unrealistically, subjected their supercomputer temperature modeling to an input of zero CO2 emissions.  And, by zero, they mean no humans, animals, forest fires, or volcanoes producing any carbon dioxide at all. What they found was that, in just 20 years, 40% of the existing atmospheric CO2 was naturally reduced by the earth's absorption processes.  However, it took 1000 years before another 40% of the original CO2 was further diminished.  What was not expected was the fact that temperatures, after falling in the first century, resumed rising; even as carbon dioxide levels were continuing to fall.  But, what was more disconcerting is the fact that the rise in temperatures continued past 400 years.

Being faithful zealots to global warming theory, the scientists at Princeton then concluded that the earth is even more sensitive to CO2 than was previously thought.  Therefore, current CO2 reduction targets need to be increased.

Really? I think there are other conclusions that could have been reached. Either these climate gurus at Princeton have a perfectly screwed up computer model or their research merely proves that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming.  Even if their modeling is correct, at the very least, it shows that it is completely futile in trying to control CO2.  Just think about it. If you can't stop global warming with a 100% reduction in emissions, then why are we, as a global community, tinkering around, at a cost of billions of dollars, trying to simply slow the rate at which carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere?

The bottom line is that, even when climate science produces unexpected or illogical results, the alarmists still claim its settled science. Real science produces predictable results. Right now, in real life, global warming has taken a hiatus despite continually rising carbon levels.  Yet, the alarmists believe we should act even faster and harder to save the planet.  In this Princeton study, temperatures rise despite a complete suspension of CO2.  Yet, their conclusion is that we aren't doing enough.  Apparently zero is not enough.

References:

Princeton University News: Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries: https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

On Climate Change, Why Would You Trust People Who Have Been 95% Wrong?: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/01/on-climate-change-would-you-trust.html

pb

On Climate Change, Would You Trust People Who Have Been 95% Wrong?

According to climate change/global warming alarmists, climate science is settled science.  End of discussion.

Of course, if you are a denier of that fact, well, you're as stupid as those who once thought the earth was flat. But, in my opinion, settled science means that given any set of pertinent data, the results would always be predictable; assuming some reasonable and acceptable margin of error.

 The problem here, lies in the fact that climate change "science" has been wildly wrong in its dire predictions over the years. Wrong when it comes to how fast sea levels are rising; or, how quickly the world's ice was receding; and, especially wrong when it comes to predicting the rise in the world's temperatures.  In fact, when it comes to predicting the world's temperatures, there have been 76 predictions, from 38 separate super-computers and 95% of those predictions (36 of 38) were wildly wrong.   

This begs a simple question.  Would you seek financial advice from someone that was wrong 95% of the time? Or, a doctor whose diagnoses were 95% incorrect?  I hardly think so.  Yet, somehow we're supposed to believe in the crap being spewed out by the United Nation's Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change and from the likes of Al Gore and Barack Obama!
 
For further reading and source of the above chart: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

The Hypocrisy Of The Year's Climate Change Summit

Right now, there are about 10,000 attendees at this year's climate change summit being held in Durban, South Africa. Those showing up at this "not-so-little save-the-planet-soiree" include representatives from 194 countries, climate scientists, interested environmentalists, global warming activists, a sprinkling of protestors, and, of course, hundreds of media personnel. All there to stop mankind from pumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Then, too, how much CO2 was spewed into the air by having 10,000 attendees, from all over the world, fly into such a remote location as South Africa. You would think that a group that is so protective of our environment would be a lot more judicious with their own carbon footprints. But, no. And, the reason? $100 billion in wealth redistribution from the bad polluting countries to those countries who can least afford to combat global warming. You see, the underdeveloped countries will need everything from food assistance, to equipment used to measure their own climate changes. This is despite the fact that none of the dire predictions of the last Climate Treaty, Kyoto, have come to pass. This is not climate science. This is all political science and, more and more, the people are waking up to that fact. For 15 years there has been no increase in world temperatures. Yet, carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise at record rates during that very same time period. To quote the famous utterance of the "Lost in Space" robot: "That does no compute!"

