Follow The Money

Environmentalists like to claim skeptics are making money off hampering global warming regulations, but those same activists are making a lot of money promoting global warming alarmism.

A recent video from The Guardian claims that there is little money or power to be gained from environmental activism. The money behind activism pales in comparison to those of their fossil fuel-financed opposition, according to the video. The video even claims that “most of the money in solar and wind power comes from savings to the consumer.”

In the case of Al Gore, prominently featured in the video, the former vice president has levied his global warming activism from a net worth of $700,000 in 2000 into an estimated net worth of $172.5 million by 2015. He’s not alone in his financial endeavor.

Funding of science, in this particular case, climate change science, is dominated by the federal government. We assert that this will cause recipients of [government] grants to publish findings that are in-line with government policy preferences (i.e., don’t bite the hand that feeds you),” Chip Knappenberger, the assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email.

After a while, the scientific literature becomes dominated by these types of research findings which then produces a biased knowledge base,” Knappenberger said. “This knowledge base is then ‘assessed’ by intergovernmental and federal science committees (i.e., IPCC, USGCRP) to produce authoritative reports that supposedly represent the scientific ‘consensus,’ which is then tapped by the federal government in determining policy and setting regulations, such as the CPP [Clean Power Plan].”

A Cycle of Financial and Political Incest. One feeds the other.

Studies that receive financial support from the public sector don’t have to disclose it as a conflict of interest, even when that support is in the millions of dollars. Recent studies that the Environmental Protection Agency is using to support the scientific case for its Clean Power Plan saw the EPA itself give $31.2 million, $9.5 million, and $3.65 million in public funds to lead authors according to EPA public disclosures.

The author who received $3.65 million, Charles Driscoll, even admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the result of his study was predetermined, saying “in doing this study we wanted to bring attention to the additional benefits from carbon controls.”

Universities typically received about 50 percent of the money that their researchers get in public funds if their research finds positive results, making them deeply dependent upon federal funding and likely to encourage studies which will come to conclusions that the government wants.

Even counting only private money, environmental groups massively outspend their opposition. Opposition to global warming activism only raises $46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks according to analysis by Forbes. That’s almost 6 times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million, and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups. The undeniable truth is that global warming activists raise and spend far more money than their opponents.

And money talks and Bullshit Science walks away with “consensus”.

Attempts by governments to encourage solar and wind power have created incentives for corruption that even environmentalists acknowledge. The push to encourage “green” systems has already led to serious corruption, such as the Solyndra scandal, which “crowds out” investment dollars that could be better spent on more workable solutions. (Libertarian Republic)

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA.

THE NARRATIVE IS THE NARRATIVE.

The End. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

The Science is Settled

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

So 36% for not man-made means The Alarmist have a “consensus” and the “science is settled”. The 64% that don’t believe them must therefore be morons. So time to lie even more and step up the political arm of this control agenda because the facts don’t matter and their sanctimony and “rightness” must be assured.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

So 24+17 (that’s more than 36 right?) against the IPCC “gods” of “consensus. The scientist in this survey must be complete morons not to bow down to the “the truth” of the Alarmist Wolf Criers. 🙂

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

24+17+10 against the IPCC. So the IPCC “consensus” and The President therefore MUST be right? 🙂

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

24+17+10+5 = We have liftoff! The IPCC and The Global Warming Chicken Littles must be right! 🙂

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

And they use typical condescending and childish ad homimems to quell your disagreement with their ‘superior intellect’ and their ‘superior knowledge’ of the situation which obviously you are too stupid to understand.

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

Yeah, but any scientist who isn’t with the Party Line is a mislead moron who doesn’t speak for the “consensus”.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. (Forbes)

But you’ll never hear that from The Ministry of Truth or our Alarmist President who thinks Global Warming is more important than Iranian  Nukes or the Beheading Terrorists. After all, they aren’t on the Totalitarian Control Agenda so they don’t really matter. 🙂

You must be an idiot to oppose their superiority over you.

Sounds like the average Leftist to me. Now that’s a Consensus… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

A Message to Global Warming Alarmists

I was laughing my ass of by the end of this one. 🙂

Got this message yesterday from a very concerned climate change alarmist:

Hi Matt, I read you sometimes but I generally find you to be an assh*le. Just being honest. I also think you have a reputation (or you’d like to think you have a reputation) as someone who isn’t afraid to “tell it like it is,” but I think you haven’t earned that. Actually you are very afraid to challenge any republican talking point so you stick to the script on everything. I guess it’s more important to be invited to the parties than to tell the truth.

I’m wondering if you have the guts to address something and actually force your right wing readers to think for themselves. I’m getting really tired of seeing these idiots on Facebook who every time it gets cold or snows start gloating about how it “proves” there is no climate change. You’ve never outed yourself as a climate denier, and I know you like to consider yourself a logical person, so I’m hoping this is one area where you differ from your cohorts. These morons need to be put in their place. Colder temperatures and blizzards ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. This is why I could never be a republican. I can’t be a part of a group of anti-science climate deniers who would kill this planet if they were given free reign. Prove you’re really “controversial,” Matt, and call your people to task here.

-JM

Hi JM,

I agree with you. Honestly, I never addressed it because I never knew it was such a pervasive problem. But now that you’ve called my attention to it, allow me to be the first to say that climate deniers are lunatics. I’ll take it a step further than you even did, JM, and submit that climate deniers should be banned from teaching, voted out of office, and probably fired from any other job they might hold. Seriously, I can’t hardly believe that anyone could be so foolish and so delusional as to be a climate denier.

I mean, to deny the existence of the climate? That’s madness. The word “climate” means “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region.” The word “deny” means “to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate.” Anyone who rejects or repudiates the existence of weather conditions ought to be scolded and shunned and possibly institutionalized. We all must stand up against these menaces!

Luckily, upon closer inspection, I see that no such view actually exists anywhere in our society. This is just a label you people fabricated because left wing environmentalists are reflexively disingenuous about everything. “Climate denier” may in fact be the most ludicrous assemblage of two words ever concocted by mankind. But it’s not much better than the slightly more specific “climate change denier,” (used in a sentence: “liberal college professors think climate change deniers should be put in prison“) because, despite these marvelous straw men left wingers take so much time building, nobody in the world denies the fact of climate change. If anyone is a climate change denier — that is, someone who denies that climates change — I’d agree that he is an imbecile and probably mentally unstable.

Yet that view doesn’t exist because we all know the climate changes. Of course the climate changes. It’s a climate. That’s what climates do. They change. It gets colder, it gets hotter, it rains, it snows, it does all kinds of things. I don’t deny that, and although I’m not a Republican and I take great exception to that accusation, I feel safe in speaking for them when I say that they neither deny the fact of the climate, nor the fact that the climate changes. Progressives use labels like “climate denier” or “climate skeptic” (for the people who are willing to believe that there might be a climate, but are still a little iffy on the whole thing) because they are not interested in an honest discussion. You either buy in to their environmental dogma one hundred percent, or you will be painted as an idiot, an infidel, and a maniac.

Now, why might a person be skeptical about the theory that humans are causing dramatic shifts to the climate, and that these shifts will eventually kill us all? Have you ever thought about why someone might have these reservations, JM? Have you really taken the time to consider the reasons for this skepticism? Yeah, they’re morons, right, I get it, but have you determined that they’re morons because the media and people on Twitter told you they’re morons, or because you gave their case a fair hearing and came away with the impression that they have absolutely nothing even slightly coherent to say? I’m guessing it’s more the former, which makes you not necessarily a moron yourself, but an intellectually lazy chump who can be easily herded and exploited.

But since you broached the subject, I’m hoping today will be perhaps the first day in your life when you listen to a point of view before deciding to disqualify it.

So, why do so many people have trouble falling in line with the Climate Change Doomsday Cult (CCDC)? Let’s start with history. Just going back through the past few decades, according to left wing environmentalists we should all be dead from an Ice Age, and after that it was a nuclear winter, and after that it was overpopulation. Sprinkle in the various fits of hysteria about how we’re going to run out of oil and end up back living in caves, or run out of rain forest and suffocate to death, or run out of food, or run out of water, or run out of ozone, and you see how people might grow wary of the CCDC’s constant hand wringing about some kind of apocalypse (side note: “Some Kind of Apocalypse” would be a great name for a band). We should have perished 12 times over at this point. There were at least three different global annihilations that should have arrived before the year 2000, and another several since then. We should be starving, sick with radiation poisoning, unable to breathe, freezing from the sub zero temperatures, melting from the scorching heat, and causing entire landmasses to literally tip over due to the excess population. But we’re still here.

Some of these theories, like overpopulation and the Ice Age, have been thoroughly debunked and disproved. Others have simply been abandoned for trendier causes. But in all of these cases, the prophets of doom reaped profits from the doom, while slimy politicians used the hysteria as a means to tax, regulate, and control. Excuse us, JM, but are you really saying that after so many failed and erroneous predictions, we shouldn’t even raise an eyebrow when the very same people come back with yet another one?

Left Wing Environmentalists: Watch out everyone, this is going to kill you!

Everyone: Oh no! What do we do?

LWE: Quick pay more taxes!

Everyone: OK, here you go!

LWE: Just kidding. That probably won’t kill you, but this will!

Everyone: AHHHH!

LWE: No, OK, not that. But this!

Everyone: Dear Lord, help us!

LWE: Alright, never mind, we dodged that bullet. But this new thing will definitely wipe us out!

Everyone: We’re so afraid!

LWE: Scratch that. It’s this. This will do it!

Everyone: Uh, OK, we’re starting to get a little skeptical –

LWE: WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE?

How many times do they have to be wrong before our skepticism might be considered reasonable? Because that’s what this is about. Skepticism. You’re saying, just as most progressives say, that it’s “anti-science” to even be skeptical of climate alarmism, which is to say that the prevailing climate theory of the day should be believed regardless of how believable it is. This is the very definition of an unscientific attitude. It’s religious zealotry. Nothing more, nothing less.

