I used to write obituaries when I was a young journalist and I daresay they are one of the best read sections of any newspaper. We have arrived at a time when the obituaries for global warming (now falsely called climate change) are increasing.

The October 25th edition of The Wall Street Journal sports an editorial titled “The Post-Global Warming World” commenting on the fact that the 17th annual United Nations-sponsored climate change conference in November is likely to be an even greater flop than recent ones. Few, if any, nations will sign on to the huge hoax of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) to save the world from burning to a crisp.

Considering the long years of media-driven drivel about global warming, the hoax should have been over by now, given the exposure in 2009 of thousands of emails between the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conspirators and growing body of evidence that everything they asserted was a great steaming pile of horse manure.

If there was ever a reason for the U.S. to stop funding the U.N., this is it.
I have predicted the death of global warming several times, but like a Hollywood zombie global warming is kept alive by its massive propaganda machine and useful idiots in the media.

Since the late 1980s The New York Times has engaged in the most horrid effort to convince its readers and the world that the IPCC should be taken seriously even though its successive reports have proven to be an offense to real science and the truth. No opportunity was ignored to advance the hoax even in the face of incontrovertible facts of every description.

Global warming has become a green religion to be taken on faith, but its claim to legitimacy was the “science” it put forth. That science began to come into question when a natural cooling cycle began in 1998. Glaciers began to noticeably grow along with the ice shelves of the Arctic and Antarctica. Snow arrived earlier and in greater abundance than previous decades.

Global tropical cyclone activity has been at historic lows and the frequency of U.S. hurricanes has declined. The latest, Irene, was rapidly downgraded to a tropical depression by the time it made landfall.

So, naturally, when Elisabeth Rosenthal, a blogger on “Green” topics for The New York Times wondered out loud “Where Did Global Warming Go?” I was curious to know her answer. Turns out that, despite being heralded on the covers of Newsweek, Time, The Economist, and countless other “news” magazines, in TV documentaries, et cetera, it hasn’t gone anywhere

After lamenting that, since his visit to the 2009 Copenhagen UN conference on climate change, President Obama has failed to mention global warming every day, Rosenthal wrote “But two years later, now that nearly every other nation accepts climate change as a pressing problem, America has turned agnostic on the issue.”

No, nearly every other nation has concluded it was a massive and very expensive fraud. That is why the forthcoming UN conference is going to implode. Policy makers are trying to extricate themselves from the useless solar and wind projects to which billions were committed. As soon as Obama is out of office and the Environmental Protection Agency is scaled back to its original 1970 objectives we can begin to attend to the rebuilding of the nation’s economy.

Note Rosenthal’s use of the term “climate change” rather than “global warming.” Note, too, that the 2009 Copenhagen conference was a huge failure with none of the nations in attendance agreeing to do much more than get together again, preferably in Cancun, Mexico, 2010, where the weather, unlike Copenhagen’s was not at risk of the huge blizzard that forced Obama to leave early lest he be trapped there until the snow melted.
“Though the evidence of climate change has, if anything, solidified,” Ms. Rosenthal lamented that “Mr. Obama now talks about ‘green jobs’ mostly as a strategy for improving the economy, but not the planet.”

People who worry about “the planet” and not about real problems such as how to feed seven billion of its human inhabitants or how to provide enough electricity to keep the lights on in the world’s cities or who think “improving the economy” is a poor choice to make when more than 14 million Americans are out of work are seriously out of touch with reality.

“He did not mention climate in his last State of the Union address,” said Rosenthal, pouting over something about which neither Obama, nor anyone else on planet Earth can do anything except to clean up the mess left behind by hurricanes, floods, and other forces of nature..

The climate, measured in hundreds of years, as opposed to the weather which is unpredictable more than a week from now, is the result of the activity of the Sun, the oceans, volcanoes, clouds, and cosmic rays. It is determined by the immutable laws of physics.

“The fading of global warming from the political agenda is a mostly American phenomenon,” wrote Rosenthal, apparently unaware that the European Union is about to collapse because several of its member nations are so deeply in debt that makes the U.S. look like a paragon of prudent fiscal policy. Rosenthal appears to be unaware of the rapid political changes occurring across the northern tier of African nations called the Maghreb and elsewhere throughout the Middle East.