A Very Informative Eight Minutes on the Myth of Climate Change

The Political Left Is Missing The Point On Global Warming

Last Sunday, Professor Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University finally confessed to the following never previously admitted truths about Global Warming (Click to See Full Story: "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"):

• There hasn't been any significant statistical warming in the world since 1995 (even though carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have continue to rise).
• The Medieval Period (800-1300 A.D.) may actually have been warmer than it is now; despite the very small world population and carbon output.
• Vital data that supposedly supported Climate Change/Global Warming has been lost (How convenient is that!).

Now, in case you didn't know it, Phil Jones is one of the key people in the drafting of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. He was especially instrumental in pumping up a lot of the false data in the IPCC reports of 2001 and in the Nobel price winning report of 2007. He was also at the center of the Climate Gate email scandal; along with his buddy the "hockey stick" temperature projection liar and co-conspirator Michael Mann.

Despite the above truths coming out, the political left of both this country and the world still claim that Global Warming is both real and a completely settled. But, the point that the left is missing is the fact that the science can't be settled if the underlying facts or data are false. The two big hitches in the left's argument is the fact that it was warmer in the Medieval Warming period and that the 15-year abatement of temperature increases have never been incorporated into the IPCC projections.

The best indication of how badly the IPCC has lied all these years comes from their own reports in 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007. If you look at their graphs (Click to view the chart as a popup window), you can see that, in each of those reporting years, they produced a projection of how the planet's temperatures were rising. Nowhere on that graph is there any attempt to reflect the fact that temperatures haven't risen since 1995. In fact, if you look at the 2007 reported slope (the maroon line), that line is not only projecting warmer temperatures than had been previously reported in the 1995 and 2001 report but, also, it continues to show the same upward slope as had been reported in the two previous reports. There was absolutely no attempt to adjust the 2007 graph to reflect reality of nearly zero temperature gains since 1995.

If the IPCC had been truthful, there should have been a flat line from 1999 through 2007 or, at the very least, one whose slope was less than had been previously reported. But there wasn't and that, my friends, exposes their big lie. That is why the political left is completely missing the point on Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever they prefer calling this lie. I guess if science is supposed to be based on lies then I would say that the science of Global Warming is truly settled.

Proof That Global Warming Is Just A Ploy To Destroy Capitalism

The climate change movement isn't about saving the world from CO2 emissions. If it truly was, the advocates for the control of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere wouldn't have expended thousands of tons of the stuff so they all could converge on Copenhagen. That would be like 1920's America prohibitionists stocking the store shelves with liquor while campaigning to defeat its production, sale, and use in the United States. It makes absolutely no sense. A true believer in anything would never be so contradictory to the cause they are either fighting against or for.

What all those in Copenhagen really want is punishment of the rich nations and their capitalist societies. The proof of that came two days ago when Hugo Chavez spoke before the participants of the summit. During his diatribe against capitalism, the crowd erupted into a thunderous and sustained applause. An applause against capitalism; not against global warming (Click to See Full Story: "Blame capitalism, Chavez tells climate summit"). Hugo gave them the anti-capitalism red meat they had been waiting for and they just slurped it up.

Copenhagen is a socialist summit. Even the United States and Great Britain are being represented by socialists of their own such as Gordon Brown and our very own President, Barack Obama.

Everyone at that summit knows damn well that the CO2 being produced today will remain in the atmosphere for up to 200 years before dissipating. That's because the U.N. scientists on climate change have said so. So, when they are talking about reducing "X" amounts of carbon dioxide output in the next 10 to 40 years, they are just blowing smoke. If we truly needed to save the planet from the ravages of carbon dioxide, we should have started the process in the 1800's; long before man even began producing CO2 on a wide scale. This is why, even among all those left-wing scientists in Copenhagen, it is ridiculous to assume that world can be saved by even the most extreme reductions in CO2 output into our atmosphere. Even if a theoretical zero emission level could be achieved, there would be no actual improvement by 2050 because it is too late to undo the cumulative effect of the carbon dioxide that has already been introduced into our atmosphere. That's why Copenhagen is just so much B.S.

Man didn't create the planet's warming and man isn't going stop it.

The advantage that the left has in predicting future disasters from CO2, is that it would literally take decades before anyone will really know if what they are saying is true. In the meantime, they can demand social change -- to their ideological benefit -- without any scientific proof that the whole "green house gas theory" is truly applicable to man's activities. But, what they didn't count on was those pesky emails -- ClimateGate -- showing that temperature data was being manipulated to fit their theory. This is opposed to traditional science that would "test" any theory with actual data before declaring it a scientific fact. So we have ideology and not science that is driving this whole global warming scam.

As I have said before, this whole climate change thing is just a trumped up excuse to change society to fit the extreme viewpoint of all those anti-mankind progressives and anti-capitalist socialists of our world. That is why it is the political left that is pushing so hard for all these game-changing measures to redistribute wealth; limit luxury lifestyles of the Western world; and, basically, destroy capitalism.

Hugo Chavez isn't out to save the world. He's out to promote his personal belief in a socialistic dictatorship and to expand its application throughout the world. And, most of those attendees in Copenhagen agree with him.

The Hypocrisy Of the Copenhagen Fly-In

In just a few days, between 12 & 15 thousand attendees will descend on Copenhagen(Click to See Full Story: "Road to COP15 in Copenhagen") to participate in the 15th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Representatives from more than 180 countries will attend. These will include government heads of state and delegates, scientists, environmentalists, and -- oh yes -- "green advocating" celebrities from Hollywood and around the world.

To get there, these thousands of people will fly in on, primarily, private jets, government aircraft, chartered jets, and -- I suppose -- some will actually use commercial airlines. Each government contingent will have an entourage of, probably, two, three, or even a half dozen vehicles that have been bullet-proofed and won't get your average fuel economy. President Obama will be there too. Prior to his trip, several secret service agents will fly in and scour the area to insure the President's safety. Additionally, a fleet of bullet-proofed Presidential and presidential escort vehicles will be airlifted into Copenhagen on heavy transport planes.

Now, it might be a bit presumptuous of me; but, isn't this fly-in and the amount of carbon being thrown into the atmosphere a wee bit hypocritical? After all, these are the people who are getting together to save the planet from all that man-produced carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide that is produced by carbon-based fuels such as jet fuel and gasoline. Haven't any of these people heard of streaming video technology and video conferencing that could eliminate or minimize this kind of "meet-me-in-Copenhagen" carbon explosion? Does everyone have to go? This just shows how hypocritical the "climate change/global warming" movement is. They all want to save the planet -- but, they don't want to have to actually do any of that saving themselves.

ClimateGate and Its Parallels To RatherGate

Dan Rather was hell bent on destroying the character and, possibly, any historical legacy of the George W. Bush presidency. So much so, that he was willing to use falsified documents as the basis of his attack. In the RatherGate scandal, Dan Rather aired documents on the 60 Minutes II news program that showed that George W. Bush was being reprimanded by his then-Air National Guard Commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, for his poor performance as a National Guard pilot. Other documents implied that Bush failed to get his annual physical and that Killian had been pressured by Bush Senior to sugarcoat Bush the younger's poor performance. However, good internet-driven detective work ultimately proved that all the documents were concocted years later on a PC and that they were never hand typed on a typewriter; the only text producing mechanism of that era. Yet, to this day, Rather still says he was right about Bush's substandard National Guard service; although he has no valid facts to support his belief. Killian, himself, died long before the airing of the "60 Minutes" piece and conveniently couldn't verify the supposed truth of those documents.

In a similar vein, we now have ClimateGate where thousands of previously secreted emails are showing that a core group of scientists have been manipulating data and suppressing peer review for almost two decades in order to substantiate the alarm over global warming. But, it appears, the science behind global warming is just as flawed as those documents in RatherGate. And, just as in the case of Dan Rather having never denied his actions, the political left is still in denial by saying that anthropogenic global warming is real; regardless of what those emails seem to clearly imply.

Just last Friday, Carol Browner, Obama's Climate Czar, in a Dan Rather-esk moment, said that all those damning e-mails "change little" (Click to See Full Story: "Climate czar says e-mails change little"). She, instead, said she is sticking with the 2500 scientists who believe global warming is caused by mankind. However, Ms. Browner appears to be ignoring the near 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition that rejects the current science over global warming (Click to See "Petition Project" website). It also ignores the 650+ scientists who abandoned the global warming consortium of scientists because it was a "lie" (Click to See this December 2008 Story: "650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference to abandon global warming “lie”). Many of whom were once part of Browner's 2500. One of the most prophetic dissenting statements of a year ago came from the award winning U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh -- a very prominent one of Browner's supposed "2500" -- who said: "Warming fears are the...worst scientific scandal in history... When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” Now, we actually have the emails that support his claim.

Science, like journalism, is supposed to be a search for truth and understanding. But, today, it appears that both science and journalism have been hijacked by left-wing ideology. This attitude is firmly reinforced by the fact that the left-wing, main stream media of this country have completely ignored this ClimateGate scandal. The only true news agencies that are even reporting on this are Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

The Made-Up Science of Global Warming

Last Sunday, I wrote a posting to this blog that, I think, exposed how inaccurate the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in projecting temperature changes over the last 17 years. But more than that, I pointed to the fact that it appears the IPCC intentionally ignored climatological data measurements that showed cooler temperatures; and, instead, matched their data with the higher temperature readings from the GIS's (Geographic Information Systems) method of temperature monitoring. That to me is dishonest.

Now it appears that there may have been a lot of dishonesty in the IPCC's work.

In what is quickly becoming known as Climate Gate, numerous hacked-into and stolen emails from IPCC scientists are reflecting the fact that there may have been a concerted effort to distort global warming data for what can only be assumed to be political and not scientific reasons. One of the better opinion pieces on this topic was written by James Delingpole in his article for the U.K. Telegraph: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?.

Anyone who has read this blog knows that I have been extremely skeptical about the this whole connection of mankind's production of CO2 to global warming. A lot of the science made no sense at all. Much of the work being done by the global warming alarmists was being done on a "cherry picked" basis. They would release information to the world-wide media that showed losses of ice masses in someplace like Greenland; and, then, completely ignore the offsetting expansion of ice in two-thirds of Antarctica. They would point to one geographical region were the polar bear populations are down and then claim that global warming was killing them off. But, this completely ignores the fact that the polar bear populations, world wide, are almost 5 times greater than they were in the 1960's due to conservation of both their populations and their food sources; like the harp seal. As I have pointed out, the loss of rain forests have been more than offset by mankind's greening of the former desert areas of the world like the desert southwest areas of this country and the Middle East and Africa.

Al Gore and those of his ilk have been, at best, exaggerators of global warming. Personally, I believe them to be pure liars who have put political, social, and monetary gains above the good of all mankind. Literally, the political left of the world treats Al Gore as a prophet and one who is steeped in science. But, more than once his use of scientific data is flawed; if not completely idiotic. Take, for example, his most recent distortion of the truth when he appeared with Conan O'Brien:

In the past, Al Gore has argued that global warming will increase the intensity and frequency of hurricanes. Yet, for years now, the hurricane season in the Atlantic has been relatively quiet. He has lied about polar bears becoming extinct; both in his words and in his movie "The Inconvenient Truth". A movie which, now, would be better titled: "The Truth Is Inconvenient for Al Gore".

I think that this latest revelation that data was being fraudulently tampered with may actually sink the whole Climate Change/Global Warming movement. National and international opinion polls are already showing that people are increasing becoming skeptical of global warming. Of course, a decade of global cooling hasn't helped. The only thin ice that Al Gore should be worried about is that which he is now walking on. Al Gore has a lot of financial interests in companies that would benefit heavily if a Cap and Trade bill was passed by the President and our Congress. That, to me, says a lot about how much Gore should be trusted to tell the truth on Global Warming. And, that isn't just my opinion!

The Cooling Realities of Global Warming

If we put the sensationalism and hyperbole of Al Gore aside and look at some facts, it just might be that the hysteria of Global Warming may have been the result of a lot distortions, and maybe, not realities.