Our history lesson isn’t over. Not long ago, nobody talked about climate change — instead it was global warming. If you can recall the year 2007, way back in the distant past, you might remember when Al Gore received a Nobel Peace prize for narrating a science fiction documentary and mentioned in his acceptance speech that the North Polar ice cap would completely melt by the year 2013. But then the year 2013 rolled around, and the Arctic had actually increased in mass by about 60 percent. Man, that’s embarrassing.

Indeed, you wouldn’t expect global warming to melt the ice caps considering the globe hasn’t warmed since about 1997. In other words, by the time Gore jumped on the global warming gravy train, global warming hadn’t been a thing for about a decade. Today, we’re about 219 months and counting since the last time the aggregate temperatures on Earth rose by any statistically significant amount.

What happened next? Well, the same thing that always happens. Progressives repackaged, rebranded, renamed, and came up with a few new marketing tricks. Suddenly, global warming became climate change, and man made climate change is as undeniable as man made global warming, even though global warming didn’t exist.

It was a smart move, though. Progressives realized that global warming — like the Ice Age, or overpopulation, or a nuclear winter — is just too specific. They needed something that could never be truly debunked because, no matter what happens, whatever happens proves them right. Hence, climate change.

“The climate is changing because of people!”

How do you know?

“Because it’s changing!”

Yeah, but–

“Look! It just changed again!”

They came up with a theory that can be validated by any turn of events, which means it can’t be validated by any turn of events. They’ve formulated not that one plus one equals two, or even that one plus one equals four, but that one plus one equals infinity.

Want to see something funny? Here’s a National Geographic headline from September of 2014:

Human-Caused Climate Change Worsened Heat Waves in 2013

Now, here’s one from yesterday:

Blizzard of Nor’Easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change

One theory, two opposite results, both proof of the theory. Does that make sense, JM? Can you, at a minimum, understand why some of us look at that and think “hmmmm”?

On a related note, the subheading under that blizzard article is pretty hysterical: “More extreme storms are expected to fall on the Northeast as climate changes.”

Oh, as the climate changes sometimes snow happens, you say? Yes, it’s called winter in the north east. It’s been this way for a while now, National Geographic. Why are you so surprised that it snowed in Buffalo in January? Aren’t you people supposed to be nature experts?

Want more from Matt Walsh?

It’s all so ridiculous, JM. And we haven’t even really gotten to dissecting the actual science here.

As far as that goes, I admit I’m not a scientist, though I suspect neither are you, and neither are most of the people who participate in this debate on either side. Still, even us lowly citizens can know a few things. For instance, we can know that the climate on this planet has changed wildly over the course of its existence. It’s had tropical periods and icy periods and everything in between, and the vast majority of all of that came before the Industrial Age. In fact, human beings have only been industrialized for a tiny fraction of human history, and we’ve been driving cars for an even tinier fraction. We can know, therefore, that temperatures and weather conditions have swung dramatically from one side of the spectrum to the other and back again, and, from a historical perspective, when comparing 200 years of industrialization to the 4 billion years the Earth’s been around, almost all of the warming and cooling happened before any factory was ever built.

We can also know that our CO2 emmissions are dwarfed by the immense amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by natural (and evil, likely Republican) sources like oceans and vegetation.

We can further know that the Sun — which is big enough to eat a million Earths, and hot enough to make you burst into flames from millions of miles away — really calls the shots in our solar system. If we’re searching for “global warming” culprits, we might want to look at that 27,000,000 degree ball of gas in the sky.

And we can even more confidently know that if human CO2 emissions are a primary driver of global temperatures, it wouldn’t make sense for temperatures to drop or stay stagnate while humanity only continues to increase its CO2 output. But that’s exactly what’s happened. I can know that, and I can know that something doesn’t make sense here. And I can know all of that without being a “scientist.”

Speaking of scientists, it’s probably not worth mentioning at this point that there isn’t any real 97 percent consensus on climate change in the scientific community. That oft-cited figure is based on faulty methodology, cherry picked findings, misleading questions, and misinterpreted results. What do scientists really think? Well, a good number of them are just as skeptical as me check  here, and here, and here for example. .

Even the people who believe in man made climate change don’t really believe it. That’s why so few of you folks are actively adjusting your lifestyle in any substantive way. I mean, if you think that the Earth itself is on the verge of a destruction brought upon by human beings and our technology, wouldn’t you clothe yourself in a loin cloth stitched from foliage and run off into the wilderness, living in a hollowed-out tree and subsisting on wild edibles? If you possess the conviction that the planet itself will die if humanity does not make dramatic changes, wouldn’t you begin by making those dramatic changes yourself? But you don’t. Maybe you buy a hybrid, maybe you put a “Save the Earth” bumper sticker on it, maybe you turn your heat down at night, but when it comes down to it, leftwing environmentalists continue on living the same way we all do. They drive around, buy things, watch TV, fly on airplanes, eat at restaurants. They sermonize about the end times but that’s all it is — a sermon. At least other religious cults put their money where their mouth is. You guys use a lot of dramatic language, but do nothing.

So where does that leave us? With, you might say, a few reasons to be have some doubt. But I realize this isn’t about “reasons” for you, it’s about faith. And far be it for me to attack your religion.

Thanks for writing.

-Matt

(Matt Walsh)

AMEN! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Oh No! Not again!

The London Daily Mail:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

The Climategaters (from the same offices) were potentially wrong in their doomsday scenario and it’s actually we’re all going to freeze to death instead (just like the hysterics of the mid-70’s!!)

Gee, I guess what is old is new again, when your goal to begin with was to frighten people into doing what you want regardless of any facts. And when new ones come along and screw up your old facts you just roll with it and start it all over again.

Sounds like Obama doesn’t it?

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

The world average temperature from 1997 to 2012

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest  a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

World solar activity cycles from 1749 to 2040

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the  Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

Four hundred years of sunspot observations

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.

Yeah, people could figure out they are LYING up their asses and have been been for more than 40 years!

Mind you, the Mindless Zombie Hoard on the Left won’t even bat an eye. They don’t care.

Hot or Cold. It’s all Armageddon to them if you don’t do extactly what they want you to do and right bloody now!

Yes, Masser! Yes Masser!

That’s all they want.

Government Awesomeness

This is one of the single funniest videos EVER:

 

My Prediction on Obama’s Speech tonight: Orwell says “Mission Accomplished” 🙂

I won’t see the speech. I will be working to pay my bills and the bills of the 48% of people who don’t pay any. 😦

Not that the word “war” will pass his lips, most likely. In press briefings last week, our Libyan campaign was euphemized into a “kinetic military action” and a “time-limited, scope-limited military action.” (The online parodies were merciless: “Make love, not time-limited, scope-limited military actions!” “Let slip the muzzled canine unit of kinetic military action!”) Advertising tonight’s address, the White House opted for “the situation in Libya,” which sounds less like a military intervention than a spin-off vehicle for the famous musclehead from MTV’s “Jersey Shore.” (Ross Douthat)

Gotta love Orwellian gibberish. 🙂

President Obama is proud of how he put together the Libyan operation. A model of international cooperation. All the necessary paperwork. Arab League backing. A Security Council resolution. (Everything but a resolution from the Congress of the United States, a minor inconvenience for a citizen of the world.)

It’s war as designed by an Ivy League professor. True, it took three weeks to put this together, during which time Moammar Gadhafi went from besieged, delusional thug losing support by the hour to resurgent tyrant who marshaled his forces, marched them to the gates of Benghazi and had the U.S. director of national intelligence predicting that “the regime will prevail.” (Charles Krauthammer).

They will protect civilians by not going after the guy who will kill them, Qaddafi! 🙂

And the reports that Al-Qaeda is supporting “the rebels”. No big deal. Qaddafi is evil. We just won’t do anything about him.

Obama is hoping the rebels will kill him so he doesn’t have to do it himself. But the rebels wouldn’t have this opportunity without the air strikes authored by him.

So now that NATO (which primarily US) has taken over, “Mission Accomplished”!!

Ta Da! Isn’t he awesome! 🙂

NEW TAX IDEA: Tax Driving!

Not feeling Taxed enough. You’re a Liberal who wants to stick it to the people. Well, the CBO has a new tax scheme for you.

And, of course, most importantly, it’s “fair”! 🙂

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has a suggestion for raising money to fix the nation’s highways: tax drivers based on how many miles they drive each year.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week released a report that said taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues and that these taxes could be used to offset the costs of highway maintenance at a time when federal funds are short.

The report discussed the proposal in great detail, including the development of technology that would allow total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be tracked, reported and taxed, as well as the pros and cons of mandating the installation of this technology in all vehicles.

CBO’s report stressed it was making no recommendations but seemed to support a VMT tax as a more accurate way of having drivers pay for the costs of highway maintenance. The report said miles driven is a larger factor in highway repairs than fuel consumption and suggested that having drivers pay for the real costs of highways “would involve imposing a combination of fuel taxes and per-mile charges.”

“About 25 percent of the nation’s highways, which carry about 85 percent of all road traffic, are paid for in part by the federal government….” reads the opening line of the paper. In other words, why should the federal government, already so strapped for cash, keeping paying so much for the highway while those who use them get a free ride?
The rest of the lead paragraph is just as baneful:
Federal spending on highways is funded primarily by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, but those and other taxes paid by highway users do not yield enough revenue to support either current federal spending on highways or the higher levels of spending that have been proposed by some observers. Although raising those taxes would bring in a larger amount of revenue, a more fundamental issue would remain: By themselves, fuel taxes cannot provide a strong incentive for people to avoid overusing highways — that is, to forgo trips for which the costs to themselves and others exceed the benefits. This study examines broad alternatives for federal funding of highways, focusing on fuel taxes and on taxes that could be assessed on the basis of the number of miles that vehicles travel.
As usual, the bureaucrats’ tactic is to create a problem (too many people “overusing highways”) then propose a solution (higher fuel taxes and taxes “assessed on the basis of the number of miles that vehicles travel”).
Just to be fair, the CBO assures the Senate that it (the CBO) isn’t alone in reckoning that taxing drivers for miles traveled is the most equitable method of closing the highway funding gap. They’ve got an impressive chorus backing up their taxing tune.
A consensus view of many transportation experts and economists is that a system of taxes on vehicle-miles traveled should be viewed as the leading alternative to fuel taxes as a source of funding for highways.
See? Lots of people (a “consensus”) agrees with the plan so it can’t be all bad.
And we all know it’s important to have “consensus” of “experts” before it crammed up your ass and down your throat for “your own good”.
It will be “fair”. 🙂
One possibility discusses by the CBO is the “pay at the pump” option for collecting the tax.
Implementation costs of a VMT system would depend heavily on its scope and scale but also would be affected by some choices about specific technologies. For example, initial capital costs might be higher but operational costs might be lower if the VMT taxes were collected “at the pump,” the method tested in the Portland pilot study and already used for collecting fuel taxes, rather than through periodic invoicing from a central office to individual users, the approach tested in the Puget Sound study. If VMT taxes were collected at the pump, each time fuel was purchased, information would be sent from a device in the vehicle to a device at the filling station. The data would identify the accumulated charges themselves or list miles traveled (identified if necessary by times and locations) since the previous purchase. The appropriate amount of taxes would be collected as part of the fuel- purchasing transaction.
Basically, “a device in the vehicle” would send data to the gas station, then onto, one assumes, the appropriate taxing agency, and the cost per gallon would be increased according to the VMT data collected.
Check your mail for the time and place of your appointment to have your car retrofitted with the government-approved VMT monitor.
Just Like ObamaCare, it’s for your own good!
To be fair (equitable), if you want smooth roads and you want to do the right thing and pay your fair share of the maintenance,  then the least you can do is surrender your privacy and let the government strap a VMT measuring device on your car. It’s the right thing. (New American-KFYI)
Now don’t you feel better. 🙂
Don’t worry about the trucking industry and all those goods that are transported across the country. It won’t impact your grocery bill and other products at all!
And will this go for jet fuel next? Imagine those thousands of gallons…
THE BORDER HAS NEVER BEEN SAFER
So with that Big Sis, Homeland Insecurity Secretary Janet Napalitano:
The Obama Administration has dedicated historic levels of manpower, technology, and infrastructure to the Southwest border to ensure the safety of border communities, and these resources have made a significant impact. Some of America’s safest communities are in the Southwest border region, with border city crime rates staying steady or dropping over the past decade. 

The security of our border communities strengthens the prosperity of the region. From San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas, hundreds of billions of dollars of commerce come across the border each year, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs. Thanks in part to the administration’s major investments to improve border infrastructure at our land ports of entry, the value of the trade crossing the Southwest border increased 22 percent in fiscal year 2010 alone.

Yet, local leaders in border communities say misinformation about the safety of the Southwest border is hurting their communities, driving potential visitors away and hurting local businesses.

The reality is that the Southwest border is open for business. El Paso, Texas is one of the best examples. Not only have crime statistics shown it to be one of the safest big cities in the country, but the value of imports crossing into the United States through El Paso has risen 40 percent just in the last year.

In fact, today I was in El Paso to meet with local officials and business leaders to discuss ways that we can help strengthen trade and travel in the region and help set the record straight about the safety and economic opportunities in their communities.

We all agree that the challenges at the border are real – but so is the progress we’ve made over the last two years. I’m proud to join with our border communities in spreading the word that the Southwest border is, indeed, open for business.

Janet Napolitano (DHS website)

Now is that special! 🙂
I know I feel better about government.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a
human face – forever.”– George Orwell

The Agenda Uber Alles

To Lord Doom, Al Gore: “It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them.”Mark Twain.

Unless, you’re making millions off the suckers. Oh, and when the jig is up, just ignore them.

WSJ: JOHN STOSSEL, HOST: I wish that Al Gore were here to debate him (Jerry Taylor, Energy Analyst for the Cato Institute) and me. We asked Vice President Gore, and his office sent this e-mail saying: “It’s very difficult to decline invitations such as yours, but it’s an unfortunate inevitability of the growing influence of the climate crisis message and the demand on Mr. Gore’s time. (Boos from audience) We do apologize, but thank you for your interest.” (Via email 11/23/09).

Come on, Mr. Gore. The idea that you don’t have time is pretty silly. You have time to go on programs like “Saturday Night Live.” It’s not a time issue. (Applause) Truth is, you won’t debate anyone. You’ve been asked lots of times, but you always say no. But if you do ever want to debate, we’d love to offer you the air time. We will give it to you. I’ll give you a special phone number that goes to this phone. Glenn Beck has that red phone that goes to the President. For you Mr. Gore, the green phone. I await your call.

Of course, Stossel was quite right: despite claiming to be an expert on this subject, Al Gore refuses to debate anyone. And, he only goes on television programs where he knows he can say whatever he wants, regardless of accuracy, and never get challenged.

Such is what happened when he appeared with CNN’s John Roberts and Kiran Chetry Wednesday morning, and with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Wednesday afternoon.

That media not only comply with Gore’s ability to present unchallenged falsehoods to the nation, but also let him get away with never being on the air with anyone that disagrees with his views, is nothing less than appalling.

That said, Stossel shouldn’t hold his breath waiting for this charlatan’s call.

Gore’s got the media in his back pocket, and he’ll never voluntarily relinquish control.

And he is still at it with incredibly stupid comments. On the Conan O’Brien show of 11/12/09, he said the temperature in the mantle, the deep layer immediately below the crust, is several million degrees just two kilometers down. This is many times hotter than the Sun.

This is blatantly wrong. But don’t expect the “consensus’ media to care.  After all, according to them, they aren’t bias. We are. 🙂

In Gore’s and his lemmings world, facts are facts when they are spoken by them, not when they are proved.

As reported by Not Evil Just Wrong Monday:

In several recent interviews the former vice president said that the Climategate emails were “sound and fury signifying nothing…the most recent one is more than 10 years old.”

However the reality is that the most recent email from Climategate is less than two months old. The emails undermine the science of Climate Alarmism and that is why the alarmists are so reluctant to address them or like Mr Gore they make factually incorrect statements about how relevant they are.

On CNN: Host John Roberts, to his credit, was quick to correct Gore when he was interviewing him on the same subject saying that, “many are far more recent than that.” Gore did not respond.

Mr. Gore says he cares a lot about science and scientific accuracy. His whole theory of Climate Alarmism depends on it but today at the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Conference he refused several opportunities to correct the record when asked about his errors by journalist and film maker Phelim McAleer. Instead his Press Secretary grabbed McAleer’s microphone to stop questions being put to the vice-president.

Have U.N. security officials been instructed to prevent journalists from asking climate realists uncomfortable questions?

Best to just ignore the annoying people who actually want to debate you.

Especially when you continue to tell whoppers:  Examiner.com

Now he has been caught in stating in a speech at the climate talks, that there is a 75 percent chance that Arctic ice cap could become “ice free” during the summer months in as little as the next five to seven years.

Only problem is, the scientist who Gore cited as the source for his whopper, Dr Wieslaw Maslowski, was quoted AFTER Gore’s speech as saying his research revealed ‘nothing of the sort’.

‘It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,’ Dr Maslowski said. ‘I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.’

And Dr Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said:  ‘This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from skeptics,’.

Two years ago, a High Court judge (in the UK)  ruled his Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth was ‘alarmist’ and contained nine scientific errors.

It’s the latest embarrassment for Gore, an outspoken environmental campaigner who has earned millions of pounds from green investments and faced repeated criticism for scaremongering.

The court said copies of the film sent to secondary schools should be accompanied with notes to balance Gore’s views.

Examiner: Rather than recognizing that the best science is skeptical science, any skepticism is now treated with the “ostrich in the sand” syndrome and ridiculed off the stage.  Irony being it is actually the “consensus” clucks who are putting their heads in the sand.  Dutifully following the dogma of their leaders, (Gore, Soros, Obama) they shout down heretics in the best traditions of the Spanish Inquisition.  Galileo and Newton would be most uncomfortable at this convention.

Yes indeed, these citizens are most dutiful to the dogma.  In fact, these “citizens of the world” are so dutiful to their cause that when one Professor Stephen Schneider (IPCC contributor extraordinaire) was being “pressured” by independent film maker Phelim McAleer regarding said professor’s views on the climategate conundrum and it’s effect upon the “science” of climate change, an assistant to the professor felt it necessary to summon armed UN security guards.

Why bother with facts when you can just call a security guard instead?  The irony is that the questioning was at a press conference called by Professor Schneider to launch his new book!

Speaking of Books, Lord Doom has a new tome out: “Our Choice” which depicts a global warming ravaged earth on part of the cover. Problem is:

The retouched image depicting our planet at some point in the future, contains images of five hurricanes. One storm off the coast of Florida is turning in a clockwise motion, an impossibility in the northern hemisphere. Another hurricane is shown near Peru and the equator, a place where hurricanes cannot form. It is also a bit ironic that so many storms are depicted when hurricane activity is currently at a 30 year low.

In the modified image, Cuba appears to be completely submerged. That would require a sea level rise of more than 6580 feet as that is the height of Pico Turquino on the island. Much of Florida as well is now under water as is a great deal of Central America.

The problem is that if there were indeed a rise of that level, Florida would be entirely gone as its highest point only reaches an altitude of 345 feet. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and virtually every single other state that borders an ocean (and many landlocked states) would be submerged. Even Denver, the Mile High City, would be under water although presumably its residents could escape to the Rocky Mountains.

In fact, only 17 of the 50 states in the union would have part of their land above sea level, only two of which are east of the Rockies. Globally, that sea rise would be devastating as well sending many nations under the surface of the ocean including South Korea, the United Kingdom, Jordan, the Czech Republic and dozens more. (examiner)

D’oh!

But it looks good!

The Forthcoming Movie Poster?

I guess the truth was inconvenient for a good cover shot.

But don’t judge a book by it’s cover. 🙂

Lumumba Di Aping of Sudan, who chairs the G77 group of developing nations deriding the U.S. Congress: “You approve billions of dollars in defence budgets: why can’t you approve $200 billion to save the world?” or the Algerian chairman of the African group, Kemal Djemouai, lamenting: “The developed countries found $1.4 trillion to combat the financial crisis. Now they are offering just $10 billion to fight climate change.”

For if it truly IS just about the money, that would mean the entire Copenhagen summit (complete with 140 private jets and hundreds of limousines mind you) is nothing but a global socialistic shakedown of the western democracies.

Shocking! 🙂

Pay particular attention to the paragraph:

An official in the Nigerian delegation which was part of the walkout, said Europe’s lowball offers of financial support were “pathetic. He added: “There will be no commitments from the G77 [bloc of developing countries] until we get better assurances about financial and technology transfers,” reports our colleague Alessandro Torello from Copenhagen.

Low-ball offers?  Financial and technology transfers?

Show me the money baby, show me the money.

That seems to be the real “consensus”, especially in Copenhagen where the only people being arrested are the ones who think the conferencees are not doing enough to cram it down everyone’s throat.

Much like Health Care Reform.

A CNN poll shows 36% of the public in favor of what the Democratic Senate is trying to do to health care, 61% opposed. It is clear what the public wants Congress to do: Take a mulligan and start over.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition found – reached three times before – in six months of polling.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 40% of voters favor the health care plan.

Perhaps more significantly, 46% now Strongly Oppose the plan, compared to 19% who Strongly Favor it.

“The most significant detail in the data is that 63% of senior citizens oppose the plan, including 52% who strongly oppose it,” says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “Seniors are significant in this debate both because they use the health care system more than anyone else and because they vote more than younger voters.”

USA Today/Gallup poll finds public support for such efforts still below the majority level. Forty-six percent of Americans say they would advise their member of Congress to vote for healthcare legislation.

In a recent NBC poll, just 32 percent of respondents said they believe the president’s health care plan is a “good idea”; 47 percent said it’s a “bad idea,” the highest that number has been. According to a recent ABC News poll, majorities now for the first time disapprove of Obama’s work on health care (53 percent) and oppose the health care reform package making its way through Congress (51 percent).

In the ABC/Washington Post poll, more than half of those polled, 53 percent, see higher costs for themselves if the proposed changes go into effect than if the current system remains intact.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that those believing President Obama’s health-reform plan is a good idea has sunk to its lowest level.

Just 32 percent say it’s a good idea, versus 47 percent who say it’s a bad idea.

In addition, for the first time in the survey, a plurality prefers the status quo to reform. By a 44-41 percent margin, respondents say it would be better to keep the current system than to pass Obama’s health plan.

American voters, by a 55 – 35 percent margin, are more worried that Congress will spend too much money and add to the deficit than it will not act to overhaul the health care system, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. By a similar 57 – 37 percent margin, voters say health care reform should be dropped if it adds “significantly” to the deficit.

By a 72 – 21 percent margin, voters do not believe that President Barack Obama will keep his promise to overhaul the health care system without adding to the deficit, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University national poll finds.

American voters disapprove 52 – 39 percent of the way President Obama is handling health care, down from 46 – 42 percent approval July 1, with 60 – 34 percent disapproval from independent voters. Voters say 59 – 36 percent that Congress should not pass health care reform if only Democratic members support it.

Voters oppose 68 – 26 percent requiring people to have health insurance or pay a fine and oppose 68 – 27 percent taxing employees for health care benefits from employers.

But yet, they continue on. because the Agenda is the Agenda. Damn the facts and the people, full speed ahead.

After emerging from a closed-door Democrats-only White House meeting with Senate Democrats Tuesday, President Obama said: “We are on the precipice of an achievement that’s eluded Congresses and presidents for generations, an achievement that will touch the lives of nearly every American.”

Reach out and touch everyone, comrade.

Neville Chamberlain in 1938 disembarked from his plane and told the crowd, “This morning, I had another talk with the German chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it, as well as mine.” Forever, he will be remembered for waving his worthless “piece of paper.”

President Bill Clinton a decade ago told the grand jury investigating whether he committed perjury that “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Forever, he will be remembered for twisting language into pretzels to avoid the truth.

President Jimmy Carter in his infamous 1979 “Malaise Speech” blamed Americans for a national “crisis of confidence” and “loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.” Carter’s solution: Carpool and “set your thermostats to save fuel. … I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”

Much of what the president said in his Tuesday statement was patently false. With its heavy regulations, the Senate bill, even stripped of its destructive “public option,” won’t mean that “families will save on their premiums.” Independent studies make it clear that premiums will go up by thousands of dollars.

It also isn’t true that “this will be the largest deficit-reduction plan in over a decade” — and to hear such a promise from the biggest-spending president in his first year in office in history is hard to take.

The president claims “the CBO has said that this is a deficit reduction.” But as Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, who sits on both the appropriations and banking committees, recently told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, the definition of “deficit-neutral” that Democrats have been using “means it’s going to cost you over $1 trillion, and we are going to find $1 trillion either in Medicare cuts or increased taxes, so that we end up with the same number at the bottom line.”

Speaking of the Congressional Budget Office, after candidate Obama last year promised a $2,500 annual reduction in health premiums annually for average families, the CBO has warned of premium increases of about $5,000 a year.

“Precipice” is right, Mr. President. But with public support at 41% according to IBD/TIPP and 35% according to Gallup — not to mention two-thirds of doctors opposed to Congress’ plan, as IBD/TIPP also found — most Americans clearly don’t want to take a plunge like this.(IBD)

And if they challenge you, just ignore them, call security, have them removed, just go to people who will kiss your ass and not challenge you, or simply just ignore them all together.

After all, they don’t matter.

You’re way more important and so is your Agenda.

That's a Big Bird.

Sleep tight, don’t let the tax bugs bite… 🙂

The Conference of Doom Begins Today

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed “the coming ice age.”

Random House dutifully printed “THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age.” This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported “many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.”

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age.”

Science’s prediction of “A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age,” came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the “global cooling” in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

Now we have Polar Bear on “diminishing” ice flows in the Artic.

Ahhh….

Does this all look vaguely like, well it global warming has dropped but in the future it will be an apocalypse! 🙂

UK Telegraph 4/30/2008:  Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: “The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that.”

And as all Global warming Religionist know the IPCC is never EVER wrong.

So as it snows on Houston, the earliest on record, just remember Global Warming is going to Kill us all!

The Conference of Doom starts today in Copenhagen.

Will this day also, live in infamy! 🙂

There is truly something rotten in Denmark. 🙂

UK Telegraph: Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five,” says Ms Jorgensen. “The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it’s very Danish.”

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants’ travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of “carbon dioxide equivalent”, equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

But nothing but the best for those concerned with the Doom of all mankind and want to shut down the Industrial Revolution as really bad for the planet! 🙂

I suppose Al Gore’s “Carbon credits” business will be busy with guilty Doomsayers for the next 11 days.

NY Post: Some 40,000 tons of carbon will be spewed getting this crowd together and keeping them in comfort.That is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by more than 60 of the world’s smaller countries in an entire year — combined.

Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.

But damn! It will sound good! It’ll sound like they care.

Can some on pass me the Wagyu beef with white truffles, darling… 🙂

“If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence,” said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. “Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys.

Bingo! That wins the man a Booby prize, which in Copenhagen is probably just a few doors down.:)

As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners’ apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

Anyone seen Lord Doom?  He canceled? Really. A chance to be a media whore in front of adoring fans and hock is new Doomsday Book??  Coming to a Theatre near you 🙂

And the Great Savior of Mankind, Barack Obama is not jetting in until is nearly over. Something about a Peace Prize (just after he escalated Obama’s War in Afghanistan).

In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband (who called those who disagree with him and his ilk saboteurs just days ago) said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. “If Martin Luther King had come along and said ‘I have a nightmare,’ people would not have followed him,” he said.

Let’s all have a PR pitty party form the Doomsayers.

But do you think they’ve really learned anything.

No.

That would be a break with their faith.

So they have 11 days to work on a new spin.

That’s all.

And the Danes are happy to participate.

NY Post: That’s because the last great world climate treaty, Kyoto, does not make them include their nasty shipping business in the calculation. No wonder the Danes liked that so much.

AP: “I think a lot of people are skeptical about this issue in any case,” Yvo de Boer (The U.N.’s top climate official) said. “And then when they have the feeling … that scientists are manipulating information in a certain direction then of course it causes concern in a number of people to say ‘you see I told you so, this is not a real issue.'”

Ya Think? 🙂

Because there’s a “consensus” that says debate is over. So how can anyone possibly be skeptical? 🙂

“This correspondence looks very bad,” de Boer said. “But I think both the university is looking into this (and) I believe there is a police investigation going on whether the e-mails were leaked or stolen.

Not whether they are true or not or what they actually say, mind you.

U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing (Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change) called the science on global warming “very robust, very substantial.” He told the AP that the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails came at an “unfortunate” time, just before the long-awaited U.N. talks, “but has no fundamental bearing on the outcome.

His faith in Man-Made Doom is Strong, young Barack!

UK Telepgraph 4/30/2008: Writing in Nature, the scientists said: “Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic [manmade] warming.”

The study shows a more pronounced weakening effect than the Met Office’s Hadley Centre, which last year predicted that global warming would slow until 2009 and pick up after that, with half the years after 2009 being warmer than the warmest year on record, 1998.

Commenting on the new study, Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre said the model suggested the weakening of the MOC would have a cooling effect around the North Atlantic.

“Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“That emphasizes once again the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades.”

But that would question the faith.

Our Friend Ed Millibrand, UK Environment  Secretary on the BBC less than 24 hours ago:

“The people who believe that this is happening, that climate change is happening and man-made, have nothing to fear from transparency.”

Obama: “Information will not be withheld just because I say so; it will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well-grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,

So how’s that working out? 🙂

Global Cooling. (1975)

Global Warming. (also coined in 1975) 🙂

Global Climate Change? (created because it kept  embarrassingly snowing on Global Warming Conferences) 🙂

Anthropogenic climate change (2000)

What Orwellian term will the Conference of Doom come up with?

Stay Tuned.