Like the urchins “occupying Wall Street”, Rosenthal chides Americans who “prefer bigger cars and bigger homes. We value personal freedom, are suspicious of scientists, and tend to distrust the kind of sweeping government intervention required to confront rising greenhouse gas emissions.”

Since when is valuing personal freedoms, many of which are protected by the Constitution, and being suspicious of those scientists who have been claiming we’re all going to die, or questioning sweeping government intervention anything other than a deeply embedded American tradition and a very good idea under any circumstance?

For the past six years, the Heartland Institute has sponsored International Climate Change Conferences, the last in Washington, D.C., June 30-July 1. Haven’t heard about them? Maybe that’s because the mainstream media has gone out of its way to ignore them. The conferences, however, have contributed to the growing body of knowledge disputing global warming to the point where, even in the nation’s capitol, the topic has become little more than the slow revelation of the utter mendacity of the hoax and its perpetrators.

Where has global warming gone? Onto the ash heap of the history of the last twenty-plus years of bad policies, wasted billions of the public treasure, and all of it driven by the UN’s mendacious “science.”

© Alan Caruba, 2011

 

WesternFront America

Now imagine what a few thousand underwater volcanoes could do.

By Robert W. Felix

Last month, the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (Phivolcs) announced that the water temperature in the main crater of Taal volcano in the Philippines had risen from 86.9 degrees Fahrenheit to 88.7 degrees Fahrenheit (30.5C to 31.5C), a sign that the volcano might soon erupt.

This provides an example of how much heat a volcano can generate.

And this is not the only lake that’s running hot.

On March 1st of this year, the water temperature in New Zealand’s Mt Ruapehu crater lake reached an astounding 105.8 degrees Fahrenheit (41C).

This was just short of the highest temperature ever reached since the lake was re-established in 2002, say volcanologists from New Zealand’s Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS).

“The highest recorded temperature was 42.5degC (108.5F) in May 2003,” says GeoNet duty volcanologist Agnes Mazot.

“The temperature of Crater Lake is a measure of amount of volcanic heat coming from Ruapehu,” Mazot added.

A fairly big puddle

“The crater lake is a fairly big puddle and if you can heat that up to 40C, it takes a fair bit of energy,” says GNS Science co-ordinator Brad Scott.

A fairly big puddle indeed. A fair bit of energy indeed. Mt. Ruapehu’s crater lake is about 1/4 mile wide and 1/3 mile long.

Not only is it a good-sized lake, it’s almost completely surrounded by ice and snow.

By all rights, this high-mountain lake should be frozen solid. Instead, it’s warmer than the average hot tub.
Do you know how much energy it takes to heat a hot tub to a mere 101 degrees? Depending on how much you use it, and whether you keep it covered, it can run $30, $40, even $50 per month just for the electricity or gas.

Now imagine how much it would cost to heat an entire high-mountain lake to 108 degrees, a lake that is not covered. You’d need your own coal-fired generating plant.

That’s just two lakes, and two volcanoes.

Now multiply that by the thousands. Imagine if there were thousands of volcanoes firing off all at once. And imagine if those thousands of volcanoes were all located deep beneath the surface of the ocean.

That’s not as far-fetched as you may think.

Last month, an article in Science Daily (Mar. 28, 2011) asserted that “between 75 and 80 per cent of all volcanic activity on Earth takes place at deep-sea, mid-ocean ridges.

Unfortunately, that figure is so far off the mark that it’s laughable.

Twenty years ago when I began my research for Not by Fire but by Ice, scientists thought there might be 10,000 underwater volcanoes in the entire world. And even back then, they believed that 80 percent of all volcanic activity occurred underwater.

Then in 1993, marine geophysicists aboard the research vessel Melville discovered 1,133 previously unmapped underwater volcanoes off the coast of Easter Island.

Though some of the newly discovered volcanoes rose as much as one-and-a-half miles above the seafloor, their summits still remained half a mile below the water’s surface.

All this in a comparatively small area of only 55,000 square miles, about the size of New York state.

The geophysicists had increased the known supply of underwater volcanoes by more than ten percent just in a matter of months.

That was 1993. Today, scientists estimate that there are more than three million underwater volcanoes. That’s a three followed by six zeroes!

More than 3,000,000 underwater volcanoes!

In 2007, oceanographers Hillier and Watts surveyed 201,055 submarine volcanoes. “From this they concluded an astounding total of 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes must reasonably exist worldwide,” said this article by John O’Sullivan.

Hillier and Watts “based this finding on the earlier and well-respected observations of Earth and Planetary Sciences specialist, Batiza (1982) who found that at least 4 per cent of seamounts are active volcanoes.”

According to Batiza’s survey, the Pacific mid-plate alone contains an incredible 22,000 to 55,000 underwater volcanoes, with at least 2,000 of them considered active.

Thinking that anyone could know exactly how many volcanoes lurk beneath the surface of the ocean is ludicrous, of course. But that 3,477,403 number, coming from two well-respected oceanographers, does reinforce my point rather nicely, namely, that underwater volcanoes are heating the seas.

To go from 10,000 underwater volcanoes to more than three million in less than 20 years shows how little we knew – and how little we still know – about this incredible force of nature. We know more about the moon.

The same could be said about our knowledge of the Arctic.

During the last ice age when large swaths of Canada were covered by a thick layer of ice measuring one to two miles thick, only a thin layer of floating ice – about the same as today – covered the Arctic Ocean.

This lack of ice has long posed a conundrum for scientists. How could such large portions of Canada have been buried beneath so much ice, while the Arctic Ocean remained about the same as today?

Add underwater volcanoes to the mix, and the mystery is solved.

Volcanic activity in Arctic Ocean “dramatically” higher than expected

The Arctic Ocean contains far more underwater volcanoes, and displays more hydrothermal activity than scientists had suspected.

Look at the Gakkel ridge. The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic underwater volcanic mountain chain stretching some 1,100 miles (1,800 km) beneath the Arctic Ocean from north of Greenland to Siberia.

With its 3-mile-high summits, the Gakkel ridge, the northernmost portion of the mid-ocean ridge system, is far mightier than the Alps.

In 2006, two research icebreakers, the “USCGC Healy” from USA and the German “PFS Polarstern,” joined forces in the international expedition AMORE (Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition). On board were scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and other international institutions.

The scientists had expected that the Gakkel ridge would exhibit “anemic” volcanic activity.

Instead, they found “surprisingly strong magmatic activity in the West and the East of the ridge and one of the strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges.” Indeed, magmatism was “dramatically” higher than expected.
Hydrothermal hot springs on the seafloor far more abundant than predicted

“We expected this to be a hydrothermally dead ridge, and almost every time our water measurement instrument came up, they showed evidence of hydrothermal activity,”  said Dr. Jonathan Snow, leader of the research group from the Max Planck Institute. “Once we even ‘saw’ an active hot spring on the sea floor.”

So there you have it.

If a single volcano can heat a high-mountain lake to 108 degrees, imagine what an eleven-hundred-mile-long chain of underwater volcanoes could do to the Arctic Ocean.

And imagine what thousands of underwater volcanoes could do to the rest of the world’s oceans.

Consider the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

The Mid-Atlantic Ridge snakes through the centers of both the North and South Atlantic Oceans. Circling the southern tip of Africa, it then turns north into the Indian Ocean, twisting around the globe like a raised seam on a baseball for more than 15,000 miles. And it’s built entirely of huge underwater mountains, huge underwater volcanoes.

For a glimpse of the process at work, look at Iceland, where the Mid-Atlantic Ridge pokes a tiny portion of its massive shoulders out of the frigid waters of the North Atlantic. When you recall how volcanic activity in Iceland shut down air travel over most of Europe last year, you begin to get an idea of how much volcanic activity must be occurring deep beneath the surface of the seas. And that doesn’t even count the other mid-ocean ridges. Or look at the 2,350-degree hot lava pouring almost constantly into the ocean around Hawaii.

