Stop Global Warming

A climate scientist tells it like it is!

2011-09-22T21:10:00.003-04:00

A Nobel Prize-winning scientist has resigned from the American Physical Society over its alarmist stance on global warming. Read the article here.

New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism

2011-07-28T20:04:00.003-04:00

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. U.N. IPCC computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of the alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmists' computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the those computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

Challenging a Liberal Columnist

2011-05-02T11:30:00.001-04:00

Eugene Robinson wrote a global warming diatribe that started off with a seriously flawed premise. Here's my response.

Mr. Robinson:

Your quote that "climate change...can be traced to the burning of fossil fuels" is serious misinformed. The entire notion of "climate change" may enjoy POLITICAL consensus, but it certainly does not enjoy SCIENTIFIC consensus, which certainly is the more significant test.

From as far back at the Manhattan Project, serious scientists have been loath to come down on one side of an issue or another UNTIL ALL THE FACTS ARE IN. This is also true today; many (if not most) of the scientists who have signed off on the UN IPCC proclamations and other similar pronouncements have political, rather than scientific, motivations. Serious scientists, who historically have waited until all (or a significant majority of) the facts were in before taking a side, are still unconvinced that a) climate change even exists and b) if if does, that we can do anything significant about it. The intellectually honest among us will acknowledge that, even assuming "climate change" exists and that humans can do anything to fix it, America can't do it alone: it must be a coordinated, world-wide effort.

Please get your facts straight, consider the conclusions of scientists who don't have a political agenda, and stop perpetuating the myth of man-caused climate change.

More Scientists Challenge the Bogus Notion of "Global Warming"

2011-04-11T17:59:00.001-04:00

More common sense from scientists without political agendas.
Read the details in US News columnist Paul Bedard's Washington Whispers.

NEW STUDY: EPA Says cost of regulating gasses not justified

2011-03-15T16:51:00.001-04:00

New calculations applied to a U.S. Senate report reveal the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to combat global warming through regulation of greenhouse gases would theoretically take over $700 trillion, seven times the world's gross production, to drop the earth's temperature only 1 degree Celsius.

Mallard Fillmore Nails Al Gore

2010-01-06T07:35:00.004-05:00

With his usual razor-sharp wit and stunning insight, Bruce Tinsley has nailed latter-day Chicken Little* Al Gore.

* -"The planet is warming! The planet is warming!" he cried.

Global Warming Nazis Try to Silence Opposition

2009-12-13T11:05:00.004-05:00

Global warming proponents are now apparently resorting to sabotage in an effort to silence as many of the voices of opposition as possible.

As one small indication of how desperate the AGW industry is to maintain the myth, this site was sabotaged on Wednesday of last week and I was unable to regain access to it until this morning. And candidly, this site does not have as many visitors as many.

So if the industry will go to such lengths to silence even the tiniest voices of opposition, we all need to "Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!" But not so afraid that we keep on speaking the truth as a challenge to the conventional wisdom.

The scam has got to cease.

Do the numbers

As George Will pointed out in his most recent column on the topic (see previous post), the numbers our politicians are proposing simply won't crunch:

Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the numbers are impossible.

But wait! Here's a potential solution: limit the population.

"Won't happen!" you protest? Think it's ridiculous? Think it's far-fetched? Think again... and look at China. Chinese families are allowed one child per family. And if the first baby is a girl, her little life is often snuffed out so the family can have another, which hopefully will be a boy.

Sure, the gender reflects the higher value that culture places on males, but the limit could well be imposed on far more than the Chinese.

George Orwell was only 25 years early: Big Brother is indeed watching -- and waiting for his opportunity to act.

Copenhagen Climate Concerns: Additional Considerations

2009-12-09T16:17:00.012-05:00

As with many complex issues, there's much more to this than "More CO2: BAD; less CO2: GOOD!" Read on.

Copenhagen Climate Concerns: Additional Considerations

Posted using ShareThis

What happens if the U.S. signs the treaty to in Copenhagen to regulate CO2?

2009-12-09T16:17:00.011-05:00

This is a great read.

What happens if the U.S. signs the treaty to in Copenhagen to regulate CO2?

Posted using ShareThis

U.S. News Spotlights SpeakOutforAmerica.com

2009-12-09T16:16:00.004-05:00

Just as good scientists continually challenge an idea until it's proven or disproven, we skeptics need to keep challenging this tenuous theory. READ ON!

U.S. News Spotlights SpeakOutforAmerica.com

Posted using ShareThis

George Will On Point Again!

2009-12-08T06:08:00.002-05:00

Excellent column by George Will about the hyperbole attendant to the climate change conference in Copenhagen. This appeared Sunday in the Washington Post; free registration may be required to access the column.

Copenhagen...or bust?

2009-12-07T10:25:00.004-05:00

President Obama's trip to Copenhagen -- which blithely ignores the evidence of data manipulation uncovered by scientists "researching" climate change -- lends an undeserved credibility to the issue and those sponsoring it.

Yes, I used the word "sponsoring" deliberately. More than ever, it is now crystal clear that scientists supposedly doing scientific research -- which is, by its nature, skeptical -- had a greater interest in silencing those colleagues who expressed a healthy and proper scientific skepticism than they had in learning the truth. Why? There was money to be had; for scientists in the form of research grants and for politicians in cap-and-trade dollars.

While watching the news at the gym this morning, I saw a poll on one news station stating that "55% of Americans know nothing about cap-and-trade." On another, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) was talking about U.S. industry spending "TRILLIONS of dollars on cap-and-trade" for something that may have little, if any effect. Yes, TRILLIONS.

To do what?

Earlier this year, I attended a meeting at which a power company executive told the group that cap-and-trade would not remove one ton of carbon from the air; it would just move money from one group of people to another -- likely, the Federal government.

How does it work?

While it's not settled yet, generally it could work one of two ways: either the federal government gives away carbon allowances or it sells them. But know this: earlier this year, the Obama administration estimated that federal coffers would gain about $80 billion a year from carbon allowances.

