Blood for Votes (and other musings)

  Obama claims that he doesn’t want to nationalize U.S. businesses, but as I see it, Obama has been in office a little over 4 months and he has turned our legal system upside down and stole the property that belongs to the “secured” and senior lenders to GM and Chrysler in order to essentially “give” those companies to the unions, his largest political financial supporters which are junior and unsecured.  Nice payback payoff ……what is it they say; “elections have consequences.”  This is more adept than the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Remember the misery this brought Russia and others for nearly a century following that little experiment?

To the surprise of the executives in the car industry and dealers, he has dictated the closing of many car dealers nationally without a mechanism to insure that the survivors are not Political Favorites of Obama while many “successful and profitable” dealers are being closed outside of the parameters set up by the auto industry for continued existence.  The only significant justification that you can deduce from this is that they are (as most in fact were) Republican supporters.  He fired the head of GM and replaced him with an “Obama friendly” retired communications executive, Edward E. Whitacre Jr., who claimed on the day of the announcement that he “doesn’t know anything about cars.” Go figure.

Now he is running the banks and deciding how much their executives can earn.  He has even hired a salary “czar” to establish their pay grade.  He likes this idea so much that he is looking into expanding this to other industries.  Steve Ballmer, CEO and co-founder with Bill Gates of Microsoft has been a supporter of Obama but stated that they will move Microsoft “offshore” if Obama continues down this punitive path of taxes and making companies non-competitive in foreign markets.  While attacking US corporations that do business overseas and receive tax benefits for it and wealthy taxpayers not paying enough tax, he himself (according to his published personal taxes for 2008) almost exclusively invested those millions of book royalties U.S. Tax Exempt offshore companies and tax exempt bonds….check it out yourself.

We passed a $800 Billion pork laden program under the guise of “emergency stimulus” to save us from the “Bush economy” [see my link HERE on Obama and the “Community Reinvestment Act” that I posted this past October revealing the real cause of the financial meltdown] and used this urgency as the cover to violate his own campaign promise of posting legislation for 48 hours on the White House website so all could see its contents.   He called it his “new transparency.”  Instead he delivered the 1,000 page bill to the Republicans for first review at 11 PM with a final vote scheduled on it the following morning at 9 AM.  Is this the transparency he promised?  The only thing transparent is that we were played for fools.

The way we know that this bill has nothing to do with “emergency stimulus” (even as it was designed and written) is the fact that 2/3rds of it wouldn’t be spent until 2010 and 2011 with most of that being in 2011.  But it couldn’t wait another 48 hours on the website for proper disclosure.  After it was shot gunned through Congress, Obama took a vacation and didn’t even sign it till mid (the following) week.  Heck, not even the rank and file Democrats had a chance to read it.  But this has all turned out even worse than that because they have only spent 5% of it to date, but you probably recall that part of its sales pitch was that we had plenty of “shovel ready” projects ready to go to effect an immediate stimulus……….not so.  The economy is now beginning to recover without much Federal Stimulus money and even though it will likely be a protracted recovery, maybe we should revisit this spending and cancel it and save our children and grandchildren much grief.

He further emphasized the urgent need of the “stimulus” package in order to avoid the unemployment rate from going over 9% this year.  Well, that strategy worked and that ill designed “stimulus” package did pass and almost exclusively by Democrats but the unemployment rate already hit 9.4% last month.  Now just yesterday he has fired the Inspector General who investigated some suspicious illegal activities of a crony of his own.

Every despot in the world is testing Obama and they are learning that they can get away with anything and they include not only Iran and Venezuela but N. Korea as well.  N. Korea tested nuclear bombs and missiles in contravention of US and UN warnings and yesterday the UN passed a resolution permitting UN member countries to “interdict” N. Korean vessels suspected of caring weapons.  Obama stated yesterday that he intends to challenge such vehicles on the open seas, but wouldn’t use force to board them…………  Do you see what I see here?  He has essentially neutralized even the weak action of the UN and stated IN ADVANCE that we wouldn’t actually stop them.  What kind of leadership is this?  Do you think N. Korea will be inclined to cooperate with the “spirit” of the UN action since we have notified them that we won’t enforce it?

He has been on a world wide tour apologizing for the “misdeeds” of America without mention the countries we saved, the poor people we have fed, etc. and he has even unilaterally stated to the nations of the world that the United States is NOT a Christian nation.  Ok, I can live with that maybe if he let it go at that, but then he goes onto Moslem soil and states that the United States is one of the largest Moslem nations.  Truth is, even by those metrics we are not.  We would be far down that list.  You may have noticed that he managed to exempt his own culpability from all these woes that America has brought on the world.

Obama and his party are doing everything to release real terrorist that we have captured while simultaneously strategizing to prosecute real Americans that protected us from them.  Now Pelozi wants to release photos that even she agrees with U.S. Generals will cost American’s lives.  People don’t understand why she would do that, but it is an easy assessment.  She is playing to the political left in San Francisco that is demanding this.  She has placed her reelection and position ahead of Soldiers lives.  The Deomcrats once (often) said “Blood for Oil” as they criticized Republicans.  I think this is much more clearly Blood for Votes.  (You can’t come up with any other analysis of it.)

What is the cost of all this…………..?  Essentially every economist (eliminating those with a White House connection) feel that the Obama program will bankrupt the country and leave our children with an insurmountable debt at a time they will already be going broke over the existing Social Security and Medicare problems.  Obama said last week “you ain’t seen nothin yet.”  With Cap & Trade and Cap & Tax he will permanently make the US non-competitive with the rest of the world so we can be seen as “politically correct” in solving a problem (global warming) that either doesn’t exist or is not caused by people.  The primary Charlatan and Elmer Gantry of our era is Al Gore.  He has already made $100 million propagating his junk science that he won’t debate with opposing scientists and he is on the threshold of making Billions by becoming the primary “broker” of carbon offset credits.  Understand this is a Ponzi scheme that moves around the production of carbon but doesn’t reduce a single pound of emissions.  Did I tell you that C02 is NOT a toxic substance and is necessary in the photosynthesis process?  You breathe C02 in and out with every breath.  If you didn’t you’d be dead.

Let me conclude and say I smell that Obama is on the threshold of betraying the Israelis in a fundamentally existential fashion and he is headed in the direction of being the biggest elected disaster in the history of the country………..stay tuned.

June 13, 2009 | Filed Under Democratic Hypocrisy, Economics, Global Warming, Muslim/Islam, Political Correctness, Politics, Taxes, U.S. Constitution, War on Terror | 6 Comments 

Change You Won’t Believe-Global Warming

  Carol Browner is going to be our new “Climate Czar” on global warming.  She was named by Barack from where she was one of 14 members of the socialist organization named Socialists International working for a “Sustainable World Society” which seeks Global Governance.  Their mission is to see that “rich” countries (i.e. the United States) shrink their economies because of the Global Warming scare.  This group in short wants to bring the USA down to size and put it under a world body control [i.e. loss of sovernity].  It isn’t enough that such remedies will cause great pain and suffering in the United States, especially to the working and under class, but that such efforts are misplaced since it doesn’t look like there is any Anthropogenic Global Warming (i.e. manmade GW) and that CO2 levels are a result of Global Warming, not a cause of it.  If you question this, check this article from the English edition PRAVDA (here) that so many of Barack and Carol’s friends would consider authorative on any other matter.  But I am sure you are prepared to lower your own standard of living and sacrifice your own job to further Carol and Barack’s goals.  Cummon…….you must do your part!!!!!

I have argued on the pages of NSL that merely complying with the misguided mandates of the Koyto Treaty would bring an economic downturn unparalleled since the Depression.  This has been debated here by those that don’t believe such compliance would have that type of impact; however, Ms. Browner herself supports the consequences I fear as the primary method of achieving those goals whether it is based on lie propagated successfully by Al Gore for his own gain financial or not.

Of course since her appointment by Barack her name has come down from the “socialist” website, but you can take comfort that Barack transition team has stated that her association with this organization (Socialists International) is no problem for them…………………duh!

January 12, 2009 | Filed Under Global Warming | 3 Comments 

Money For Nothin -Global Warming

  You know the likes of Al Gore and others have been complaining about Global Warming and have been sending up those alarms for some time now.  And of course I have been so irreverent and callous to do nothing but make fun of them and their kinky theories but more importantly their draconian solutions (as profitable as they may be).  ……….but I have now come to realize that Global Warming is actually a much bigger problem than I thought and even a bigger problem than Al Gore or that “consensus” of Scientists has believed.  You see this problem isn’t related to just Earth, it is related to numerous other planets and moons in the Solar System.  Wow………just think if we could tap the carbon offset credit market on those planets.  So let’s summarize here:  What do Triton, Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Venus and Earth have in common (besides the fact that they are all undergoing a phase of Global Warming)?   Are you smarter than a 5th Grader?

Sorry time’s up………………. the answer is:  The Sun…………….. Yep, they don’t have the internal combustion engine, nor coal fired power plants, nor incinerators, nor cows (flatulence), nor most importantly…. man (at least I don’t think so).   That ain’t workin that’s the way you do it Get your money for nothing get your chicks for free NOTE THE FINDINGS:

   28 Jun 1998 - NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and several ground-based instruments show that temperatures on Neptune’s largest moon have increased dramatically since the Voyager space probe in 1989. So much so, in fact, that Triton’s surface of frozen nitrogen is turning into gas, making its thin atmosphere denser by the day.“At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming,” says astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase.”Elliot and colleagues from the Lowell Observatory and Williams College reported their findings in the June 25 issue of Nature. Triton’s 5 percent increase in temperature from about -392 to -389 degrees F would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of some 22 degrees F in just nine years. CITATION  NOTE: Yahoo citation no longer on website.

04 May 06 - Jupiter is growing a new red spot and the Hubble Space Telescope is photographing the scene.“Red Spot Jr.” as it is being called, formed after three white oval-shaped storms—two of which were at least 90 years old—merged between 1998 and 2000.The study was led jointly by Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of University of California, Berkeley.“The storm is growing in altitude,” de Pater said. “Before when they were just ovals they didn’t stick out above the clouds. Now they are rising.”This growth signals a temperature increase by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit in that region, she said. CITATION

28 Feb 07 - Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—not human- induced—cause, says Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia.Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.This Mars warming says Abdussamatov “is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.”“The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.“Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. (I agree.)Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. “Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov said.By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth’s wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth’s axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth. (I agree. The Milankovitch cycle is called the “Pacemaker of the Ice Ages.”)Abdussamatov also dismisses the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet’s surface.He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth’s climate and virtually no influence on Mars. (I agree.)Abdussamatov suggests that the sun holds something quite different in store.“The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040,” Abdussamatov said. “It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years.” (I agree.)“Abdussamatov’s work has not been well received by other climate scientists.” CITATION  

9 Oct 02 - Astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.Pluto’s atmospheric pressure has tripled over the past 14 years, indicating a stark temperature rise, the researchers said. The change is likely a seasonal event, much as seasons on Earth change as the hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun during the planet’s annual orbit.They suspect the average surface temperature increased about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit, or slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius.Pluto remains a mysterious world whose secrets are no so easily explained, however. The warming could be fueled by some sort of eruptive activity on the small planet, one astronomer speculated.Though Pluto was closest to the Sun in 1989, a warming trend 13 years later does not surprise David Tholen, a University of Hawaii astronomer involved in the discovery.“It takes time for materials to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the day on Earth is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon,” Tholen said. “This warming trend on Pluto could easily last for another 13 years.  CITATION

29 Nov 07 - Once styled as Earth’s twin, Venus was transformed from a haven for water to a fiery hell by an unstoppable greenhouse effect, according to an investigation by the first space probe to visit our closest neighbor in more than a decade Like peas in a cosmic pod, the second and third rocks from the Sun came into being 4.5 billion years ago with nearly the same radius, mass, density and chemical composition.But only one, Earth, developed an atmosphere conducive to life. The other, named with unwitting irony after the Roman goddess of love, is an inferno of carbon dioxide (CO2), its surface hot enough to melt steel.But this was not always so, says Hakan Svedhem, an ESA scientist. Venus, he believes, may have been partially covered with water before it became doomed by global warming.  CITATION  NOTE: Yahoo citation no longer on website.

October 9, 2008 | Filed Under Global Warming, Political Correctness, The Left | Leave a Comment 

The Global Warming Consensus Nuts Just Lost

  This article is to point the folly of Al Gore and the rest of you dolts that have bought the mantra of Global Warming – Hook, Line and Sinker.  The big crime is the assertion that this is “settled science.”  It is not only now called into question by the group from which the assertion first came, but also is starting to lean in the direction that and degree of settlement on the science is in the direction the point that Global Warming if it indeed exists is not man made HERE.  Are 50,000 Physicists enough to shut up the lie that the scientific community is in consensus on Global Warming?

For goodness sake, what is settled is the fact that man’s unique contribution to the carbon in the atmosphere is limited to 2-3 percent.  Now for those of you that hold the arrogant view of the mainstream on Global Warming and think the rest of us are right wing nuts should read the link below and crawl back into your hole of ignorant bliss.  

Oh by the way, I know you think that CO2 emissions are pollutants, if so don’t tell anyone because you are so misguided that you will be totally embarrassed when your peer “crowd” learns of your ignorance.  Did you enjoy Al Gores speech today where he said we must have our energy grid based on renewable energy up within 10 years?  Yes the guy that bragged about breaking the TIE in the Senate on the Ethanol legislation.  Those of you that do not already know of the folly of this legislation please allow me to refer you to my previous post on the matter HERE.

July 18, 2008 | Filed Under Environment, Global Warming, Political Correctness, Politics | 11 Comments 

Bill O’Reilly is a Pinhead

bill.jpg Bill O’Reilly had John Stossel (a well know Libertarian and award winning news correspondent and co-anchor of ABC’s 20/20 news magazine) on his program discussing the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore.  ABC’S John Stossel made a wonderful presentation (like he always does) about the bogus nature of Gore’s work in the movie “Inconvenient Truth” including the point that the increased polar temperature levels came before the carbon dioxide levels went up.   

Why is Bill O’Reilly being labeled with the much vilified (on The O’Reilly Factor) term “Pinhead” here at NSL?  …..because he took an opposing view from Stossel and based it on a position that CLEARLY demonstrates he doesn’t even categorically understand the nature of the debate.  O’Reilly gave kudos to Al Gore by saying that “even if Al Gore’s facts are wrong, his message is worthy.”  Something regularly stated in the comments section of NSL itself.  Bill goes on further to claim that he (Al Gore) did a good job in “raising awareness that we need to clean the planet.  I’d like conservatives and liberals to get together and talk about how to clean things up.”  Sheeeesh….. 

Bill O’Reilly must believe that CO2 is a common garden variety environmental pollutant.  Apart from Gore’s bogus thesis that (man made) CO2 emissions are raising the temperature of the planet CO2 is not a pollutant and is part of the natural and ordinary processes on the planet.  So accordingly, Al Gore’s thesis on CO2 emissions rises or falls on the Global Warming issue and is not further augmented by the “environmental pollution” argument.  All O”Reilly points out here is his own ignorance on the framework of the debate (apart from his or anyone else’s position).  I wrote Bill O’Reilly today and explained his error and requested a retraction on air………..we’ll see, if he doesn’t he is a Pinhead.  Below is the full segment summary from Bill O’Reilly’s website. 

Al Gore may have a Nobel Peace Prize, but he doesn’t have the approval of ABC’s John Stossel. “Gore is saying the debate is over,” Stossel complained, “and that anyone who disagrees has been purchased. That is repulsive intimidation. Yes, the globe has warmed, but to say for sure that man caused it and government can fix it, that debate is by no means over. How about the exaggerations in Gore’s movie? He says polar bears are drowning when polar bear populations are increasing. He didn’t reveal that temperature increase came before carbon dioxide levels went up.” The Factor argued that even if Al Gore’s facts are wrong, his message is worthy. “He did a good job in raising awareness that we need to clean the planet. I’d like to conservatives and liberals to get together and talk about how to clean things up.

October 19, 2007 | Filed Under Environment, Global Warming | 10 Comments 

Seed Change in Global Warming Belief

 I was going to write a response to some comments on my previous post titled The Folly of Al Gore and basically this response was going to be long and was meritorious of a separate identity.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not boasting of my own prose, but this article will be the lifting in whole a recent article (May, 2007) about leading scientists world wide that were previously advocates of the Man Made Global Weather Change thesis and have now recanted claiming that their previous position is errant. 

This is a long article with numerous links for further support.  Please take the time to examine this.  I think this article gives support to those like M2 (frequent commenter on The folly of Al Gore and other posts on NSL) who admit their own skepticism concerning the mantra of those on the Man Made Global Warming bandwagon.  I also believe this article is single handedly a defacto adjudication of the position that is asserted by Al Gore that this matter is “settled science” proving that to be a false statement and based on the veracity scale established by the Left regarding GW Bush’s understanding of intelligence on WMD in Iraq a LIE. 

This belief is not limited to a small cadre of aging prehistoric scientists, but a large and increasing group of diversified and well respected scientists in this field.  I am going to place a page break early so as to not consume the entire front page of NSL, but feel free to follow the story for the full impact…………Steve

P.S. I trust that everyone understand that even if ALL the polar ice over water (i.e. Icebergs) melted that the level of the seas would not be altered other than a small factor for thermal expansion.  Does everyone understand why?  Hint………study up on the phenomena of “displacement.”

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research Following the U.S. Senate’s vote today on a global warming measure (see today’s AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics.  The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. 

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg.  A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007.  Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

The media’s climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears )

Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )  

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown” and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L’EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.” Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. “By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997.  Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”  A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.”  Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years.”  Wiskel also said that global warming has gone “from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. “If you funnel money into things that can’t be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” and “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.” “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.”  Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don’t add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker — better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote.  “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990’s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!  But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link )  

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic.  “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006.  “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”  

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears “poppycock.” According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon.  The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.” Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”  

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms “sky is falling” man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research.  Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.”  “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’” Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson  wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles.  About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics.  “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. “But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it’s like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn’t — come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.”  

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: “It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added. 

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.  More to follow…Related Links:

 

 

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven “Consensus’

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune’s Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say  

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming ‘Silly’ - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to “Scare Each Other”  

Weather Channel TV Host Goes ‘Political’- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don’t Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes ‘Man-Made Global Warming Hype’

 

October 18, 2007 | Filed Under Global Warming | 4 Comments 

The Folly of Al Gore

dr-william-gray.jpg  Dr. William Gray is reputed to be one of the foremost meteorologists in the world and probably the foremost meteorologist concerning hurricane forecasts and is considered to be a “pioneer” in that field.  If you have heard any annual predications of hurricanes you should know that it is most likely Dr. Gray’s publications from which this is drawn.

Dr. Gray considers that the theory behind Al Gore’s thesis on Global Warming is “ridiculous” and was the product of people (scientists) that according to Dr. Gray “don’t understand how the atmosphere works.”  Dr. Gray believes that the Earth is currently going through a “normal” warming cycle but that the impact of humans on that is “simply too small to have a major effect.”

Dr. Gray addressed the University of North Carolina on the same day that Al Gore received in part the current year award for the Nobel Peace Prize.  He commented that we were brainwashing our children and described the presentation of Inconvenient Truth to school children as “being fed all this.”  He stated that a natural cycle of ocean water temperature was related to the content of salt in the water which was responsible for rising temperatures, which he acknowledged, but he said that same cycle meant that a period of “cooling” would begin soon and last for several years.

He went on to state that those that linked Global Warming to the increase in Hurricane activity were wrong.  He says that we will look back in 10-15 years and see how foolish this current proposition is.  He also says that he realizes that his viewpoint has made him an outsider in popular science circles, but that “It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong.”   ”But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care about grants.”  Of course when that (cooling cycle) occurs, the left will claim victory resulting from their diligence on the matter now………. J

For additional support for Dr. Gray’s position see my post titled It’s All a Bunch of Hooey (Man Made Global Warming) referencing work by Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin and widely know as the “Father of Scientific Climatology.”

October 14, 2007 | Filed Under Global Warming, Political Correctness, Politics | 13 Comments 

Now That is What I’m Talking About !!!

bmw-h7.jpg  Again, I have been away tending to pressing family matters, but I wanted to comment on this recent article about a new vehicle.  BMW is taking to (very limited) production it new H7 Hybird Gasoline/Hydrogen engine powered sedan.

I have laughed and scoffed at the E-85 solutions, the Prius Hybird and the role that Carbon Offsets are alleged to play in it all, but this in my opinion has the potential to be the real deal.  I will sign on when they move this to a straight Hydrogen fuel powered vehicle and ditch the gasoline altogether.  This vehicle has recently been tested in Palm Beach and I am including a link HERE for the complete article from the Palm Beach Post.  I encourage you to read it.  I think the government and al gore could better spend their time supporting this type of effort as opposed to the nonsense they are spieling. 

This could take some time to get the tank down to a more manageable size, engineer affordability into it and provide for a better infrastructure for Hydrogen (gas stations), but even if it is 5 or 10 or even 15 years, this is a better solution and we should drill all the oil we can to keep the economy alive until we reach the “golden age” of motor fuel. 

By-The-Way, it is pretty good looking isn’t it?  I think it already looks much better than the current (disappointing) iteration of the BMW 3, 5 and 7 series.  This would really be a sweet deal concerning our “friends” in the Middle East.

September 17, 2007 | Filed Under Energy Independence, Environment, Global Warming | 9 Comments 

John Edwards Takes on America’s SUV’s

edwards-suv.jpg Well here is another “Do as I say” from the cadre of Democratic Presidential contenders.  I haven’t had much time to be active on NSL with the handling of my brother-in-laws estate and business affairs, but I just had to jump in on this one.

 

While speaking to a machinists labor group in Florida yesterday Edwards said that he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice, their Sports Utility vehicles.  Isn’t this perfect?  He also said: “I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice,” and “one of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles.”

You will notice the picture above where Edwards is just about to enter his own Ford Escape SUV.  But don’t be alarmed, this is one of those hybrids, though not as environmentally friendly as the Prius.  But those of you that have read NSL for a few months know that it has now been established that the Hybrids do more environmental damage than a Hummer.  For those of you that missed it, check HERE.  But  we should give some grace to John since most all of the Democratic contenders seem to love the big rigs.  Maybe al Gore can interest them in purchasing Carbon Offset Credits so they can accuse Americans of over indulging with impunity.  For more on this story from the AP read this article from MSNBC HERE.

August 30, 2007 | Filed Under Global Warming, Presidential Politics | 8 Comments 

E-85 “How Gore Turned the Gulf of Mexico Green”

e-85.jpg  I have summarized below some things you need to know if someone would ask you if you support the use of E-85 Ethanol for your car so that you wouldn’t embarrass yourself because you didn’t know the facts. 

E-85 is an auto fuel made up of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline

 In the United States corn is used in the manufacture of Ethanol 

A gallon of E-85 has only 72% of the energy of regular gasoline, so a car that gets 21 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway will only now achieve 16 mpg and 23 mpg respectively. 

The cost of Ethanol nationwide averaged about 25 cents more per gallon than regular gasoline, so if you spend $3.00 (Illustrative cost per gallon) and drive in the city it will cost you $4.26 to drive the same distance with E-85 and $4.38 on the highway. 

Planting, plowing, cultivating, harvesting and transporting the corn to make 1 gallon of ethanol utilizes about 1.6 gallons of gasoline and/or diesel 

The E-85 “dry mill” operations use natural gas or coal to operate.  Most have switched to coal because of the sky-high prices of Natural Gas. 

These coal-fired plants produce twice the carbon emissions and essentially cancel the beneficial effects on the environment for Global Warming. 

To make this E-85 program work and make us energy independent we would have to convert 675 million acres of farmland just to produce this E-85.  That is 71% of our tillable farmland in the United States.  In this case the effort to become “energy independent” has now caused us to become “food dependent.”  We would have to import most our food and feed.  Would you rather be energy or food dependent?   

Not only would the cost of travel go up to $4.38 to buy enough of E-85 to take you the same distance as a gallon of gas, but also the cost of food would skyrocket.  If you think this is bad for you, take a minute to think of the famine it would cause in the 3rd world countries because of the increased cost of food acquisition. 

So far the limited increased production of corn for the production of E-85 has caused a major Algae bloom in the Gulf of Mexico in an area the size of New Jersey. 

But Al Gore bragged in 1994 that he cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate against Bill Bradley’s (D-New Jersey) legislation to cut tax incentives for Ethanol.  So all this is the direct result of Gore’s uniquely individual action.

So in Summary:  If this program were successful you would be paying the equivalent of 46% more per gallon for fuel resulting in no beneficial effect on Global Warming, while using at least as much gasoline as we would otherwise, resulting in making us food dependent and destroying the environment all at extra cost to the U.S. Taxpayer.  And “conveniently” speaking you would have Al Gore to thank.

July 30, 2007 | Filed Under Global Warming, Political Correctness, Politics | 24 Comments 

Next Page »