We still have a lot to learn about underwater volcanoes, but while we’re waiting, please stop blaming humans for heating the seas. We have nothing to do with it.

…………………………………………
See 24-second video of lava pouring into the sea in Hawaii:
Guess what is heating the seas – 24-second video
http://www.gohawaii.com/perfect/blitz#/lava

See also “Taal volcano heats up, gets ready to rumble”
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110426-333005/Taal-volcano-he ats-up-gets-ready-to-rumble”
Thanks to John McCann for this link

See also “Ruapehu’s Crater Lake heating up”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10717236

See also “Crater Lake remains hot,” Volcanic Alert Bulletin: RUA-11/02 from Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited (GNS Science)
http://www.mtruapehu.com/content/library/Ruapehu_Volcano_Update.pdf

See also “Taal activity intensifies, 17 quakes noted in last 24 hrs”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110328151734.htm
Thanks to Mike Gribble for this link

See also “More Evacuated amid Philippine volcano fears”
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/SEAsia/Story/STIStory_657894.html
Thanks to Wanda for this link

…………………………………..

References:

Batiza, R., 1982, “Abundances, distribution and sizes of volcanoes in the Pacific Ocean and implications for the origin of non-hotspot volcanoes,” Earth & Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 60, pp. 195-206

J. K. Hillier and A. B. Watts, 2007, “Global distribution of seamounts from ship-track bathymetry data,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874, 2007 http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~tony/watts/downloads/HillierWatts2007GL029874.pdf

Robert W. Felix is publisher of www.iceagenow.com and author of Not by Fire but by Ice, in which he maintains that the next ice age could begin any day. In fact, he believes it has already begun.

 

WesternFront America

It may be “secular,” but environmentalism makes “Mother Earth” its object of special devotion.

By Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen

As we reflect on Earth Day 2011 (April 22) and on passionate appeals that we support environmental initiatives almost too numerous to count, we should also reflect on a fundamental new reality.

Environmentalism has replaced religion for many of its adherents.

The ending “-ism” denotes a way of thinking, perceiving and structuring one’s life. Every “ism” is based on underlying assumptions, principles and beliefs that tell its adherents what they ought to believe and do. Providing ethical guidance for its members is a major part of what an “-ism” does.

Followers of Judaism who observe Passover as their ancestors’ liberation from slavery in Egypt – and Christians who commemorate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ at Easter – have no problem acknowledging that these are matters of belief.

They would never claim that science provides absolute proof of authenticity – although many find in science valuable support for the validity of their beliefs. Those who can see an underlying compatibility between science and religious faith are comfortable in both realms.

Environmentalism likewise provides ethical guidance. But its followers generally recoil from the suggestion that it’s a religion. The traditional buildings and rituals are absent; moreover, many adherents come from a background of explicitly rejecting “institutional” religions. Nevertheless, a careful examination of the basic assumptions shows that environmentalism indeed meets the criteria of a secular religion.

In environmentalism, “Mother Earth” (Gaia the Earth Goddess) replaces God as the object of special devotion, causing some of environmentalism’s subsequent assertions to be in direct opposition to fundamental teachings of Christianity and Judaism. Another cornerstone belief is that mankind is just one species among many; this view opposes the Judeo-Christian belief that God considers mankind to be very special.

Science appears to play a major role in environmentalism, but actually its role is distinctly secondary: Science is used subjectively, not objectively. After a set of beliefs has been established, various fields of science (and scholarly studies within those fields), are carefully sifted to select facts that support those beliefs. Facts and scientific fields that contravene or fail to support core beliefs are rejected or ignored.

That’s not the way science is supposed to work. However, it happens every day in environmentalism, as reflected in movies, magazines, blogs, television programs, newspapers – and legislative and regulatory initiatives.

In his excellent book, “The New Holy Wars: Economic Religion vs. Environmental Religion in Contemporary America,” Professor Robert H. Nelson likens the contemporary struggle between those two secular religions to John Calvin’s struggle against the establishment of Catholicism 500 years ago.

Nelson’s book concludes: “It is time to take secular religion seriously. It is real religion. In the twentieth century, it showed greater energy, won more converts, and had more impact on the western world than the traditional, institutional forms of Christianity.”

For the believing environmentalist, there is a certain “Garden of Eden” narrative: the beginning of evil came with the development of agriculture, when mankind rose above hunter-gatherer status and began to control and improve on nature to meet his needs. Thereafter came civilization and all its negative environmental effects and associations. The whole story hangs together within a religious framework.

In America today, the religion of environmentalism has the distinct advantage of being taught in the public schools, and receiving plentiful government funding. Some of its beliefs are fairly benign, such as sympathy for polar bear cubs. But other beliefs have had horrible consequences.

The chemical spray DDT is a powerful weapon against malaria. It wiped the disease out in the developed world. Sprayed on walls, DDT acts for six months or more with a single application, keeping mosquitoes out of homes, preventing them from biting, and killing any that land.

However, environmental activism and incorrect scientific interpretations led politicians to believe DDT harmed birds and fish, and the insecticide was banned in the United States in 1972. Since then, it has been largely purged from the disease control arsenal worldwide, even though malaria still infects a billion people in poor countries every year, killing up to one million.

Today, many environmentalists view the alleged dangers of using DDT as being worse than the misery and death caused by the disease. Since 1972, at least 20 million African children have died from malaria.

Throwing trash out of your car window is considered a sin by environmentalism. In other religions, allowing the preventable death of millions of children is a far greater sin.

This year Easter, Passover and Earth Day all came close together. Now may be a good time to ask whether environmentalism can be reconciled with traditional religions.

Most religious people who believe in God as Christians or Jews also want to protect the environment. They see ecological stewardship as part of their responsibility to God.

Indeed, that is the message of another excellent book, “Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition.” Published by the Acton Institute a decade ago, it is a brief collection of essays by Protestant, Jewish and Catholic scholars who have pondered how and why their own faith embraces care for God’s creation.

In all cases, these authors root their arguments in Scripture, abetted by an understanding of modern science. They stress that the word “dominion” used in the Bible does not mean people have a right to wreck the planet. Rather, it means mankind is a partner chosen by God to be a responsible steward of creation.

Emphatically, these Christian and Jewish authors do not regard mankind as just “one species among many.” And they don’t confuse “mother earth” with God.

Tom Sheahen is director of the Institute for Theological Encounter with Science and Technology, the leading Catholic organization that strives to bring faith and science together. Readers who wish to comment on this article may do so on this website, or at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114517700573

 

WesternFront America

Why can’t you be more polite, and stop questioning our integrity and science?

Who can forget the classic confrontation between Humphrey Bogart and Alfonso Bedoya in “Treasure of the Sierra Madre.” It’s now being reprised in living color, featuring banditos from East Anglia, Penn State, Washington and the UN.

“We’re Federales,” they tell us. “You know, climate police. Evidence? We ain’t got no evidence. We don’t need no evidence. We don’t have to show you any stinkin’ evidence.

“Hold your tongue, hombre. We ain’t trying to do you any harm. Why don’t you try to be a little more polite? Why don’t you just throw us a little more money, and stop questioning our integrity and science?”

The United States alone has spent over $30 billion on alarmist “climate science” over the past 20 years – plus another $35 billion on renewable energy – based on the banditos’ tales of global warming catastrophe, if we don’t slash fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions.

However, instead of solid, reproducible scientific evidence, the bandito scientists offered hypotheses, speculation, assumptions, assertions, “hockey stick” graphs, computer models and worst-case scenarios – purporting to demonstrate that CO2 causes planetary warming … and the warming will be cataclysmic.

Their reports were “peer-reviewed” by networks of fellow alarmists who tied every temperature, weather and wildlife anomaly to global warming and carbon dioxide. When challenged, they claimed the “science is settled” and stonewalled requests from experts who did not accept dire predictions of planetary mayhem – and wanted to examine the raw temperature data, computer codes and analyses.

Suddenly, however, the world got a glimpse into the mindset and machinations of these tax-funded catastrophists. Thousands of emails revealed systematic, concerted collusion to conceal and delete data, manipulate temperature trends that contradicted predictions of dangerous warming, stifle debate, and pressure scientific journals to publish only alarmist studies … and exclude dissenting analyses.

This fraudulent science is the basis for congressional cap-tax-and-trade legislation, EPA’s pronouncement that CO2 “endangers” human health and welfare, and the new global governance treaty being debated in Copenhagen. The actions will result in huge taxes on energy use, reduced liberties and living standards, millions of lost jobs, and a massive transfer of wealth from energy-consuming families and businesses to governments and their allies.

The proposed Copenhagen treaty authorizes the “transfer of technical and financial resources” from developed countries to developing countries, to help them address climate change impacts allegedly caused by hydrocarbon use in industrialized nations. Free or low-cost technology transfers would include electrical generation and pollution control equipment and patents. “Financial resources” would tally $50-200 billion per year, most of it apparently from the United States.

The money would come from fines for noncompliance with CO2 emission rules, a global “carbon tax” on energy use, a new levy on air travel, and “mandatory contributions” as high as 1% of GDP, paid by (formerly) rich developed countries, as new foreign aid for corrupt officials in poor nations.

One would think such actions would be based on rock-solid science. One would be wrong. It’s time to ask the critical question – which the White House, UN, EPA, “mainstream” media (especially the Associated Press, New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN) have refused to consider:

What evidence backs up the terrifying disaster claims, the calls for drastic “solutions” that won’t work, to a crisis that extensive evidence strongly suggests is speculative or even illusory?

Reliable satellite temperature measurements span most of the planet. However, they only cover the last 30 years – and for the past 15 years show stable and then declining temperatures, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. So climate crisis scientists have focused their “research” on ground temperatures.

However, nearly half of the world’s remaining ground-based gauges are in the United States, and cover just 1.8% of the Earth’s surface. Moreover, as meteorologist Anthony Watts has demonstrated, most of those gauges are close to air conditioning exhausts, tarmac, blacktop and other urban heat sources. So they read high, and then are further “adjusted” upward, corrupting climate records, models and analyses.

Most of Siberia’s stations were shut down years ago, leaving that vast frigid region devoid of reliable data, and further tilting average global temperatures upward. Britain’s combined marine and land-based temperatures were “value-added” (aggregated, averaged and manipulated) by its East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) – which then tossed or lost all the original raw data, so no one could check its methodologies, honesty or accuracy. (Try that tactic with your friendly IRS.)

The incomplete, averaged and manipulated ground temperature data were then fed into computer models that reflect our still limited understanding of climate causes and dynamics; assume CO2 is the primary driver in climate change; and poorly analyze the vast, complex, chaotic planetary climate system. The models have never been able to forecast climate accurately, even one year in advance, much less 50 or 100. They can’t reproduce prior years’ climates. They failed to predict the stable and declining temperatures of the past 15 years.

But even that didn’t conjure up the desired “manmade climate crisis.” As a CRU programmer put it, the only way the models can produce “the proper result” is when programmers apply a “very artificial correction,” use “low pass filtering at century and longer  time scales,” and “include a load of garbage.”

Back in 1999, CRU director Phil Jones reported that he’d “just used [Penn State climatologist Michael Mann’s] trick … to hide the decline” in average global temperatures. But in October 2009, US climate scientist Kevin Trenberth moaned that alarmists still “can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Nevertheless, “peer reviewed” scientific journals somehow produce “consensus” among “mainstream” scientists, offer “unequivocal” evidence of disastrous manmade global warming – and give the IPCC, White House, EPA and Congress the “proof” they need to justify treaties, laws and regulations that will send energy costs skyrocketing. Compliant media outlets whitewash the email and science scandal, and trumpet the latest alarmist claims. And voila, like Freddy Krueger in “Nightmare on Elm Street,” the predicted warming crisis is back, just in time for Copenhagen.

Evidence tampering like this would get legal cases thrown out of court – and land the manipulators in jail. To use it in advancing economy-wrecking energy policies is criminal.

Just one week ago, President Obama promised jobs summit attendees, “We will do everything we can to bring down the unemployment rate.”