Here's an illustration. Please understand the numbers are just for the purpose of illustration.

Let's say one "carbon credit" allows a company to emit one ton of CO2. If it gets 1,000 carbon credits and only needs 990, it can sell the other 10. If it paid for the original credits, it's a way of recouping some of its costs. If the credits were "granted" (given) to the company, then selling them means profit.

How much value they have is a function of how great the fine will be for exceeding one's carbon allowance. If there's a fine of $1 million per excess ton of CO2 emitted, paying anything less than that for a carbon credit would be money saved. Of course, there's a risk/benefit analysis the company will have to make ("Should we spend $750,000 for a carbon credit or risk that our extra ton of CO2 won't be detected?") but generally that's the way it will work.

FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Whether you're talking about research scientists competing for research grants or government agencies looking for new revenue streams, it's clear that the "global warming industry" is clearly that: an industry looking for money to keep itself operating. If the truth has to be sacrificed in the process, apparently that's the price they're willing to pay.

The rest of us should not stand for it.

Talk About "Inconvenient Truths"...

2009-12-01T22:42:00.002-05:00

A must-read column by Jonah Goldberg about the discovery of malfeasance at the Climatic Research Unit regarding manipulated data, cover-ups of facts that didn't support the desired outcome, and the complicity of the mainstream news media in not covering these startling developments.

FLASH BULLETIN: Global Warming Hoax BUSTED!

2009-11-27T21:20:00.003-05:00

More information gleaned from the e-mails purloined from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Hadley, U.K (or "Hadley" as it's often called) cast significant doubt on the science used to justify the theory of global warming. These are things you won't see in the American press, which has completely rolled over on this issue and utterly abandoned its role as skeptic and questioner of the party line. ("Walter Cronkite, we miss you!")

Cooking the Climate Books

Big Bucks Riding on Data

Fewer Americans Buying "Global Warming" Theory

2009-11-25T06:29:00.003-05:00

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that fewer Americans are accepting the theory that global warming exists. Still others take issue with the notion that it's anthropomorphic (caused by people).

In a related story, the Associated Press reported that a chain of personal e-mail exchanges, stolen from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, a premier climate-change research center, showed a conspiracy to silence the voices of fellow scientists who questioned the theory of global warming.

Take a look at the multitude of comments to the Post's editorial on this topic. (Free registration at the Post's web site required). It's an indication that many, many people either question the theory or believe it's an outright hoax. I believe the comments are also an indication that the number of skeptics is far higher than the above poll suggests.

Excellent Information Available

2009-10-30T09:35:00.003-04:00

Please check out The Global Warming Cause blog (link at right); it has some excellent, up-to-date information about more studies that are calling into question the current thinking around the notion of man-caused global warming.

Yet Another Voice of Reason

2009-10-29T10:20:00.005-04:00

"The push in Congress for a huge new carbon tax is a dangerous farce. The political reality is that truly meaningful global restrictions on CO2 emissions in the near future simply will not happen, and pretending otherwise is a waste of time, money and political capital."

In the main, I agree with columnist Jonah Goldberg, who penned the words above. Whether you agree with the theory of global warming or not, we must be pragmatic about our approach.

To that point, Goldberg points to a recent poll that shows belief in the theory of climate change has dropped from 71% in April to 57%; only 36% believe humans are mostly responsible; and only 35% believe it's a "very serious problem", a drop from 41% in April.

That means, as Goldberg points out, "...after more than a decade of near-relentless fear-mongering (climate change alarmists) can't persuade the American people to spend trillions (yes, TRILLIONS) for less than a degree Celsius of cooling a century from now."

Spread the truth!

Climate Bill Would Cost Us Billions

2009-10-29T10:03:00.006-04:00

Kudos to EnergyCitizens.org for continuing its aggressive campaign against the climate change bill. The latest effort is a full-page ad pointing to a recent study that says the House-passed climate bill could lead to $4 per gallon gasoline!

In addition, it will also cause higher electricity prices as utilities will have to pay for carbon credits -- costs which they will pass along to their customers. Remember this fundamental truth: businesses do not pay anything out of their own pockets; all their costs are passed along to their customers!

But don't take my word for it. Europe has had a cap-and-trade program in effect for several years and, according to the New York Times, it's done nothing but cost companies money.

The greater point, which I've posted many times, is that all this posturing is because of a scientifically tenuous theory (and let's be quite clear: IT'S ONLY A THEORY) which governments have co-opted into a "protection" racket that makes criminal protection rackets pale by comparison.

Think of it like this: if a government first makes you believe you're threatened by of something, then tells you it can keep you safe from that threat if you pay it, that's "protection". Governments around the world have seized on the "threat" of climate change as a way to raise taxes without admitting they're raising taxes.

Please, for your sake and the sake of future generations, listen to the growing body of scientists without a political agenda who say this theory is nonsense. Hear what they have to say before swallowing the political theory without question.

BRAVO! Citizens' Group Speaks Out

2009-10-20T06:09:00.002-04:00

Kudos to EnergyCitizen.org for running full-page ads pointing out some of the many flaws in the climate change bill. An ad in the Indianapolis Star points to an independent study that says passage of the climate bill would result in the loss of two million U.S. jobs!

Even if you accept the tenuous theory of climate change and the notion that we can have any meaningful effect, we MUST ask: "At what cost?"

The Facts Get In the Way

2009-10-01T19:17:00.004-04:00

Syndicated columnist George Will is right: "What makes (climate change) skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change (are not supported by the) evidence."

His column of October 1 is well worth reading.

As a Canadian friend said when forecasters missed a short-term heat wave earlier this year, "...and yet, we're supposed to accept their forecasts of what will happen 20-30 years hence?"

The evidence doesn't support the theory.

More Voices of Reason

2009-09-23T14:48:00.004-04:00

An article in The Seattle Times (reprinted from the New York Times) says:

The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate change Tuesday (September 22) are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.

The plateau in temperatures has been seized upon by skeptics as evidence that the threat of global warming is overblown. (emphasis added)

"The threat of global warming 'overblown'"? No shit, Sherlock.