When Al Gore assembled his thesis on Global Warming, his movie titled The Inconvenient Truth, he used the hurricanes of Rita and Katrina as evidence of Global Warming. To Al, those hurricanes were an ominous warning of things to come. In the lead into that movie, Gore claimed that the "frenquency and intensity of hurricanes" would result from Global Warming. The only problem with Al's "inconvenient lie" is that we have had some of the quietest hurricane seasons on record since Rita and Katrina. In fact, some of the southern states, which are normally inundated with rain from hurricane activity, are in the midst of a severe drought.

It seems like a lot of evidence is being released lately, to indicate that Global Warming isn't all that Al Gore seems to think. In fact, we just might be entering a period of Global Cooling. Maybe, even, the beginning of an ice age!

One such evidence is the fact that the massive ice sheet has returned to Disko Bay in Greenland (See Full Story). In the past, the waning ice in Disko Bay has been used by the warming alarmists as a significant indicator as to the health of this world. It has been used as a disastrous indication that the world ice is melting and the coastal areas of the world are doomed to permanent flooding.

Another strange fact is that January saw some of the coldest temperatures in the world over the last hundred years (See Full Story). It snowed in the Middle East for the first time in a century. Japan and China had rare snowfalls this Winter. Places in North America have also had record snows. For example, Madison, Wisc. had over 100 inches of snowfall and could see even more before this Spring is over. February continued the non-warming trend of January with temperatures that were about average for the last 100 years. Temps were not, as would be expected in a Global Warming environment, warmer than normal.

Another fact that has recently come out is that the world-wide warming trend may have actually plateaued since 1998 (See Full Story); a fact that was actually acknowledge by the United Nations organization on Global Warming, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). With no surprise, the national media,,and alarmists like Al Gore conveniently don't talk about that. Of course, if Global Warming is a result of man-made carbon emissions, and those emissions have risen at a higher rate over the last 10 years, it makes sense, scientifically or logically, that warming should have risen (not leveled off or fallen) over the last ten years. Doesn't it?

If you had read this excellent Washington Times commentary by H. Sterling Burnett, (See Full Article) you would see that the whole statistical justification of Global Warming is in question. The whole "hockey stick" graph of earth's warming comes into question. And, this commentary echoes a lot opinions by world scientists who believe that Global Warming and its strict relationship to man's activities might be "a lot of hooey" (a technical term that I like to use for man-made Global Warming).

The latest question mark comes as a result of the findings by 3000 undersea robots that have measured deep sea temps around the world. Those robots found no warming since they had last conducted any measurements. (See Full Story). This head-scratcher, too, is inconsistent with the belief that we are in the midst of a disastrous warming of the Earth.

One problem that has always existed for the Global Warming Chicken Little's is the fact that our whole Solar system is in a warming trend (See Full Story). Places, without humans, like Mars, are seeing warming that is consistent with the warming here on Earth. Many scientist believe that the current warming trend of the earth is a result of the sun's cyclical sun-spot activity. In fact, the Russian Academy of Scientists believes that we may actually be entering an Ice Age as a result of a slowed solar activity (See Full Story).

Recently, Al Gore told 60 Minutes that skeptics of man-made Global Warming are the modern equivalent to those who believed that the earth was flat (See Full Story). Gore has also always claimed that those scientists who deny man-made global warming are being paid by those corporations whose self-interest is served by not curbing their polluting habits. Al Gore seems to think that the nearly 22,000 scientists who have signed on to the Petition Project in Opposition to The Hysteria over Global Warming must all be in the "tank" for money. Of course, Al, himself, isn't. Just because he's making millions in speaking engagements, doesn't mean that "he" might have a profit motive in keeping Global Warming alive. Now, does it?

The initiatives to combat Global Warming will have the harshest effects on the poor around the world. I would hope that people like Gore get it right by being truthful with the facts before we punish those who have the least to give in this world. It just seems that what I have outlined (above) is being ignored for what might be purely political and left-wing ideological reasons. Further, our actual ability to control global warming or any global weather condition may well be beyond our true capabilities as mere humans. Global Warming might just turn out to be another one of those "fears" that the left-wing politician, with the help of the news media, wants to hoist onto the public so "their" ideological beliefs of "greening" the planet can be fulfilled.