Within hours, he stepped up his arm-twisting for cap-tax-and-trade in the Senate, announced that he was going to Copenhagen to lobby for a new climate treaty, endorsed still more restrictions on producing America’s vital, abundant hydrocarbon resources, and gave EPA the go-ahead to blackmail Congress by decreeing that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare.

These decisions set the stage for job-killing government control of our energy, economy and lives. If they are implemented, millions of Americans will freeze jobless in the dark.

______________

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which sponsors the All Pain No Gain education campaign and petition against job-killing global warming policies, and the ClimateDepot website for the latest news and views on climate change. He is also a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.

 

WesternFront America

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

– MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, PhD, Atmospheric Science

“On such (climate) models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars—and substantially diminished freedom.”

–George F. Will, syndicated columnist, Washington Post

Long ago I took one science course in college because it was required, not because I had any great interest in science. The course was zoology and only my end of semester paper on raccoons, an assigned subject, avoided a failing grade. To this day, more than fifty years later, I still recall that its Latin name was Procyon lotar.

I cite this to indicate that anyone can learn science. It is neither mysterious, nor arcane. To some it is an intoxicating, powerful search for new understanding and new truth that becomes a lifelong pursuit, but even someone with no particular aptitude can grasp its fundamentals with a minimum of effort.

Why, then, do men entrusted with explaining the world to us, the reporters and editors of respected journals, resolutely refuse to embrace the truths that science offers in favor of the man-made myths intended to influence public opinion and policy?

Why do otherwise educated and apparently intelligent men publish a magazine like The Economist and put on its cover “Stopping Climate Change”, about a 14-page “special report”?

This is an astonishingly stupid headline. Even a child knows you cannot “stop” climate change. None of the more than six billion people on Earth can “stop” climate change because one of the definitions of change is “to become different” and a planet that has existed for 4.5 billion years has passed through many changes long before the first appearance of Homo sapiens.

Imagine a child saying, “Make it stop snowing” or “make the Sun come out.” But there are more than 16,500 men and women this very day who are gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark at a “Climate Change” conference based entirely on lies that defy simple truths about how the Earth functions.

Unless one was determined upon a willful ignorance of those truths, the vast body of lies that continue to be reported would and should sink beneath the weight of real science, legitimate science, not the computer model inventions that conveniently ignore the Medieval Warm period when temperatures were higher than they are now, a time when Chaucer (1342-1400) would write of vineyards in northern England, a time well before the Industrial Revolution and the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) that result from the use of coal, oil, and natural gas.

It is only willful ignorance that would keep a reporter or anyone else from knowing what has been known for years, that CO2 increases over the past 300,000 years have never caused temperature rise. Indeed, the rise of CO2 always follows in the wake of a temperature increase. What is so terribly wrong about the Copenhagen conference and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sponsoring it is that its own member scientists know that too.

A week after the revelations of more than a thousand emails between the chief perpetrators of the science fraud that has since come to be called Climategate, an editor at The Economist could still write, “This newspaper believes that global warming is a serious threat, and that the world needs to take steps to try to avert it.”

Could The Economist be so uninformed, misinformed, or willfully ignorant of the commonly known fact that, despite a rise in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth has been in a new, natural cooling cycle for a decade?

Can all the labors of the 16,000 scientists, diplomats, politicians, and other assorted conspirators manage to ignore that fact?

Not only can they, the newest form of the fraud has emerged already and was trumpeted in the pages of The Economist, claiming beyond all credulity that the Earth’s vast “carbon sinks”, its oceans, forests and all vegetation, are unlikely to be able to “absorb” all the CO2 being produced by that most horrid of all creatures, human beings.

The IPCC should be disbanded as a threat to mankind. The EPA should be required by Congress to produce scientific proof that CO2 is a “pollutant” to be regulated. It cannot!

The people attending the conference should be run out of Copenhagen as if peasants were once again pursuing the monster, Frankenstein.

And The Economist, along with all the so-called scientific magazines and news outlets that have prostituted themselves to the global warming fraud, should issue an apology to their readers.

——————————————————

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder in 1990 of The National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about “scare campaigns” designed to influence public opinion and policy.

 

WesternFront America