And here's the part the article misses (or skips over, if you like...): Temperatures are stable even though we've done virtually zero to reduce our carbon emissions.

Sure, some folks have done a little. I've even gone to CFLs around the house. But the sum total of the efforts to date? Didly/squat.

What does that mean?

It means exactly what we skeptics have been saying for a long time: that weather is cyclical, "what goes up, must come down" applies to temperatures as well as gravity, and that the "evidence" is dubious at best.

Obama Off Target

2009-09-22T12:39:00.002-04:00

From the Associated Press: President Barack Obama on Tuesday (9/22) declared that the United States is a serious partner in combating global warming, telling world peers "we are determined to act."

"The journey is hard. And we don't have much time left to make it," Obama said in brief remarks at a high-level climate summit convened by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Obama sought to show U.S. resolve ahead of crucial talks in Copenhagen in December, when nations will try to reach a new global treaty to address climate change. He spoke at the start of a busy day of diplomacy at the United Nations that also was to include a three-way meeting with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in an effort to nudge forward the Mideast peace process.

Mr. President, you are wrong, wrong, wrong!

First, the planet has been cooling for the last several years.

Second, the entire theory (and I emphasize that it is only a theory, not a fact) of anthropomorphic (man-caused) global warming is coming under significant question from serious scientists.

Third, any unilateral action by the U.S., even assuming global warming a) exists and b) is something man can affect, will be futile as it will be offset by other countries that don't share our views or emissions standards.

Fourth, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT! Estimates are that a carbon cap-and-trade program would cost $1 TRILLION.

Reach out to your Senators and Representatives and tell them to STOP THIS NONSENSE and vote "NO" on any climate change bill before we get a trillion-dollar millstone hung around our necks.

Al Gore's Best Supporting Role

2009-09-01T08:06:00.001-04:00

This video on YouTube has received over 300,000 views. It's well worth watching, as it has a number of credible experts pointing out why man-caused global warming is anything but a scientific certainty!

Ye Shall Know the Truth

2009-09-01T07:49:00.005-04:00

FINALLY! Common sense is prevailing, and groups are organizing to speak out against the thinly-disguised energy tax called "Cap and Trade".

The other night, I saw one of the rare TV commercials I didn't want to mute: it was a spot warning of the dangers of so-called "Cap and Trade" -- a system that essentially taxes those who emit carbon dioxide (see previous posts on the topic).

This isn't the commercial I saw (which is good, in that it shows more than one group sees what's REALLY going on) but is worth watching.

Remember, the Obama administration estimates (and is apparently counting on) getting $80 billion a year for their budget from "carbon allowances" or "cap and trade", which have all sprung from the scientifically-tenuous THEORY of global warming.

As I've said before: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

New Book Challenges IPCC Assumptions

2009-07-29T06:21:00.009-04:00

An 880-page book, "Climate Change Reconsidered," has been published by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Chane (NIPCC). In the publication, scientists not affiliated with the politically-motivated IPCC detail their examination of the same data as looked at by the IPCC and outline how and why they reached different conclusions.

For example, the publication states that these independent scientists are not saying that "...anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) cannot produce some warming or has not in the past. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a substantial role."

Further, and counter to the IPCC's conclusion, these scientists are not convinced that a slightly warmer atmosphere would have a net negative impact.

It's interesting, thought-provoking reading and available as a free download or can be purchased in hard copy from the NIPCC web site.

"Minds are like parachutes: they function best when open." Happy reading!

Forecasters Missed Short-Term Heat Wave

2009-07-29T06:15:00.002-04:00

If you've been watching the news or weather recently, you may have noted that the Pacific Northwest of the US and the southwest of Canada are being hit by some unusually high temperatures and inundated by thunderstorms.

A friend and colleague who lives in Canada put it quite succinctly: "Meteorologists (were) surprised at the sudden heat wave in Vancouver ... and TOTALLY dropped the ball on a major thunderstorm that ripped across the lower mainland on Saturday (July 25). (T)hey're having a hard enough time predicting what will happen tomorrow, and we're supposed to believe them about 10-20 years?????"

Mainstream Columnist Highlights Growing Skepticism About Climate Change

2009-07-24T17:04:00.008-04:00

Syndicated columnist George Will has joined the growing chorus of those who are skeptical of the latter-day Chicken Littles who are crying, "The climate is changing! The climate is changing!" Read his latest column here, and an April column here.

In his most recent, he reiterates the position that India stated on Sunday, July 19: India told visiting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that there is "no case" for U.S. pressure on India to reduce carbon emissions.

Even those who accept this scientifically-tenuous theory must understand (and agree, if they're intellectually honest) that the U.S. can't "fix" it alone; the rest of the world must come along. And much of the rest of the world is unconvinced.

Another Senator Who "Gets It"

2009-07-20T21:50:00.002-04:00

From an e-mail I recently received:

Cap and Trade
By U.S. Senator Jon Kyl

President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans, but legislation he and congressional Democrats are backing would do just that.

On June 26, the House of Representatives passed legislation described by Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein as “a stealth strategy for a massive long-term tax increase.” All Americans, regardless of income, will feel the effects of this tax hike.

At a time when the economy remains shaky and unemployment has reached a 25-year high, Congress should not be considering new taxes. They would be bad for families and would slow the economic recovery as well. The Senate could take up the House legislation, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, though it may not do so until September. That would give all Americans time to register their opinions on the bill.

The bill would implement a “cap-and-trade” program with the ostensible purpose of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Cap-and-trade programs set strict, mandatory limits on carbon emissions from various sources (like electric utilities). Those sources would then either reduce carbon emissions or buy or trade emission allowances to achieve the required overall emissions reductions.

Rather than directly raising taxes on Americans, cap-and-trade raises the cost of living for everyone by raising energy costs and consumer prices for virtually everything. The effect is the same as if they had had their taxes raised. When the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed the cost of reducing carbon emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels, it estimated a family’s cost of living would increase by $1,600 a year. “To put that $1,600 carbon tax in perspective, a typical family of four with earnings of $50,000 now pays an income tax of about $3,000,” Feldstein wrote recently in the Weekly Standard. “The tax imposed by the cap-and-trade system is therefore equivalent to raising the family’s income tax by about 50 percent.” That’s $1,600 that families won’t be able to spend or invest in the economy.

In addition to the tax increase, Americans would also feel the pinch because cap-and-trade will hurt economic growth. The Heritage Foundation concluded that it would slow long-term growth by almost $10 trillion over 26 years.

And jobs would be lost. The Heritage Foundation’s analysis found that Arizona would lose thousands of jobs, over 30,000 in the first year alone.

Proponents of the cap-and-trade proposal argue that job losses will be offset by the creation of new, “green” jobs. But it’s not certain those jobs will materialize, let alone make up for the jobs that are lost. In Spain, whose government has invested heavily in “green” jobs, two jobs are lost for every green job created, according to a Spanish economist.

This year won’t be the first time that the Senate has considered cap-and-trade. In 2008, similar legislation went down to defeat, and this year’s version will once again face opposition from Senate Republicans and some moderate Democrats. If Americans communicate their opinions about this bill to their representatives in Congress, I am convinced it can be defeated again.

Write your Senators! Tell them to "Just say 'no'!" Here's some suggested text:

Dear Senator (name)

I am contacting you to ask that you vote AGAINST the “carbon dioxide cap-and-trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives when the bill comes before the Senate.

There are two very good, very simple reasons the Senate should defeat this bill, which essentially taxes those who emit carbon dioxide.

1) This new tax will raise prices on a number of items – including the basic commodity of electricity – at a time when the economy can ill afford it, very possibly crippling the recovery.
2) Even if you accept the theory of man-caused climate change, it’s a global issue that CANNOT be fixed by the U.S. alone.

If this bill is passed, Americans will be spending a lot more of our hard-earned dollars for no good reason. The financial resources of Americans are limited and, in many cases, strained already. Please don't strain them further by passing this legislation which, though well-intended, has dubious actual value.

Respectfully,
(your name)
(your city)

Have Your Noticed?

2009-07-19T21:35:00.003-04:00

The nomenclature has changed!

"Global warming" has now morphed into "climate change."

What does that mean? It means that politicians can now blame us whether the summer is hotter OR cooler than normal. It means we can be blamed whether the spring and fall are dryer OR wetter than normal. It means humans can be declared at fault whether the winter is colder or less cold than usual.

In other words, it's an excuse to blame humans for the variances in weather - which, honest observers note, have been happening at least since weather records have been kept, and likely longer. More important than blame, our lawmakers can now tax us for emitting carbon dioxide because after all, according to Al Gore, that's the reason we have climate change.

Come ON, people! Weather has ALWAYS been variable; hence the phrase, "Changeable as the weather." It has NEVER been 100% predictable. And, beyond all that, serious scientists are questioning the THEORY of man-caused climate change. Remember, there's no scientific consensus on this issue; only a political consensus.

Dems Show Their True Colors

2009-05-20T08:00:00.004-04:00

On Tuesday, May 19, the House Energy and Commerce Committee REJECTED an amendment to the Waxman-Markey bill on global warming that would have required China and India to adopt greenhouse gas emissions standards.

Even if you accept the theory of global warming caused by GHG emissions, it is completely illogical and unreasonable to think that actions by the U.S. ALONE can fix it.

Makes sense, of course, but why did I say "Dems Show Their True Colors"? Because it was the dems who knocked down the amendment by a vote of 36-23, despite the irrefutable logic that says this MUST be a global issue to have an effect (if any CAN be had).

So what does that mean? It means that the democrats are intent on taxing U.S. businesses for emitting CO2, which means U.S. consumers will pay for it. And though it will cost billions, if not trillions, of dollars, taxing CO2 won't remove one ton of it from the air.

FOLLOW THE MONEY!

More Evidence Against the Hysteria

2009-05-19T08:36:00.006-04:00

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations National Climatic Data Center released new date on Monday, May 18 that shows April 2009 to be the "fifth-warmest globally" since 1880. While that may be noteworthy, it also means there were four Aprils that were warmer than 2009.

Further, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, arctic sea ice coverage of 5.6 million square miles was 10th lowest for April since satellite records began in 1979. That means there were nine Aprils in the last 30 years where the ice coverage was less.

In contrast, the April Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage of 3.2 million square miles was 13.5% HIGHER than the 1970-2000 average, according to the NCDC.

This data is logically at odds with the specious, unproven theory of global warming. If global warming existed, especially if it follows the "hockey stick" chart its proponents claim, April 2009 should have been the warmest on record and the ice packs should have been the smallest. That didn't happen; not by a long shot.

Former Presidential Adviser Speaks Out

2009-05-13T16:13:00.003-04:00

Martin Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, has an op-ed piece in the May 13 Wall Street Journal about tax increases and their potential effect on an economic recovery.

It's unfortunate that the reader must get to the seventh graph, midway through the second column, to get to what I consider the most important point:

Mr. Obama's biggest proposed tax increase is the cap-and-trade system of requiring businesses to buy carbon dioxide emission permits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed permit auctions would raise about $80 billion a year and that these extra taxes would be passed along in higher prices to consumers. Anyone who drives a car, uses public transportation, consumes electricity or buys any product that involves creating CO2 in its production would face higher prices.

The article goes on to say that the cap-and-trade price increases resulting from a 15% cut in CO2 emissions would cost the average household roughly $1,600 a year, and that Since the amount of cap-and-trade tax rises with income, the cap-and-trade tax has the same kind of adverse work incentives as the income tax.

Our politicians need to get smart: if not about the dubiousness of the theory of global warming, then about the reality that misguided attempts to "fix" it will themselves be doing damage more severe than that which they're intended to repair.

More Opposing to EPA Regulation of CO2

2009-04-22T14:34:00.004-04:00

This is from "OpposingViews.com"

On April 19, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared that carbon was a threat to public health and safety, likely ensuring that carbon dioxide will be regulated as a pollutant.

Nick Loris from the Heritage Foundation explains:

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued an endangerment finding, saying that global warming and climate change pose a serious threat to public health and safety and thus almost anything that emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This is the first official action taken by the federal government to regulate carbon dioxide. Arbitrary restrictions and regulations in the name of curbing global warming do nothing but promise extraordinary perils for the American economy – all for little, if any, environmental benefit. (end of OpposingViews.Com article)

We need to speak out against this dangerous, ill-advised, heinous, and incredibly expensive move. The public comment period is open for 60 days from the rule's publication, or about June 19. BUT DON'T WAIT! PLEASE LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD! It is the only way we have any hope of stopping this out-of-control freight train before it runs over our economy.

Written comments on the proposed finding (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171) may be submitted by using the following instructions:

* Instructions for Submitting Written Comments (PDF) (3 pp, 39KB, PDF)

When providing comments, please submit them with reference to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171.

Costly Carbon

2009-04-22T09:38:00.002-04:00

Economic experts are making it very clear: carbon will be costly.

Recently, experts who spoke to the North Dakota Public Service Commission said residential electricity bills will rise from 12% to 25% for every $10 per ton of carbon levied under a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade program). Other experts are predicting a price of $30 per ton.

That means electricity bills would go up between 36% and 75% -- for what? For nothing!

As others have pointed out, such taxes won't remove one ton of carbon from the air; all it will do is move money from companies and their customers to the government.

It's time to see this fraud for what it is: a way to demonize something that is not widely understood, then penalize those who produce it.

Speak up against this fraud NOW, before it's too late.

More Proof of the Fraud

2009-04-22T07:51:00.006-04:00

Today is Earth Day and, in "honor" of that, the comic strip Mallard Fillmore points to a Time magazine article that uses a bit of revisionist history to claim that "global warming may have killed the dinosaurs."

The original theory was that, when volcanoes erupted en masse, the clouds of ash they spewed out resulted in global cooling. Now, miraculously, they're being blamed for GLOBAL WARMING! The newest "theory" is the large amounts of CO2 belched into the atmosphere caused it.

But I digress.

Revisionism aside, this theory means two important things:
1) Man didn't cause global warming, and (even if one accepts that it exists)
2) Man can't correct it.

We weren't around millions of years ago to either cause it or fix it. Further, if this most recent bit of propaganda is accurate, it also means weather/nature is cyclical. See Point #2 above.

More Evidence: The Planet is NOT Getting Warmer

2009-04-17T10:15:00.004-04:00

A news item caught my eye this morning. It said NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, reported that "...the global average temperature for March was the 10th highest on record, while the Northern Hemisphere experienced the 12th warmest March on record."

Having an analytical bent, I realized that meant there were nine Marches where the temperatures were higher than this year. However, the alarmist tone troubled me, so I looked up the full NOAA report.

The NOAA report "Climate in 2009 - March Historical Perspective opens with these exact words: "The March 2009 temperature for the contiguous United States was near the long-term average, based on records going back to 1895, according to an analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center..."

What does that mean? While not 100% definitive, it means that the climate isn't much different than it has been for the 129 years we've been keeping records.

It also means we need to look at the science; it doesn't support the politics.

The Electric Industry Sees the Truth

2009-04-15T11:59:00.004-04:00

Sitting in a meeting this morning, I'm listening to electricity industry reps talk about the cost of carbon emissions. One representative hit the nail on the head when discussing carbon tax: he said, "A carbon tax hasn't removed a single ton of carbon from the atmosphere. It has only moved money from me and my customers" to the government, which will use it to fund other things.

THE BOTTOM LINE: the nonsense around global warming is simply a way for the government to demonize something relatively harmless but which is emitted in large quantities, then charge for it.

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

Perpetuating Propaganda

2009-04-15T10:18:00.002-04:00

I'm sitting in a meeting, listening to a scientist talk about the Obama Administration's plans to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050, and the difficulties and expense of doing so.

While the scientist was invited to the meeting to speak about pending legislation and the challenges it will bring and is being very careful to talk about the plans of others and how much it will cost, I find myself thinking that the speaker has sold out. Not a word about the politicization of this issue, not a word about the body of serious scientists who see beyond the highly-politicized pronouncements of the UN IPCC and the U.S. EPA.

A couple of nights ago, I was watching a BBC production about Robert Oppenheimer, a pivotal figure in the development of the atomic bomb. During that production, the Oppenheimer character was discussing with other scientists whether they should speak out about the dangers they were identifying, and made the point that "scientists are hesitant to get involved in politics." Arguably, they should have spoken out -- loudly -- about the horrors of nuclear weapons (not nuclear power or nuclear medicine, but nuclear weapons).

Understand: I'm not comparing the horrors of nuclear war to the perpetuation of propaganda about global warming. However, I am saying the scientific community should have learned its lesson about remaining silent about a controversial issue. The time to speak out is now, before we're saddled with monumental costs for no scientifically supportable reason.

Texas Regulator Concerned About Cost of Climate Change Legislation

2009-04-09T07:52:00.004-04:00

The Dallas Morning News reports the chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission is worried that federal climate-change legislation could pummel the Texas economy. Chairman Barry Smitherman is asking ERCOT, the outfit that oversees the Texas electrical grid, to look at the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG)regulations on electricity prices.

The concern is that GHG regulations will make prices rise. The greater issues -- which should concern all of us -- is that we'll be paying more to "fix" a problem that may not exist and if it does (big "if"), that we mere humans may not be able to do anything significant about in any case!

Another Attempt to Remove Science from the Discussion

2009-04-03T11:12:00.006-04:00

In the April 6, 2009 issue of Time, Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) is quoted as saying the EPA’s conclusion that greenhouse gasses threaten public health “… will officially end the era of denial on global warming.” No, Congressman, the “era of denial about global warming” is not over; in fact, it has just begun.

Congressman Markey would do well to understand: there is no scientific consensus on this issue, only a political consensus. Every day, more and more serious scientists – not those hand-picked for the highly-politicized UN International Panel on Climate Change or the U.S. EPA – are raising questions about (and finding flaws in) the popular but highly dubious theory of “global warming.”

Neither are average Americans buying into this claptrap. Recent polls by Gallup and the Pew Center show that the American people are less concerned about global warming than most any other issue confronting us and that (surprise, surprise) a significant and growing number believe the media is dramatically exaggerating the problem, if indeed one exists at all.

Historically, serious scientists have been slow to become politically involved, preferring to first do their research and have confidence in their results before speaking out vigorously on a subject. With an increasing number of apolitical scientists delving into the “data” and climate “models” upon which the UN IPCC and EPA base their conclusions and, importantly, finding them lacking, it won’t be long before their combined chorus becomes loud enough to drown out the cacophony of those latter-day Chicken Littles who persist in crying, “The planet is warming! The planet is warming!”

Study Focuses on Natural Causes/Fixes

2009-03-26T07:25:00.003-04:00

A new study (click here for link) by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down, as the bitter cold and record snowfalls from two wicked winters are causing people to ask if the global climate is truly changing.

The climate is known to be variable and, in recent years, more (Editor's note: perhaps too much?) scientific thought and research has been focused on the global temperature and how humanity might be influencing it.

Researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis says the earth's air and ocean systems are showing signs of synchronizing with each other, and that has an effect on the climate.

"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."

Researcher Tsonis says, "If we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural."

Climate Change Claims Countered

2009-03-25T06:28:00.014-04:00

A group in Washington State, WashingtonPolicy.Org, has published a five-page "Environmental Watch" paper countering many of the hysterical claims being made about global warming and, importantly, the effectiveness of cap-and-trade programs that exist elsewhere in the world. For the uninitiated, cap-and-trade programs are schemes intended to reduce CO2 emissions.

While much of the discussion of this group centers on activities specific to that state, there is a significant amount of information in this paper that applies to the rest of the world.

Among those topics is the deliberate quashing of discussion about the efficacy of the science involved (see page 3, "Unsettling the science") and the effectiveness (or, more accurately, lack of effectiveness) of Europe's cap-and-trade system. The paper draws from articles from sources that are eminently credible: The International Herald Tribune, the GAO, and Stanford University.

Most importantly, this is another indication -- from a bastion of liberalism -- that the unquestionable can and should be questioned.

Another Voice Joins the Chorus of Reason

2009-03-24T15:41:00.007-04:00

Washington, DC attorney Jonathan Lesser has written (and graciously granted me permission to reference) several papers on the possible consequences of the hype (could I say "excessive hype" and not be called redundant?) around the theory of global warming.

In his most recent paper he points out what I've said here previously and what several polls have confirmed: that, contrary to what appears in the popular press, climate change is not the most important issue facing our nation or the world's policymakers.

Lesser continues: "In spite of this, in the U.S., we are going to have regulation of greenhouse gas emissions; and, unfortunately, it appears we are going to have it in ways that could further damage our economy." In his paper, he explores the issues of this regulation under the Clean Air Act, including the lack of crucial market-based mechanisms, overreaching by the EPA, the difficulties of permitting, and cost-benefit analyses that fail to account for the actions and policies of other nations.

His earlier columns on energy and the environment are also available at Bates White | Energy Practice.

A Senator Who Doesn't "Get It"

2009-03-22T19:05:00.008-04:00

In a previous post, I mentioned that I'd received a response from one of Indiana's senators that appeared to be a form letter. That was from Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN).

Today (a Sunday) I received an e-mail from Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) who also (fairly obviously) did not read my e-mail but only responded to the subject. How do I know? Because part of his response (posted verbatim) is as follows:

The scientific consensus on this issue is unequivocal. Global warming is real and greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are causing it. Scientists and others warn that climate change threatens our nation's security, and may imperil future generations' opportunity for safe, healthy, and prosperous lives.

No, Senator Bayh, the scientific consensus on this issue is NOT unequivocal; the consensus on this issue a POLITICAL consensus. Serious scientists are still very divided and the scientists co-opted into the UN International Panel on Climate Change are anything but objective and unbiased.

Get your facts right, Senator, before you vote for legislation that will cost billions -- if not trillions -- of dollars in what many scientists (and thinking non-scientists) believe may well be a futile effort to fix something that really isn't broken.

A Congressman Who "Gets It"

2009-03-21T10:43:00.013-04:00

Recently, I wrote my state's two U.S. Senators and my Representative to urge them to listen to established scientists who are raising legitimate questions about the theory of global warming.

Representative Dan Burton (R-IN) sent a letter that specifically responded to many of the points I raised. One Senator responded with what was obviously a form letter, while the other has not responded as of this writing.

Rep. Burton's response acknowledges that "...there has been media attention about the 'threat' of global warming (but) many scientific facts tend to belie this claim, although they seldom get media attention."

He goes on to say that "...many of the scientists who today are the most ardent supporters of the global warming theory were supporters of the 'coming ice age' theory, which gained substantial support in the 1970s."

Burton rightly questions some of the questionable science used to promote this theory: " ...despite all our advanced technology, it is still questionable whether we have the capability to accurately measure the earth's temperature and ocean levels."

He also notes that there is notable opposition to this theory: "...some scientists believe that our climate is actually improving."

But even more important than agreement or disagreement about the theory, Burton recognizes that blind acceptance will lead to decisions that are dangerous to members of society: "There are also costs associated with unquestioningly embracing global warming threats, such as higher energy costs which often result in the death of the low-income elderly who are reluctant to run their air conditioners in the summer time."

He goes on to point out that many of the latter-day Chicken Littles (my term, not his) who are crying the loudest, "The earth is warming! The earth is warming!" are not counting the cost of a full-court press to arrest this phenomenon (if indeed it can be slowed by us mere mortals in any case): "...the tendency for a great many in the environmental community currently is to disregard any economic costs to ordinary citizens with respect to policymaking. That is both unfortunate and dangerous to our society."

On so many counts, BRAVO, Representative Burton! Keep up the good work and please understand you are not a lone voice crying in the wilderness; there are more and more of us intelligent, reasonable people each day who are questioning this specious theory.

Comments Welcome

2009-03-15T07:43:00.002-04:00

Below each post, you'll now find a link that will enable you to proffer comments. Comments will be moderated before posting.

Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated”

2009-03-11T23:32:00.002-04:00

While a majority of Americans continue to believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news (29%) or underestimated (28%), a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. Read more at gallup.com

British Scientist Says Trees Soaking Up More Carbon Than Thought

2009-03-02T21:35:00.001-05:00

An article in the British publication The Guardian says a new study shows trees in Africa are soaking up about one-fifth of the world's carbon emissions -- far more than anyone thought.

Simon Lewis, a climate expert at the University of Leeds who led the study, said, "We are receiving a free subsidy from nature. Tropical forest trees are absorbing about 18% of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels, substantially buffering the rate of change." (Editor's note: Here's more evidence that nature will find a way without man's help.)

The study measured trees in 79 areas of intact forest across 10 African countries from Liberia to Tanzania, and compared records going back 40 years. "On average the trees are getting bigger," Lewis said.

We're Not Alone!

2009-03-02T21:28:00.000-05:00

There are many of us of all stripes who don't buy the hysteria around global warming. Here's the URL of another well-researched, well-reasoned blog I encountered:

http://globalwarmingcause.wordpress.com/

Come, let us reason together!

Another Reporter Response

2009-03-02T11:40:00.001-05:00

John Richardson, a staff writer with the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, also responded and acknowledged it's always good to point out the range of uncertainty in what are projections.

He said he'd seen a story recently about forests absorbing more carbon than expected. Indeed, the story ran in the British publication "The Guardian" Please click here to read the full article.

Al Gore Doesn't CARE

2009-03-01T22:27:00.001-05:00

The Patron Saint of global warming alarmists -- Al Gore -- doesn't really care.

He doesn't care about the truth as determined by unbiased science, and he certainly doesn't care to hear from you. All he cares about is espousing his own slanted point of view.

Mr. Gore has a Twitter site with more than 211,000 followers -- who have no way to respond to his posts, many of which are factually flawed and easily refuted.

C'mon, Al! Have the courage of your convictions and engage in discussion. What are you afraid of? That they'll take away your Oscar?

A Reporter Responds

2009-03-01T21:58:00.000-05:00

I received a response (quite promptly, I might add) from Mark Schleifstein, a staff writer at the New Orleans Times-Picayune. I removed his full response as he (quite correctly) reminded me that I had not said up front that I would post his response. I'll be more judicious going forward.

In essence, he said he was familiar with Christy and had read some of his work. He acknowledged that there was not scientific consensus on the topic and added that his paper has reported that there is a minority of scientists who think otherwise.

The problem is that the term "minority of scientists" implies a small number; perhaps to some even implies "lunatic fringe". However, more than 32,000 scientists have signed a formal statement, prepared by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-authored by an atmospheric scientist at Harvard University, saying there is no global warming crisis. By contrast, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has only 2,600 participants, many of whom are not scientists, and counts the staff of activist groups Environmental Defense and Greenpeace as its lead authors.

Even if "minority" (as in "less than 50%") is accurate, it is clearly a significant and growing number.

Holding Journalists Accountable

2009-03-01T08:43:00.000-05:00

On Sunday, March 1, I sent the following note to 200 enrionmental reporters and editors at publications ranging from major national publications including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and the Christian Science Monitor to the Idaho Statesman:

The following is an excerpt from an article that appeared on the front page of a trade journal last week. Given both the credibility of the expert and the high profile of the venue, I must ask: why did your publication not cover this as aggressively as it covers pronouncements by climate change alarmists? There is currently an active debate among serious scientists about the validity of the THEORY of climate change/global warming, but most publications (sadly, yours included) only seem interested in joining the latter-day Chicken Littles who are proclaiming, "The planet is warming!" You're doing a serious disservice to your readers, to journalism (which has historically covered all major sides of major issues) and, finally, the truth.

Respectfully,
Steve Kramer
Indianapolis, IN

On Wednesday, February 25, 2009, the House Ways and Means Committee heard from John Christy, Alabama’s state climatologist and a professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, about the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere. Christy was clear; he said new information suggests current climate models have “overstated” warming from carbon dioxide emissions.

“Current climate model projections of temperature assume that the climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases,” Christy said. While there is no doubt that CO2 is being added to the air, “what is usually overlooked is the fact that the atmosphere is much more subtle and complicated than expressed in climate models. The real atmosphere has many ways to respond to the changes that the extra CO2 is forcing upon it.”

Christy pointed to satellite observations showing that during warming episodes, clouds respond by stepping up their cooling effect. However, when climate model output “calculated in the same way is compared with observations, not one model mimics this cooling effect — in fact the models’ clouds lead to further warming, not cooling as it is in nature,” he told the committee. “We hypothesize that this poor representation of clouds in models is the reason we find the warming rates of model projections to have significantly overshot what has actually happened.”

In addition, Christy told the committee that actions being considered to “stop global warming” would have “an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole.”

If the Congress wants to reduce CO2 emissions, “the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program,” Christy added. “Other currently available alternatives simply cannot produce enough energy to be significantly noticed at a price and geographic scale that is affordable.”

We'll see what, if anything, they have to say for themselves.

NOW It Makes Sense!

2009-02-28T10:43:00.000-05:00

On Friday, February 27, the lead article in one of the publications I read had the following headline: "Obama budget eyes $80 billion annually from cap-and-trade."

FINALLY! There's the payoff to the hysteria over "global warming": dollars for the government.

In case you're not aware, cap-and-trade would create a system of "carbon allowances" that would give facilities like power plants permission to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide. Guess who would sell those "allowances" and who would get the money? Right; Uncle Sam.

Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and it could be that the government is just finding a clever way to capitalize on the current climate hysteria. But that's the bottom line: the hype over a scientifically-questionable theory is going to cost us at least $80 billion A YEAR to try to fix something many scientists say a) isn't a problem and b) we may not be able to affect in any significant way anyway!

Please, speak out. Insist that your elected officials listen to all scientists with an opinion on this subject, not just those with an agenda. Otherwise, it's going to hit us all -- hard -- in the wallet.

Academic Tells Congress Global Warming Overstated

2009-02-26T07:50:00.000-05:00

On Wednesday, February 25, the House Ways and Means Committee heard from John Christy, Alabama’s state climatologist and a professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, about the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere. Christy was clear; he said new information suggests current climate models have “overstated” warming from carbon dioxide emissions.

“Current climate model projections of temperature assume that the climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases,” Christy said. While there is no doubt that CO2 is being added to the air, “what is usually overlooked is the fact that the atmosphere is much more subtle and complicated than expressed in climate models. The real atmosphere has many ways to respond to the changes that the extra CO2 is forcing upon it.”

Christy pointed to satellite observations showing that during warming episodes, clouds respond by stepping up their cooling effect. However, when climate model output “calculated in the same way is compared with observations, not one model mimics this cooling effect — in fact the models’ clouds lead to further warming, not cooling as it is in nature,” he told the committee. “We hypothesize that this poor representation of clouds in models is the reason we find the warming rates of model projections to have significantly overshot what has actually happened.”

In addition, Christy told the committee that actions being considered to “stop global warming” would have “an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole.”

If the Congress wants to reduce CO2 emissions, “the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program,” Christy added. “Other currently available alternatives simply cannot produce enough energy to be significantly noticed at a price and geographic scale that is affordable.”

Cooler Heads Discuss Global "Warming"

2009-02-15T12:24:00.000-05:00

Check out this blog, which contains some serious anaylsis that questions the theory of global warming.

A Conference of Note

2009-02-15T12:22:00.000-05:00

More than 70 of the world’s elite scientists specializing in climate issues will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10, 2009. Read more

Great Debate on CNN

2009-02-08T18:44:00.000-05:00

On Fareed Zakaria's program today, Sunday, February 8, Bjorn Lomborg -- author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" -- spoke out against the hysteria around so-called "global warming." One of his key points was that, if all the programs proposed to date were successful (which is very doubtful), it would result in an expenditure of literally TRILLIONS of dollars to reduce the average global temperature by 1/2 degree Farenheit, which is insignificant.

Help the alarmists/extremists among your circle understand two very basic truths: 1) There is no scientific consensus around the THEORY of global warming, and 2) carbon dioxide is NOT the next great evil.

More Scientists Buck the "Consensus"

2009-01-28T15:53:00.001-05:00

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The theory of global warming enjoys political consensus, but not scientific consensus.

Despite what Al Gore and those like him would have us believe, more and more scientists are speaking out against the theory as perpetuated by the UN International Panel on Climate Change.

For a well thought-out, contrarian point of view, check this out from The Heartland Institute.

Americans Less Convinced Than Ever About Global Warming

2009-01-25T10:12:00.000-05:00

Public concerns about global warming have plummeted, while concerns about the economy, jobs and energy rank high, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Global warming ranked last out of 20 issues of concern to the public, with only 30% of Americans calling it a top priority.

NOAA says "No Global Warming This Year"

2009-01-12T08:57:00.000-05:00

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says the 2008 annual temperature for the contiguous US was close to average, while the temperature for December alone was below the long-term average.

NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center said that, for the year, the average temperature was 53 degrees Fahrenheit, just 0.2 degree above the 20th century average. And 0.2 Fahrenheit is about 0.1 degree Celsius.

The agency also said the average December 2008 temperature of 32.5 degrees was 0.9 degrees below the 20th century average, and that temperatures in December were much below average across the Upper Midwest and cooler than average across much of the West, Northwest and Midwest.

New evidence against "global warming"

2009-01-10T18:11:00.000-05:00

Some well-thought out pieces from The Heartland Institute: a study titled, "Nature -- Not Human Activity -- Rules the Climate," and a recent article "Ten Global Warming Truths to Keep Us Sane in 2009".

We need to make sure our lawmakers read these to counter the shaky science upon which the tenuous theory of "global warming" rests.

Global warming? Not this winter

2009-01-04T16:30:00.000-05:00

Ice storms in New England on December 11. Eight inches of snow in New Orleans on December 12. Three inches of snow in Las Vegas on December 17. Certainly, a period of a few brief weeks does not a trend make. But all these incidents fly in the face of the theory of "global warming."

I use that term very deliberately. "Global warming" is a theory, not a proven trend or fact. It currently enjoys political consensus, but not scientific consensus. And that's important.

Serious scientists are finally speaking out against what one scientist calls "fear mongering clap-trap" and "a disservice to science."

Why?

For a quick primer, read this recent column by the National Review's Deroy Murdock . Then, read the column he wrote in May 2008. And be intellectually honest: look at the caliber of the people he cites. Look at their work. Look at their credibility. Finally, look at your thermometer. Is it really getting warmer?

Why am I so adamant about this?

If global warming was a benign theory being touted by a few on the fringe, I wouldn't care. But, thanks to the political climate, this irrational and scientifically tenuous theory could wind up costing you and me TRILLIONS of dollars to do... what? Perhaps nothing.

This is not hyperbole. The Lieberman-Warner climate change bill (which thankfully failed to pass the 2008 Congress) would have cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $4 TRILLION to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about as much as China puts into the air each time it opens a new coal plant -- and they're opening about two a week.

We can't afford that kind of money for something so utterly unproven.

Please don't misunderstand:

I am as concerned about the environment as the next person. I recycle, use CFLs, drive an economy car to work when I'm not bicycling, have a programmable thermostat, etc. I also firmly believe we should continue to reduce (and ideally eliminate) pollutants that are known to be nasty: SOx, NOx, mercury, and lead to name but a few. But, within the serious scientific community, the jury is still out on greenhouse gases in general and carbon dioxide in specific.