Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

Cooling Down on Global Warming

February 1, 2013

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

Al Gore’s Infamous Legacy

July 13, 2012

Al Gore may be laughing all the way to the bank, but the controversy he spawned over global warming has become one of the most polarizing issues in the world. Had Gore not been a politician, the attention he brought to the issue of global climate could have produced a much better result. Having already been mired in political partisanship, however, Gore’s myopic obsession produced a poisonous mixture of politics and science.

Climate change can no longer be discussed rationally or objectively and far too many climatologists have allowed politics to sway their research. The most egregious result is that “climate change” has become synonymous with “global warming” which has become synonymous with “anthropogenic (man-made) global warming”. They are not the same and that confusion permeates the media, politics, and public understanding.

Exaggerated and panic-stricken predictions about global warming have taken a tremendous economical toll. Hastily going “green” has put us in the red. The government invested heavily in the production of inefficient products that are shunned by consumers. This premature marketing effort shifted focus from research to production, stunting efforts to increase efficiency and losing vast amounts of taxpayer money. Far too many government “green” policies were rashly implemented and proving to be very costly with very little ‘bang for the buck’.

Many dire climate predictions have already proved false and much of the early data has been shown to be in error. The science of the issue is not “settled” as Gore would have everyone believe and the complexity involved causes climate models and data interpretation to continually change. Announcements of scientific proof of global warming are followed by scientific disclaimers – all from reputable scientists. How can one call this “settled”? Until the panic, or the planet, cools down, there can be no settlement.

The media’s knee-jerk reaction, sound bite philosophy, and political leaning to Gore fanned the flames. They did the same in the 70’s with predictions of a coming Ice Age based, again, on premature data. The idea of a man-made catastrophe appealed strongly to the misanthropic far-left and they jumped on Gore’s bandwagon. The rest is history, and Gore’s place in that history may very well prove to be one of infamy.

David J. Hentosh

Obama’s Gas Prices

February 23, 2012

Obama is now scrambling to find someone to blame for the high gas prices that are currently settling in for the coming summer. However, those prices were just one of the energy goals he proudly set when elected. His weak stance on Iran, combined with an idealistic push for a “green” everything, set the stage for rising gas prices that are coming at a time when the economy is strained.

From Victor Davis Hanson at NRO

Suddenly the administration seems to think that high energy prices are bad and, in fact, that it has done a lot to lower them…the fact that gas prices have doubled since January 2009 suggests that whatever the current Obama policy is, it has not worked…

Our departure from Iraq has had nothing to do with calming oil prices…Here at home we have increased oil production despite, not because, of Obama’s policies…(the administration) has discouraged new efforts in the Gulf, off-shore, in Alaska, and in the west — and was quite proud that it had…blocking the Keystone pipeline hardly encourages Middle East producers to make up the slack…

…why is there an administration worry about soon-to-be $5 gas, given that such European levels are necessary to make Solyndra- and Volt-like projects economically viable? When soon-to-be energy secretary Steven Chu declared…that “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” and when a soon-to-be President Obama warned that under his agenda cutbacks on domestic coal production would mean “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” the message was clear…higher energy prices, less consumption, less global warming, more subsidized wind and solar, high-speed rail, and “millions of green jobs…So what’s the problem?

Read the rest here:  Victor Davis Hanson

DJH

Science On Trial in Italy – Dangerous Precedent

September 20, 2011

Several Italian scientists are now on trial for manslaughter for failing to predict a 2009 earthquake that killed more than 300 people. They met six days prior to the earthquake to analyze data of tremors and concluded that the tremors were not a prelude to a major earthquake. They were wrong and are now being prosecuted.

Criminalizing a wrong “prediction” sets a dangerous and far-reaching precedent. Scientists, certainly, will feel the brunt of such a legal maneuver and will quickly learn to keep findings of any value to themselves. This would slow technical progress and reduce the benefits to society that science has been delivering for years.  More dangerous, however, is the impact this could have on society as a whole.

How long would it be before weathermen are sued for not predicting a thunderstorm, tornado, or flash flood? The very act of being a weatherman would be cause for a lawsuit because it entails predicting the weather. Weather channels would consist only of a TV camera pointed outside for you to make up your own mind about the weather.

Al Gore should certainly be shaking in his boots over this. He has been predicting climate doom for years now and the fact that NY City is not under water is cause for prosecution of him along with many other climate alarmists. Even polar bears would have a case to make (with help from PETA lawyers) for having had to re-locate ahead of predicted melting ice caps.

Investment counselors would be no more and Wall Street would change dramatically. Crystal balls and Tarot cards would be considered illegal paraphernalia and horoscopes would disappear from newspapers. Even the clergy would have sermons vetted to remove promises they cannot deliver. Mothers would be subject to legal action for telling children their noses will grow if they tell lies. Waiting for Santa Claus would have children calling lawyers in the morning. The impact of this foolishness knows no bounds.

