Cooling Down on Global Warming

Al Gore is taking one last stab at fear-mongering with his latest book, “The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change”, but his credibility is dying as is the panic over global warming. New data continues to show that not only is the sky no longer falling, it may not have been falling at all.

A recent Norwegian climate research project shows that the earth’s mean temperature rise which occurred throughout the 1990’s has leveled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. In other words, there has been no global warming for well over a decade. Another report coming soon from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.

Every change in climate patterns has been labeled ‘anthropomorphic global warming’ by progressives. Unfortunately, this has resulted in “climate change” becoming synonymous with “global warming” for those on both sides of the political aisle. The distinction is crucial for rational discourse, but that distinction has long been lost.

Since dire global warming predictions have failed dramatically, scientists are looking into reasons for changes in climate patterns and are finding many. The sun with its flares, not surprisingly, contributes much to changes in climate patterns. Rising heat from large cities also affects these patterns and, yes, the burning of fossil fuels contributes its share. However, the exact extent of each contributor is not yet scientifically discernible.

In an interview with Jeffrey Kluger, TIME magazine’s science editor, global warming was confused with climate change as Kluger likened disbelievers to flat-earthers, stating that the “scientific knowledge” was too overwhelming for disbelief. This alludes to a so-called “consensus” among scientists that simply does not exist. There are thousands of scientists who dispute this PC-created global warming “consensus”, and confusion with climate change further clouds the issue.

For ideological believers, there is no data persuasive enough to shatter idealistic notions. For Al Gore, being wrong doesn’t matter as long as his bank account continues to grow. Science, however, will take years to gain back some of the credibility it lost by allowing politics to taint research.

David J. Hentosh

Unrealistic Climate Summit

The World Climate Summit (better titled “Occupy the World”) being held in Durban, South Africa has not been getting much media coverage even though it is full of progressive ideology. Perhaps that is because many of the ideas being floated there are so ridiculous they embarrass serious progressives.

The science chairman of the UN’s climate panel admitted that no one has been talking about climate science at this climate conference. Attempts at understanding the science would just be a detriment to the UN’s real goal of establishing a world government run by….you guessed it….the UN.

There is no chance of any agreement between nations at this conference, especially since Third World countries are immune from proposed regulations that would devastate Western economies. Therefore, the behind-the-scenes draft of further goals is little more than a wish list, but it reveals how far from reality these climate jockeys are – and how dangerous they can be.

Christopher Monckton, a renowned climate skeptic, summarized the goals “clearly” spelled out in the draft. Some of the main points he found were: An international climate court (with power only over Western nations); Establishment of rights of Mother Earth and “some parties” threatened by climate change; War and defense forces to cease because they contribute to climate change; Reduction of “more than 100%” in emissions by 2050 (Western countries only); A CO2 concentration target that ends up dangerous to plant life; Demands of $100 billion a year from Western countries – starting now (not a penny from third-world countries).

Highlighting the asininity of these demands, Christopher Monckton informs us that reducing emissions “more than 100%” (which, of course, is impossible) in the next 8 years would mean no more gas-run cars, trains, or airplanes and no more coal or gas-fired power stations. It would also mean no carbon-emitting fires in the caves we would all eventually end up living in.  Only windmills, solar power, and other “renewable” sources would be acceptable.

Of course, the UN’s world government would remain as the ultimate power source, deciding which third-world country would receive the benefits and spoils from each Western country forced to fail under the onerous regulations. That would turn the UN into the evil 1%.

David J. Hentosh

Collision of Science and Politics

The latest round of leaked e-mails of climate scientists proves, once again, that science and politics don’t mix well. No matter how you “interpret” the e-mails or “take them out of context” as some have accused, reading them leaves little doubt that politics is a factor in the scientists’ evaluations. That is enough to taint the credibility of anything they report.

The “consensus” that the media continually tells us exists in the scientific community concerning climate is always challenged by members of that same community. Some have expressed the difficulty they have in doing so because it goes against the grain of the far-left agenda found in many of the places they work. Agenda-driven science is meaningless.

The release of the latest e-mails was carefully timed to coincide with this year’s UN climate summit. This, too, is politically motivated and suffers the consequence of appearing as nothing more than a political stunt. The entire climate issue has become a subject of public scorn, negating any facts that emerge from scientific studies.

The mixing of politics and science was the catalyst for the Solyndra scandal. The administration’s “green” agenda idealistically tried to force new, expensive technology onto a public unwilling to pay the price. Convinced of its own scientific savvy and bolstered by political opposition to it, the administration backed this failure to the tune of a half billion taxpayer dollars.

The Chevy Volt, another administration-backed technological solution, is now having problems with fires. The government agency due to investigate said it “…continues to believe that electric vehicles have incredible potential to save consumers money at the pump, help protect the environment, create jobs and strengthen national security by reducing our dependence on oil”. After expressing that much faith and belief in the Volt, can anyone really expect this agency to objectively investigate?

Government grants have historically been a boon to science, but politics has now become the fly in the ointment. Unless this stops, scientific research will become just another slice of American excellence found only in history books.

David J. Hentosh

Shocking News: The Sun Drives Earth’s Climate

According to CERN, one of the world’s most respected centers for scientific research, the sun is the primary driver of climate change on earth. This is sure to shock those who firmly believe man is the most powerful (and most evil) force in our solar system – that is, of course, if this scientific finding gets reported by the mainstream media.

In a project labeled “CLOUD”, scientists demonstrated that cosmic rays grow seed clouds inside earth’s atmosphere and since the sun’s magnetic field shields the earth from cosmic rays, fluctuations in the sun’s magnetic field determines the amount of those cosmic rays and, therefore, heavily influences the temperature of the earth. Perhaps that explains why the earth has had many cooling and heating periods in bygone years long before evil man created the internal combustion engine.

Fearing PC repercussions, the director of CERN, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, said: “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,” that would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate.” It is, of course, a scientist’s job to interpret scientific data, but that would intrude upon Al Gore’s self-imposed duty to force data to conform to his economically advantageous agenda.

The most common retort against anyone refuting man-made climate change is to insult their intelligence and call them “deniers”. It will be interesting to see if the scientists at CERN are called ignorant dummies. Then, again, it is more probable that this scientific finding will be ignored and Al Gore will get more face time on TV to help convince non-believers. After all, who could possibly believe that an enormous hot ball, 109 times the size of the earth, could have any effect on the temperature of the earth?

David J. Hentosh

Dark Days for Solar Power

From the Washington Times:

Ever heard of the Solyndra solar-cell plant in Fremont, Calif.? Most people haven’t. That’s a shame, considering how much taxpayer money has been poured into it.

Solyndra is in serious financial trouble. Despite getting a $535 million bailout – part of the taxpayer-funded “stimulus” – the company subsequently announced it would lay off more than 17 percent of its work force. It also had to close one of its manufacturing plants about a year after it got the money. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is launching an investigation.

That’s understandable. After all, it wasn’t supposed to turn out this way for Solyndra and other solar-cell producers. President Obama and Sen. Barbara Boxer both campaigned at the plant, touting the “green jobs” that would flow from government investment in companies that produce renewable energy.

How that bit of economic magic was supposed to occur is a mystery. Solyndra’s production costs are more than six times those of other producers. Even with strong backing from Washington, the company had to cancel a $300 million initial public offering after a bad audit from PricewaterhouseCoopers. As the New York Times noted in an article on Solyndra, “the project spotlights the risks of government intervention in a dynamic market.”

Read the rest here.

An Inconvenient Truth About Climate Change

In late January, a group of eighteen scientists (including Penn State professor Michael Mann, who was part of the “Hockey Stick” team, which became Climategate) sent a letter to Congress urging them to take a “fresh look at climate change,” along the way taking the opportunity to disparage anyone who disagrees with them.

Well, those disparaged aren’t taking this sitting down, and wrote their own letter to Congress, taking exception to the claims made by the alarmists and referring to a point-by-point rebuttal to them. And if the climate alarmists ignore that, there’s a larger report from 2009 that makes the same case.

And should anyone suggest that the signers of this letter are nuts or not equipped to speak to the climate change issue, the list includes scientists from institutions such as Princeton, Penn, UVA, Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, U.S. Water Conservation Lab, MIT, and the American Association of State Climatologists.

It’s about time someone took a second look at “An Inconvenient Truth.”

See the letter here.

aln