Perhaps, though, there is a silver lining in this ominous cloud. Politicians would be forced to tell the truth and not make promises they can’t keep. Wouldn’t that be something?

David J. Hentosh

Shocking News: The Sun Drives Earth’s Climate

August 30, 2011

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

Is Going “Green” Already Gone?

June 14, 2011

Although the “green” revolution has been in play for several years now, it seems to have peaked and may be waning. Everyone inundated (indoctrinated?) with the “green” agenda is learning, possibly for the first time, about the reality and consequences of going “green”.

The latest hit on the green agenda comes from a study by a British government watch dog, the Committee on Climate Change. The study found that the electric cars being touted as better for our planet may, in the long run, actually produce more CO2 emissions than standard, gas-fueled cars.

The batteries for electric cars are made from materials requiring more energy to be processed, resulting in emissions that are almost equal to standard cars. When a replacement battery is considered (and they ALL will need a replacement battery), the total CO2 emissions for an electric car are more that twice that of a standard gas-guzzler. It seems the only benefit these cars may be providing is more “green” in the pockets of the manufacturers.

“Green” light bulb legislation, passed with knee-jerk haste, is under fire even before going into effect. This law forces all to replace standard bulbs with expensive CFL bulbs that are not exactly environmentally friendly because they contain small amounts of hazardous mercury. The only other option, LED bulbs, is much more expensive and still under development. Texas lawmakers are already pushing legislation that will exempt their state’s citizens from being forced to abandon incandescent bulbs.

Wind farms, another green solution, require a tremendous amount of real estate, disrupt the wildlife and ecosystem, and kill birds with their turbine blades. Evidence is indicating that airtight, “green” buildings being erected may be hazardous to human health because of the indoor air quality. Not enough research has been done before “solutions” have been implemented.

In an economy that does not seem to be recovering any time soon, the green in the wallet is more important than the green environment to the average Joe. Government-mandated reduction of wallet green for unproven solutions, particularly for unverified problems, is not popular. “Green” seems to be going down as fast as the economy.

David J. Hentosh

2012 GOP Guide to the Climate Debate

May 19, 2011

From The Washington Times:

If you’re thinking of becoming a Republican presidential candidate – and who isn’t these days – you can plan on being pressed on the climate issue. In the wake of last week’s new report from a panel of the National Research Council (NRC) reiterating its old talking points on climate, The Washington Post editorialized that all (read “Republican”) candidates for political office should be quizzed about whether they agree with the “scientific consensus of America’s premier scientific advisory group.”

Although this threat is intended to intimidate Republicans who tend toward queasiness when confronted with environmental issues, the attack is easy to parry and then even to counterattack – that’s why Al Gore and his enviros duck debating so-called “climate skeptics.”

Read the rest here.

An Inconvenient Truth About Climate Change

February 10, 2011

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

Egypt Uprising Due to Global Warming?

January 31, 2011

Never waste a crisis. Global warming enthusiasts are using the uprising in Egypt as an opportunity to push their agenda. It is being claimed that high food prices caused Egypt’s uprising and since global warming is responsible for those higher food prices, it is also responsible for the uprising. For a more complete (and ridiculous) list of things being blamed on global warming, go here: Things Caused by Global Warming (Warning: that site may cause uncontrollable laughter)

From climateprogress.org

Political unrest has broken out in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and other Arab countries. Social media and governmental policies are getting most of the credit for spurring the turmoil, but there’s another factor at play.

Many of the people protesting are also angry about dramatic price hikes for basic foodstuffs, such as rice, cereals, cooking oil and sugar…Energy insecurity and climate instability have now become key factors in food insecurity, which in turn has become a key factor in toppling governments.

Read it here:  Global Warming and Egypt Uprising

DJH

Al Gore Tries to Tie Australian Floods to Global Warming

January 20, 2011

I thought Al Gore had so marginalized himself that he had been put out to pasture. Apparently not.

From the Washington Times:

There are those on the left who look at tragedy and spot opportunity. Such is the case with terrible flooding that struck Australia last week, killing at least 22. On Tuesday, former Vice President Al Goreasserted that the root cause of the destruction was not torrential rain, but mankind. “As the earth warms, scientists tell us that we will see more and more extreme weather conditions,” Mr. Gore wrote on his blog, citing an ABC News report on the disaster. “Each of these occurrences further underscore [sic] why we need to take immediate action to solve the climate crisis.”

Waters topped 14 feet in Brisbane, the capital city of Queensland, forcing most residents to flee Katrina-style destruction. The few who remained used canoes and boats to float down the middle of what would ordinarily be the busy streets of a thriving metropolis. The deluge provided a steady stream of grim images for international television news crews on the scene, inspiring Mr. Gore to imply that last week’s devastation has been so unprecedented that only mankind could be responsible.

Except there’s nothing unprecedented about what happened down under.

Read the rest here: Al’s Missing Link

NdP


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers