An Inconvenient Film Coming Soon

By Peter Foster, National Post

Al Gore is about to feature in a new movie, but he’s not going to like it very much. Titled Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria, the film presents a devastating account of the shaky foundations and hefty price of Mr. Gore’s brand of self-interested and hypocritical alarmism.

Created by the Irish film making duo of Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney — who made another excellent documentary about the “dark side of environmentalism” called Mine Your Own Business — Not Evil provides the perfect rebuttal to Mr. Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

Despite being chock-a-block with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, Mr. Gore’s movie has frightened schoolchildren all over the world, driven the public policy debate, and garnered both an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize for its star.

Not Evil — which is due to be released later this year — will appear at a crucial time. The world’s crisis-beset nations are due to meet in Copenhagen in November to concoct a new policy straitjacket to succeed the meddlesome but utterly failed Kyoto Accord. If global warming's U.N.-based ringmasters have their way, this will lead to a slashing of industrial production in developed countries and to a huge extension of boondoggle redistributionist schemes to fund “green” technologies in developing countries.

Such policy represents a triple threat: it will destroy economic activity; it will cripple trade; and it will hurt the poorest the most. Nevertheless, President Obama appears to be on-board this ship of fools, having bought into the notion that there are net “green jobs” to be had from a massive increase in taxation and regulation of industrial activity.

The impact on Canada could be horrendous, and not merely on the oil sands, which have been targeted by environmental non-governmental organizations. This week, Environment Minister Jim Prentice admitted that Canada could be forced to adopt more draconian regulation if it is not to be hit by threatened U.S. carbon tariffs.

The truly astonishing feature of this policy fandango is that it will have little or no effect on the climate, the science of which is still only dimly understood. However, alarmists such as Mr. Gore have successfully sold the notion that the science is “settled.” This is just one of the claims to which Not Evil Just Wrong puts the lie.

Alternating credible skeptics with arresting imagery, the film makes clear that the science, far from being settled, has been comprehensively misrepresented by the likes of NASA’s James Hansen, who is to Al Gore and climatology what Trofim Lysenko was to Joseph Stalin and agronomy.

There is a wonderful scene of Mr. Hansen becoming almost discombobulated at the very mention of Stephen McIntyre, the maverick Canadian who, with the help of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick, took on the UN climate change establishment over the so-called “hockey stick” temperature graph, and won. Mr. Hansen claims that paying attention to such inconvenient truths amounts to just “clouding the issue.”

The film dramatically outlines the dreadful damage already done by environmental hysteria, in particular the millions of unnecessary deaths caused by the campaign against DDT. That campaign started with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, which was at the root of the modern environmental movement in every sense. Despite the World Health Organization’s lifting of the DDT ban, Al Gore remains devoted to Ms. Carson’s memory. And methods. As Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace but now a skeptic, points out, radical environmentalists “care more about fish eggs than they do about children.” Meanwhile kids are shown fretting about about imminent global inundation and the deaths of polar bears.

Just as Mine Your Own Business showed how opposition to mining in developing countries comes often not from the “grassroots” but from well-funded multinational NGOs with as little concern for local employment as they have for truth, so Not Evil Just Wrong further demonstrates environmentalists’ disregard for humanity, and in particular the poor.

Perhaps the most memorable scene in Mine Your Own Business was that of the WWF’s local representative in Madagascar, Mark Fenn, who was leading opposition to a development by Rio Tinto. The appalling Mr. Fenn, who owned a $35,000 catamaran and was building a local luxury home, claimed that poor people were happier, and that if the locals had more money they would “just spend it.”

The film makers have come up with similar buffoons for their new movie, including a Bible-thumping environmentalist in Uganda who opposes using DDT and claims that the U.S. never experienced malaria and Hollywood actor Ed Begley, who suggests that Fijians are “happy with nothing.”

Not Evil Just Wrong which will be released later this year —is an important film that deserves the widest possible distribution, both in theatres and schools. The only quibble that I have with it is that its title might be too generous to those it exposes.

(To find out more about the movie and the fundraising campaign to help its distribution visit its website: noteviljustwrong.com).

WATCH THE MOVIE TRAILER:

Please donate what you can today! NotEvilJustWrong.com

Thanks,
Justin, ILCD editor

**UPDATE: April 18, 2009: The Wall Street Journal reports on Not Evil Just Wrong.

Finally Some Sanity? NDP Promises to Scrap BC Carbon Tax

Canadian Press

BURNABY, B.C. — Five days before the May 12 election campaign kicks off, B.C. New Democrats are trying to pin the tax-and-spend label they've previously been forced to wear on the two-term incumbent Liberals.

The NDP, chased from power in 2001 under accusations of fiscal incompetence, unveiled an election platform Thursday that features tax cuts and modest spending increases, adding up to three years of deficits.

NDP leader Carole James painted the Liberals under Premier Gordon Campbell as bad managers, misreading the depth of the recession, accepting a massive cost over-run for the new Vancouver convention centre and tying the province to dubious public-private partnership projects.

"This is no time to increase taxes on families and small businesses," she said.

"Gordon Campbell plans to triple the gas tax; I will scrap it. I'll give business and average families a tax break."

An NDP promise to eliminate the Liberals' carbon tax on fossil fuel is the biggest single element in the party's fiscal plan, costing the government around $1.8 billion over three years.

The carbon tax, first imposed last July, stands at 2.4 cents a litre but is slated to rise steadily as a way of taxing greenhouse gas emissions.

The government calls the measure revenue neutral thanks to personal income tax cuts and rebate checks.

But James said the tax has been a failure. It hasn't reduced fuel consumption and is a hardship on struggling families.

Read more here and here in The Province.

Watch Climatologist Timothy Ball's opinion on the BC Carbon Tax scam:

A Dangerous New Global Warming Law

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs

Let us begin by understanding that the entire basis for declaring the second most vital gas on Earth, carbon dioxide, a “pollutant” that requires regulation and is the object of a proposed elaborate “cap-and-trade” scheme is the generation of enormous amounts of money for the government while allowing it to exercise complete control over the use of any energy for any purpose.

Carbon dioxide is said to be the chief cause of “global warming”, but there is NO global warming. The Earth continues to COOL—ten years since the completely natural cycle began in 1998.

Nor is the Earth running out of energy sources such as oil, natural gas or coal. Here in the United States, however, Americans have long since run out of access to the extraction of the vast amounts that reside under the states and the offshore continental shelf.

Since around the 1970s, America has been systematically starved for access to its own energy reserves and forced to rely on imports, most notably of oil. Politicians and Greens who keep calling for “energy independence” are lying through their teeth. No nation on Earth is energy independent,

When you control energy, you control people’s lives and the entire economy. Simple example; a blizzard causes power lines to fail. All of a sudden people served by those lines are at risk of freezing to death. Another example, power fails during a heat wave. The elderly and ill are at risk of death for lack of air conditioning or even an electric fan. In 1995, a heat wave in Chicago killed over 600 people.

So, when House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, conjure up an energy/climate bill designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions alleged to be causing “global warming”, they are perpetrating a massive fraud on Americans.

When that bill includes a provision that would permit anyone, absolutely anyone, to sue the government as victims of global warming and in anticipation of suffering as the result of global warming, Waxman-Markey have opened the door wide to a deluge of lawsuits that have no merit whatever in scientific fact or truth.

As reported in The Washington Times, “The measure sets grounds for anyone ‘who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable in whole or in part’ to government inaction to file a ‘citizen suit.’ The term ‘harm’ is broadly defined as ‘any effect of air pollution (including climate change) occurring or at risk of occurring.’”

In practical terms, this means everyone with shorefront property can sue the government for a predicted loss due to rising sea levels. The fact that they have been rising naturally at a rate of a few insignificant millimeters a year for centuries will surely be ignored.

The law as currently written—but subject to change as it goes through the standard legislative practice when the two houses of Congress seek to achieve agreement—would allow citizens to seek up to $75,000 in damages from the government each year, but would cap the total amount paid out each year at $1.5 million.

It is a little known fact that many environmental organizations reap vast amounts of money suing the government over the enforcement of various laws affecting clean air, clean water, and endangered species.

The Western Environmental Law Center is just one example. It just sent “an urgent letter to Lisa Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, asking her to “speed issuance of regulations aimed at restricting greenhouse pollution to include black carbon, or soot, among climate forcing agents to be regulated.” Soot!

The Greens are now prattling about “unmanageable and calamitous disruption of the climate system.”

Can anyone cite a single example of how human activity could possibly cause or prevent “unmanageable and calamitous disruption of the climate system”?

As this is written, Mount Redoubt in Alaska is threatening a huge volcanic explosion and there is nothing the good citizens of Alaska can do about it. In Italy, whole villages were wiped out by a recent earthquake and there was nothing they could do about it. A tsunami hit Indonesia some years ago, killing thousands, and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

At the White House, the new science advisor to the President is proposing an utterly crazed scheme to shoot “pollution” into the Earth’s atmosphere to reflect back the Sun’s rays to stave off global warming. The Sun, meanwhile, has gone scarily “quiet” for several years with virtually no magnetic storms (sunspots), thus reducing its production of solar energy to warm the Earth.

Yet there is a new law making its way through Congress that posits that the federal government can do something about a “global warming” that is not occurring and permits any one of the 310 million Americans to sue the government for failing to take action.

The end result of the Waxman-Markey law would be to vastly enrich the many environmental organizations that would be filing hundreds of thousands of suits and ultimately collecting millions, if not billions, of dollars on the basis of something that is not occurring and the alleged inaction of the government to stop it!

Only the collected stupidity and indifference of the American people will permit this new law to reach the desk of the President who will surely sign it. It is a death warrant for our lives, our economy, and our nation.

Blowing smoke: The Obama White House spews climate hysteria

Washington Times Editorial

Not even the sky is the limit to crackpot environmental theories these days. On Wednesday, presidential science adviser John P. Holdren told the Associated Press that it might be necessary to blow pollution into the atmosphere to shield the sun's rays and stave off global warming. His hyperbole is even scarier than his science. According to Mr. Holdren, the planet is in so much trouble that it is like a "car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog." Not only is the world at a "tipping point," but we also face "really intolerable consequences" if drastic action isn't taken immediately.

The hysterics could be humorous if so much were not at stake. Mr. Holdren's humble recommendation is to try to engineer the world's climate. One idea is to manufacture a giant artificial volcano big enough to envelope the world with its ash cloud. Behind all this weird science are government plans that will cost billions of dollars. Already, President Obama has proposed a radical cap to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 80 percent, which White House staffers have estimated could cost the economy as much as $2 trillion over the next eight years alone.

Mr. Holdren is a habitual harbinger of doom, and his past record on apocryphal predictions is abysmal. In 1980, he joined environmentalist Paul R. Ehrlich in betting economist Julian L. Simon that five natural resources - chromium, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten - would be more expensive 10 years later. Mr. Holdren and Mr. Ehrlich, who picked the five elements, argued that the world was running out of natural resources and that prices would soar as the supply disappeared. Mr. Simon reasoned that technological innovations would increase discovery of the metals and make it cheaper to extract them from the ground. Both factors tend to lower metal prices over time.

Mr. Holdren and Mr. Ehrlich lost the bet. In all five cases, prices dropped. Three of the materials declined in nominal terms, and all five declined after accounting for inflation.

The faulty predictions are nothing new. In the mid-1970s, fears of global cooling were all the rage. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists pointed out that average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere fell by half a degree between 1945 and 1968. From 1964 to 1972, NOAA claimed that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground had fallen by 1.3 percent. In 1975, publications such as Newsweek quoted experts fretting that we were on the verge of another "Little Ice Age."

Back then, all kinds of schemes were concocted to try to warm things up. Among the bizarre remedies was one similar to today's volcano solution. According to Newsweek, it was imperative to try to heat up the globe by "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers." The news magazine cited the "almost unanimous" fear among experts of impending disaster due to global cooling, including drops in food production.

Like previous alarmist climate predictions, today's global-warming scare is devoid of cold facts. Temperatures were supposed to keep increasing, but they haven't. None of the alarmist climate models predicted recent trends in which global temperatures have either fallen or remained unchanged over the last decade. Not only are the existence and dangers of global warming unproven, but there is little chance that a bunch of mad scientists can save the world with geoengineering even if there were a crisis. Mr. Holdren should be prepared for the artificial-volcano theory to blow up in his face.

Sunburned: Solar's Dirty Little Secrets

By Jan Hughes, Mac Life

Green gadgets make our collective heart go pitter-patter. We feel good when we can be part of the solution. Solar-powered gadgets have become de rigueur in our attempts at shrinking our carbon footprint. And utilizing the power of the sun is the one bright shining beacon of the alternative-energy movement. But there is a dark side to solar energy.

Materials used in solar panels are toxic.
Because solar is the hip, happening alt-energy trend du jour, the number of photovoltaic cells produced globally has increased dramatically in the past few years. But unfortunately, many of the solar panels manufactured today are made with cadmium, a highly toxic carcinogen that can cumulate in plant, animal, and human tissues. The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition has recently published a 45-page report, "Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry," claiming that many of the environmental risks associated with the production and disposal of solar panels are not currently being addressed by the industry. And because solar panels have a shelf life of 20 to 30 years, the Coalition claims that the panels have the potential of creating the next wave of hazardous e-waste when they "die." What to do? Clearly, as the solar industry grows, environmentalists and consumers must demand that manufacturers develop systems to ensure that solar panels are recycled and their hazardous toxins kept out of our ecosystem.


China is dumping hazardous waste from solar factories in fields.
According to the Washington Post, in the race to cash in on the world’s demand for solar products, China been leading the charge in producing polysilicon, a key component in sunlight-capturing wafers. Unfortunately, China is not enforcing environmental regulations, and many of the new factories are dumping toxic silicon tetrachloride (a byproduct of polysilicon production) directly into nearby farmlands. (Just for perspective, 4 tons of this toxic byproduct is produced for every ton of polysilicon.) Because it is expensive and time-consuming to set up systems to recycle the hazardous materials, companies are instead dumping indiscriminately, and people close to these sites are complaining of illness, crop failures, acrid air, and dead fields. How to proceed? Alt-energy companies around the globe need to make sure the factories from which they acquire their solar components are practicing environmentally responsible manufacturing.

We use fossil fuels to make green energy.
Yes, solar power produces clean energy, but it requires utilizing our current resources to produce it. For the green movement to be truly sustainable, we need to make sure we are not trading one environmental problem for another. Yes, the world needs renewable energy as our fossil fuels dwindle, but we need to make sure we are not polluting and depleting to acquire and perfect the new technology.

The good news.
Greensters can take heart, though. There is a still bright side to solar. According to recent studies cited in the Scientific American, while it takes resources and energy to make solar panels, we could still reduce our greenhouse gasses by 90 percent if photovoltaic power replaced fossil-fuel-based power. And in the meantime, there are organizations popping up to prevent and monitor rampant e-waste in the solar industry. PV Cycle, for example, is a European company dedicated to collecting and recycling end-of-life modules in solar panels. Smarty-pants tech institutes are exploring the use of carbon electrodes, as opposed to using the earth's rapidly depleting indium tin oxide, to make LCDs and solar panels. And watchdog organizations such as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (mentioned earlier), which is dedicated to "creating social, economic, and environmental justice and promoting sustainable technology," are keeping a much-needed eye on the industry. Finally, is there gold in them thar hills? Perhaps reclaiming the precious materials used in solar panels will provide the incentive needed for more recycling/refurbishing companies to crop up and help keep the waste out of our landfills.

H/T to CCF.

John Coleman tells Congress: Man-Caused Global Warming Is False

Testimony of John Coleman before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Natural Resources of the United States Congress on April 7, 2009

Thank you to the Committee for the invitation to appear here today. And to any who listen to my remarks or read them later, thank you for your consideration of my testimony.I come before this Subcommittee with no allusions or expectations. I am aware that for the majority of the Committee and most involved government officials my conclusions will run counter to your interests and agenda and will be ignored. None-the-less, I have made the effort to be here today because I feel what I have to contribute should at least be in the record.

Here is what I know as scientific fact: There is no significant man-made global warming or climate change at this time, there has not been any in the past and there is little reason to fear any in the future.

I did not say that the activities of man do not alter the weather and climate, because it is clear they do. What I said there is no significant man-made climate change and none should be reasonably expected to occur in the future.

I have visited most of the National Parks in the United States and love them. I have enormous appreciation for the efforts to protect our environment and provide places and ways for the citizens to enjoy the amazing beauty and powerful natural forces at work around us and interact with the thousands of species that live in those parks and related natural areas. Clearly, it is a huge task to balance between access and protection. I honor that.

But here is crux of what I can contribute to the issue before us. The science behind this current global warming, man-made climate change commotion, has failed to verify. The hypothesis that our carbon footprints produced by our use of fossil fuels is producing a significant greenhouse effect that will lead to climate calamity has failed to verify. So I repeat, there is no significant man-made global climate change.

I have studied the research papers of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and examined the science presented by Al Gore in his books, his movie and his power point. I have traced the history of the development of the concept of carbon dioxide in the exhaust from our cars, power plants and industrial plants entering the atmosphere and interacting with the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor, to magnify warming. It all collapses into a failed theory when examined with scientific care. I am not alone in reaching this conclusion. In the past year, 34 thousand scientists, 10 thousand with PhDs, have signed a statement debunking global warming.

There is solid scientific evidence that by burning fossil fuels our civilization increases the amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere. However, even after 150 years of burning fossil fuels, CO2 remains a tiny trace gas. To be precise only 380 molecules out of every one million are CO2. Scientists with an anti-fossil fuel agenda developed a theory of radiative forcing to explain how this trace gas could create runaway greenhouse warming. They put that theory into general circulation computer models. Their models then projected a continuous rapid rise in global temperatures year after year. In the 1980s and 1990's the models seemed on track as temperatures climbed. But in 1998 the warming stopped. By 2002 a rapid cooling had begun. That cooling continues today. The computer proof has failed. It has become clear the warming in the 80s and 90s was at the peak of a solar cycle and now that the sun has gone very quiet, cooling has gripped the planet. Yet the models continue to predict warming that is not happening. There is no significant warming from CO2.

I am painfully aware that global warming has become a political issue. I deeply regret that. The latest Gallup Poll documents the wide divide on the issue: 66 percent of Republicans are of the opinion that the claims of global warming are exaggerated; only 22 percent of Democrats are of that position. I want to make very clear my conclusion is in no way politically based.

I was a science reporter for ABC News in the 1970's when there was a similar flurry of excitement about a coming Ice Age. Thankfully our government and political parties didn't get involved so when the science got things straightened out, the frenzy faded away. Unfortunately, this time people with the anti fossil fuel agenda had jumped on the global warming bandwagon and just won't let go. They have calmed the rhetoric to climate change, but they are still all wrapped up in cap and trade to tax our use of fossil fuels. This will do great harm to our economy but do nothing of consequence to protect the environment.

My advice to the National Park Service and the Subcommittee is: Do nothing to mitigate man-made global warming or climate change, because there is none. Reject the extremist agendas and concentrate on your wonderful work protecting our natural resources and making natural experiences available to us citizens of today and generations to follow.

To any who have an interest in pursuing the sources behind my scientific conclusions I provide a list of internet links with my written testimony.

Again, thank you for allowing me to present my testimony and place it into the record.

Two Palm Springs TV stations were there. Their coverage also accepted the dominate line of the day, but both did include me in their reports. Links to their video are below:

KESQ CHANNEL 3

KPSP CHANNEL 2

Links referenced in John Coleman’s remarks

http://icecap.us/

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/

http://www.nrdc.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/

http://www.climateaudit.org/

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/08/

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf

http://surfacestations.org/

http://climatesci.org/2008/01/21/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/

http://worldcoolers.org/co2map/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/

http://nzclimatescience.net/

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?

http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner

From Pete'sPlace

Antarctic sea ice gain outstrips Arctic loss

By Heliogenic Climate Change
































"According to the University of Illinois, Antarctic sea ice area is nearly 30% above normal and the anomaly has reached 1,000,000 km2. ...

According to NSIDC, over the last 30 years Antarctic sea ice extent has been growing at a rate of nearly 5% per decade, and set a record maximum last year. ...

Sadly though, biologists using computer models have forecast that some Penguins are headed for extinction due to loss of Antarctic sea ice. ...

The 30% excess of ice has not been widely reported, but there has been lots of talk in the press the last couple of days about ice breaking off the Wilkins Ice Shelf - the broken area being about one pixel in the NSIDC image above. Looking at the Wilkins picture below, I’m having a very tough time seeing any evidence of melting around the fractures, or any evidence of water pooling on the surface. Normally, such fractures are caused by tensile or shear stress, likely due to a change in currents. Ice melts from the edges towards the center, and that ice is very thick - up to 200 metres. Blaming the clean fractures seen below on warming and melting seems highly questionable - at best. I suggest bringing some actual structural and mechanical engineers into the discussion - how’s that for a novel idea in the AGW world?

Meanwhile in the Arctic, sea ice area is about 500,000 km2 below normal, which means that global sea ice area (Arctic + Antarctic) is about 500,000 km2 above normal. ... Sounds like a real global meltdown, doesn’t it?" "Polar ice worries -- north and south"

Marc Morano's Climate Depot is now officially up and running

By Justin Credible

Marc Morano's highly anticipated "climate and environmental clearinghouse" is now online and promises to be an outstanding source of valuable information, education, and news releases.

Congratulations Marc, we wish you all the best and pledge our full support.

ClimateDepot.com

Marc Morano is the executive editor and chief correspondent for ClimateDepot.com, a global warming and eco-news center founded in 2009. Marc Morano served for three years as a senior advisor, speechwriter, and climate researcher for U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and managed the award-winning communication operations of the GOP side of the EPW Committee. Morano joined the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as the majority Communications Director in June 2006 after a decade and a half as a working journalist, documentary maker, radio talk show host, and national television correspondent.

Morano’s Senate website won the coveted 2007 Gold Mouse Award for being the "Best of the Best." The award was made possible by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and the National Science Foundation. Morano’s website got so many readers in January of 2007 that the volume shut down the entire Senate website, including every Senator’s personal websites. Morano spearheaded the 2007 groundbreaking report of 400-plus dissenting scientists and the follow-up 2008 report of 650-plus scientists dissenting from man-made global warming fears. Gallup polling organization essentially recognized the impact of the U.S. Senate EPW website in a May 29, 2008 analysis. “Republican spokespersons and conservative commentators have long challenged IPCC reports as reflecting the ‘scientific consensus’ on global warming by highlighting the views of a modest number of ‘skeptic’ or ‘contrarian’ scientists who question the IPCC conclusions.” Gallup concluded: “Growing skepticism about news coverage of global warming clearly goes hand in hand with Republicans' declining belief that it is already occurring.” (LINK)

Morano, who has spent years researching climate change, environmental, and energy issues, traveled to Greenland in 2007 to investigate global warming claims. As Senate staff, Morano also attended the United Nation’s climate eco-conferences held in Kenya, Indonesia, and Poland in 2006, 2007, and 2008.

Morano has held both White House and Capitol Hill Press credentials and was a member of the Society of Professional Journalists. He has attended and reported on numerous international eco-conferences and the 2002 UN-sponsored Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Morano was the investigative reporter for Cybercast News Service in Washington, DC. He has also served as a reporter/producer for the nationally syndicated television newsmagazine “American Investigator.” His reports have included an exposé on the Free Willy Keiko Foundation, an exclusive report on the safety of organic foods, and reports on the endangered species act and property rights. In 2000, his investigative television documentary “Amazon Rainforest: Clear-Cutting the Myths” created an international firestorm.

Morano served as the television reporter/producer for the nationally syndicated “Rush Limbaugh, the Television Show,” during the show’s four-year run (1992-1996). Morano, referred to by Mr. Limbaugh as “Our Man in Washington,” had the dubious distinction of being the first journalist in history to have his television camera seized at the Clinton White House while on assignment with the Limbaugh show.

His reporting has made international news, including appearances and coverage on CNN, Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes, BBC TV, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, US Weekly Magazine, web links from the Drudge Report, the entertainment show Extra TV, and Politically Incorrect w/ Bill Maher.

Morano was born in Washington, DC, and grew up in McLean, VA. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at George Mason University.

Contact: Marc Morano

Valley Times Readers Not Falling For the CO2 Scam

Letter to the Editor, April 6, 2009

Warming scam

This regarding the April 2 headline "Hot state, extreme dangers."

Global warming caused by CO2 and cap-and-trade are con games, worse than Bernie Madoff. They have been created by the left wing to lead the world to a socialist world government financed by the U.S.

CO2 makes up less than 0.04 percent of our atmosphere (386 ppm). And, 500,000 years of temperature and CO2 data have proved that CO2 increases have FOLLOWED temperature increases by an average of 800 years. There is absolutely no actual evidence that CO2 causes global warming.

For the past 10 years, the Earth has been cooling, while CO2 has increased about 20 ppm (0.002 percent). There are more than 31,000 U.S. scientists who have signed a petition to our government that agrees with this view.

CO2 is a beneficial element in our atmosphere and increases the growth rate of crops and forests, as many scientific studies have shown.

The way to derail and then stop this swindle of the American people is to let your Congress person know that we've caught on to the scam and then vote out the remaining congressional supporters of CO2 reduction.

Richard Gibbs

Dublin

Read more here.

Climate change propaganda brainwashing kids, says Senator Cory Bernardi

By Mark Kenny, Political Editor, Canberra

LIBERAL Senator Cory Bernardi has accused Climate Change Minister Penny Wong of pushing "extreme propaganda" on the nation's schoolchildren.

Senator Bernardi, who does not disguise his view that man-made climate change is a myth, has attacked a new climate change awareness competition for schoolchildren launched by Senator Wong yesterday.

The competition "Think Climate, Think Change," asks students in years 3 to 9 to use short stories, poems and art work to answer the question "what does climate change mean to me?"

First prize is a trip for two to Canberra (the winner and a parent), a Nintendo Wii console, sports kit and Wii Fit pack, and books for the winner's school.

Senator Bernardi slammed the competition.

"Encouraging children to look after the environment is laudable aim but this seems to have more in common with the ministry of propaganda than the balanced education of our children," he told AdelaideNow.

"One can only guess that the only children eligible to win this competition will be those who conform to the Rudd Government and Minister Wong's extreme political propaganda about climate change.

"I doubt the competition materials will include any discussion of how the Rudd Government ETS (emissions trading scheme) will export Australian industry overseas and result in hundreds of thousands of job losses for Australian workers."

Ms Wong said the competition came about because children are naturally concerned about the environment and their future.

"Schoolchildren from all over Australia have written to me asking about climate change and sharing their ideas," she said.

"Young Australians are very well informed when it comes to the issue of climate change - they understand that we need to take action now."

The national competition will open on Tuesday April 24 and close two months later on June 24.

Senator Wong said the winner would be invited to pass on their ideas to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and other senior ministers when they are flown to Canberra.

Strike two for David Suzuki's lies: Outdoor hockey alive and well in Gretzky's birthplace

By Bob Mackin, 24 Hours Vancouver

The Canadian winter tradition of outdoor hockey is alive and well in the birthplace of the Great One, despite comments by David Suzuki at a Vancouver news conference on Monday.

After releasing his foundation's On Thin Ice: Winter Sports and Climate Change report, Suzuki told 24 hours: "The one sport in Canada that Canadians respond to is hockey, the folklore of Canada is Wayne Gretzky, learning how to play in the backyard. Do you think in Brantford now you could learn to play hockey in the backyard? I don't think so."

Brantford, Ont. Mayor Mike Hancock said kids are still honing their skills on natural rinks.

"We still maintain approximately 22 outdoor rink locations each year and the duration of rink operations is generally an eight to 10 week period," Hancock said.

Hancock said area winters have been less harsh than they were 20 years ago and the outdoor hockey season isn't as long as it once was, but "the last couple have been quite severe, I can tell you by my snow-ploughing budget.

"The comment around is 'damn, I wish we had more global warming.'"

In January, the Brant County Health Unit issued four cold weather alerts when temperatures dipped below -15 degrees Celsius without windchill. Environment Canada said January weather was 7 degrees Celsius colder than normal.

----

(Thanks for the heads up, Bob!)

See strike one HERE.

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, April 10th 2009

By The Daily Bayonet

Editor's note: ILCD would like to extend a special thanks to The Daily Bayonet for the extra special endorsement this week!
Sincerely,
Justin, AKA the tree.

Holy Thursday it's Easter already, and how better to enjoy a good Good Friday than with some climate skepticism. Enjoy your weekly summary, I know I did.

Al Gore, profiteer prophet and leader of the cult of climate crisis met privately with Mormon leaders this week. I suspect he's giving them tips on how to send the Church of LDS mainstream.

Credulous morons watched Al's slideshow and were immediately terrified of catastrophic sea level rise that has been long discredited.

Spare a thought for Al, he lost this year's Hypocrite of the Year Award to Peta. Does he ever finish first, ever?

Klockarman's Al Gore /AIT Index falls again after a hopeful uptick last month.

Coral Ridge Ministries, another religious outfit, has a short piece on Al Gore Rhythms. Heh.

David Suzuki, Canada's own cuddly eco-totalitarian is getting attacked. By other environmentalists. If you think I'm hard on Suzuki, you should see how vicious the green-on-green action can get.

See the difference between an alarmist and a skeptic? The alarmist is the name-calling emotional clown and the skeptic is the calm dude. Having science on your side will do that. Anyhow, not content with being embarrassed by his defeat, Romm decided to banish Morano from his site in a petty act worthy of any 13 year old girl. He also attacked Newsbusters for calling him out on a silly claim that wind power employs more people than the coal industry. They debunk that claim here.

Joe Romm, far more entertaining than James Hanson, if not quite as dangerous. With alarmists like this leading the AGW scam, it won't be long before the whole thing collapses in a heap of wailing asshats.

Emma Watson is a young actress famous for playing Harry Potter's wannabe main squeeze with the awkward name of Hormonia, or something. She once wrote a school project on Hurricane Katrina and global warming, so naturally Greenpeace wants her to become their global ambassador. It's magical.

Nice wind farm you got there, shame if something should happen to it. Greens in the US have drawn up a map to show renewable energy producers where not to go.

Greenpeace Canada, giving kids the radiation pills they need.

IPCC predictions 'A Classic Case of Alarmism':

Hillary Clinton, a woman so smart that she lost the Democratic primaries to President Neophyte, is now a climate expert. More on the Wilkins ice hysteria at ACM.

Never mind the science, it's more alarmism we need. A 'scientist' proclaims that there is a correlation between the disappearing Arctic ice and AGW. Inconveniently, his own organization's research finds otherwise. CCF has more on the story here.

Tom Nelson catches the WWF making stuff up. Oddly, the wrestlers that the WWF sued for the rights to the acronym now have more credibility than the panda cuddlers.

The Obama administration is looking into geo-engineering to block the sun's rays. Which is odd, because the greens claim that the sun has nothing to do with global warming, it's a trace gas that's to blame.

Pen Hadow's Catlin expedition is in trouble. The global warming in the Arctic has caused frostbite and hypothermia. Perhaps Hadow will require another rescue that puts lives in danger? Or, they could leave him there. Just an idea.

Richard Branson, entreprenuer and global ego, believes in AGW:

Branson is behind green initiatives like launching rockets into space for profit and supporting race cars that sip gas at a miserly 3 miles per gallon. But he's not a hypocrite, just an idiot.

Global warming causes killer heatwaves. In Summertime. In Australia. Who knew?

Pity the smokers. I used to be one. Not only have smokers been forced outside (not fun in Canada), now greens want to ban the heaters that keep smokers alive. The comparison of greens to puritans is becoming undeniable:

President Obama (him again?) wants to ramp up the ethanol industry. Inconveniently the ethanol industry is too busy going out of business to ramp up. Is this what stimulus means?

AGW skeptic Chris Horner appeared on Pajama TV and talked alarmist blasphemy for 15 minutes; unfortunately they ran out of time to announce if he won the Anderson Cooper look-alike competition.

Fred Singer, climate skeptic, on video at Gore Lied. Stick with it, only the first few seconds are in not Austrian.

It's the sun, stupid. Part the first.

Bloggers, doing the job the MSM won't do and tell the other side of the global warming hoax. You're welcome.

Global warming is so bad that snowfall records are being beaten all over North America. It's the Gore Effect on steroids.

Barry Hawaii 5-O's attempt to fast-track his cap and trade socialist agenda took a swift kick in its soft parts when 26 Democrats joined GOP senators to defeat a prosedural motion.

Dr. Roy Spencer, still talking sense about the real science of global warming, and this week's must read link.

It's the sun, stupid. Part the second.

AGW denier and hippy head-popper Marc Morano has launched a new blog aimed at 'redefining global warming reporting.

The dark underbelly of the AGW alarmist agenda, we're losing freedoms for climate change.

New(ish) blogger I Love Carbon Dioxide lays out his manifesto for fighting the greens. There is no truth to the rumor that the blogger behind the site is, in fact, a hungry tree.

You know what else causes global warming? Aerosols, that's what. Oh, and NASA research discovered this inconvenient truth. NASA's spokes-moron James Hanson was unavailable for repeatable comment.

Prescient Obama (not a typo) is being called out by pork producers to study the effects of his ethanol love fest. And by pork producers I mean farmers that raise pigs, not Congress.

Livestock, tasty carbon sinks, not planet-destroying fart machines. Cows everywhere celebrate.

and in a perfect segway.... Wind power is the future. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Green death cultists want the Earth's population to be decreased (yet fail to lead the way), while capitalist lackeys at Monsanto just keep making better crops. You just know that hippies everywhere will be angered by farmer's abilities to keep an inconvenient number of people alive.

Wind power is viable and good for the environment. Oh, wait, no it's not.

Aussie greens want old people to die. No, really.

Tom Nelson uncovers the self-supporting carbon-trading industry. It's scammerific!

A Swede blows a raspberry at the newspaper industry for spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.

Proving the above Swede's point, in fine style, the LA Times imagines the entire globe as Australia. Which would be pretty cool if it meant we had more Nicole Kidmans around, but that's not what the LAT has in mind:

The Irish Times, not to be outdone by Hollywood journo's cites the old standard of melting arctic ice. Never let a fact spoil a good story, begorrah. Now pour me a Guiness and pass me a freshly oiled Leprechaun.

The National Post's David Dias does some global warming denying of his own and tries to convince himself and depressed hippies everywhere that their AGW scam is not failing. A hint, the corporations he cites as 'bought in' will drop the green agenda like a hot rock as soon they're sure people don't care. And people don't care.

Canada's Prime Minister popped some hippy heads with his choice of clean energy envoy to the US. You just know he's still giggling about that one.

A nuclear prof. takes on the AGW crowd:

Some news outlets are bucking the trend and still asking awkward questions. Even Newsweek has a nagging doubt.

Vanity Fair goes green by cancelling its annual Green Issue, which they claim to be no indicator that people don't care about the green issues. Sure, OK, whatever.

The Globe and Mail's Rex Murphy points out the inconvenient truth of what is the inevitable outcome if we follow the AGW believers:

That's a wrap for another week. Have a safe and eggciting Easter weekend, here's an irreverant bonus video for you:

WUWT Ice Survey Shows Thickening Arctic Ice

By Steven Goddard via Watts Up With That?

The WUWT Arctic Ice Thickness Survey has been conducted from the comfort of a warm living room over the last half hour, without sponsors, excessive CO2 emissions or hypothermia. The data is collected from the US military web site http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil. All of the active military buoys show significant thickening ice over the past six months to a year, as seen below.

Location of military buoys

Location of Catlin team relative to buoy 2008D and the North Pole

Buoy 2008B has thickened by more than half a metre since last autumn, and is more than 3 metres thick.

2008C also shows thickening by more than half a metre since last autumn, and is nearly 4 metres thick.

2008D has not been updated since early February, but showed thickening and is 3.5 metres thick. It is close to the Catlin team position.

2007J has thickened more than half a metre, and is nearly 4 metres thick.
2006C has thickened by nearly a full metre over the past year, and is more than 3 metres thick

UPDATE: The military site also has graphs which are supposed to show depth. It appears that many of these are broken, which is why I used the more reliable temperature graphs. The depth at which the ice drops below the freezing point of seawater (-2C) is of course the bottom of the ice. You can’t have water in a liquid state below it’s freezing point.

Some of the buoys have reliable depth data, and they correspond closely to the temperature data - for example 2007J which shows 400cm for both.
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/buoy_plots/ice2007J.gif
http://imbcrrel.usace.army.mil/buoy_plots/2007J.gif

COMMON SENSE ENERGY

An email from geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch [kalhnd@shaw.ca]

With no new coal fired power plants constructed in the USA since the hysteria over global warming started, the only competition for oil was wind power and the price of a barrel of oil skyrocketed to $147/bbl until the economic collapse sent the price down to $34/bbl.

In China, which was politically excluded from the Kyoto Protocol, coal fired power plants were being constructed at a rate of two a week, and unlike the power plants in the USA which capture virtually all of the pollutants, (CO2 is not a pollutant) these plants in China have no such pollution controls making the power even cheaper. (But create a serious pollution problem)

The net effect of this is that China was powering its economy at less than 2cents/kWh while the USA was attempting to compete with power costs at least five times greater because of global warming advocacy.

Add to this the high cost of oil that caused a doubling of transportation costs in two years, and with the financial institutions and investment houses operating without any fiscal constraints on either mortgages or market speculations; you have all the makings for economic collapse.

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of “global warming advocacy energy initiatives” is biofuels, and the effect that this had on food prices that were already high because of the increased transportation costs. With high oil prices, crops that produced the feedstock for biofuels became highly lucrative especially when government incentives were given. Biofuel crops were now unfairly competing with basic food staple crops, doubling the cost of food and quite literally starving the poor who can no longer afford these basic food staples.

Simply put, the economy is primarily controlled by the financial institutions and the markets, but it is powered by energy, and unless energy is bailed out, the trillion dollar bailouts of the economy will not succeed in reversing the economic decline.

Unlike the financial bailouts, there is no cost to the taxpayer to bail out energy; but there is a great political cost that none of the leaders seem to be willing to pay. All that has to be done is to demand that the IPCC make public the facts that there has been no global warming for over a decade, that the world has been cooling since 2002, and all this has occurred while CO2 emissions continue to rise demonstrating that there is no possible causal relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature. For good measure the leaders can also demand that the IPCC “come clean” and admit there never actually was any evidence that supported the AGW hypothesis, and that all their publications were designed to convince the world of a non existent impending danger for the sole purpose of supporting their misguided political agenda.

This is all that remains to be done to fix the economy of the USA, which will fix the rest of the world’s economies that are ultimately affected by the state of the US economy. Unfortunately politicians have, by political necessity, committed their political futures to pursuing the initiatives of the IPCC, and in order not to jeopardize their positions, they are willing to spend taxpayers money on financial bailouts, but are afraid and unwilling to confront the IPCC even though it won’t cost the taxpayer anything and will help the lower income citizens who have been most seriously affected by this crumbling economy.

The false statements of the IPCC are the only rational for the entire vilification of CO2, so if the IPCC is forced to admit that there is no physical basis for reducing CO2, all of the ridiculous and costly CO2 initiatives can stop being subsidized, and this money put into clean coal (in the true sense of the word and not the environmentalist’s bastardized version) and nuclear power developments that will reduce the cost of power and give industry a fighting chance.

The economy cannot support the wildly fluctuating oil price of the last two years and there is also a simple way around this problem if the IPCC is relegated to oblivion. In the past year, the USA consumed 19.485million barrels of oil per day (mmbbls/d) but produced only 8.508mmbbls/d; importing the deficit of 10.977mmbbls/d at rates that jumped between $147/bbl down to $34/bbl. Even as the economy deteriorates, the oil price is rising from the low of $34/bbl to over $52/bbl today, because the OPEC oil cartel is cutting back production to raise the price. This $18/bbl increase in the price of oil equates to an additional $4.6billion leaving the economy each month, because an outside cartel is controlling the price.

The economies of Canada and Mexico are so intertwined with that of the USA that the portion of this money that comes from Canadian and Mexican oil imports, stays within the North American economy. Collectively North America consumed 23.975million barrels of oil per day, but produced 15.058million barrels of oil per day. This leaves a deficit of 8.917mmbbls/d.

There is enough potential production in the Canadian Oil Sands, the Bakkan formation, and “oil from coal” production, coupled with intelligent use of oil (i.e. conservation) to completely remove this deficit; but none of these oil producing initiatives can be undertaken unless there is a long term stable oil price of around $60/bbl. All that the USA has to do is to set a fixed North American Oil price of $60/bbl that is guaranteed for the long term future. This is the only way that the heavy capital investment for these projects can be undertaken. There is enough oil in these three reserves to keep North America oil independent for at least the next century by which time someone will have figured out how to harness energy from nuclear fusion making oil irrelevant as an energy source.

As well, this initiative does not cost the taxpayer anything; but it goes against the dictates of the environmentalists because these resources produce CO2, and even though there is no actual increase in fossil fuel usage, facilities such as the Canadian Oil Sands have already been made environmental targets and the politicians are unwilling to risk political futures upsetting environmentalists if they undertake these common sense energy initiatives.

It is not a coincidence that when the Chinese overtook the USA in CO2 emissions in 2006, that the economy of China also increased dramatically while the US economy was starting to stagnate because of the limited and costly energy supply.

Renewables are listed as “wood, black liquor, other wood waste, municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agricultural by products, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic, and wind” and collectively these produced 2.21% of the US electrical power in 1997. (The year Kyoto was signed) Coal produced 52.83% of the electricity in 1997.

After all the rhetoric and cost and ten years of no global warming, by 2008 these renewables were increased to supplying 2.74% of the power; coal was reduced to supplying 48.61% of the power, and the difference was made up with natural gas which also is a fossil fuel and produces CO2.

In the last decade the cost of power went up and the emissions increased by 24%, and now instead of getting rid of this environmentalist blight on the economy, the government now wants to tax the poor even further with carbon taxes and cripple the economy by replacing cheap energy with energy that costs five times as much; all because they are more afraid of the environmentalists than the economic collapse that this will cause.

How many more years of global cooling with increased CO2 emissions will it take before common sense kicks in and the false doctrine of the IPCC is exposed? Tomorrow would not be soon enough!!

Source

The Vote that (may have) Changed the World

By Raymond Richman and Howard Richman, American Thinker

In a procedural vote on April 1, 2009, 26 Democratic Senators joined all of the Republicans in defeating, for now, a climate change bill that would have allowed fast-tracking of President Obama's cap-and-tax proposal so that it could be passed as part of the current Federal budget. (Click here to see how your Senator voted.) Senator Lamar Alexander called this "the biggest vote of the year."

The bill that would have passed would probably have resembled the Waxman-Markey discussion draft of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a bill proposal designed to combat global warming by encouraging the use of "renewable" energy sources (nuclear energy providers need not apply). So it is possible to look closely at the Waxman-Markey draft to see what the Senate rejected.

The draft is full of subsidies, while at the same time providing that electric utilities impose energy and efficiency standards on their customers to achieve one percent reduction of carbon emissions in 2012 increasing to 15 percent in 2020. (If renewable energy is going to be so plentiful and cheap, why does it require tremendous subsidies and command and control methods to achieve its goals?) But the worst part of the bill by far is its plan to auction rights to emit carbon dioxide in order to fight global warming, as noted in the bill's summary:

Global Warming Pollution Reduction Program. The draft establishes a market-based program for reducing global warming pollution from electric utilities, oil companies, large industrial sources, and other covered entities that collectively are responsible for 85% of U.S. global warming emissions. Under this program, covered entities must have tradable federal permits, called "allowances," for each ton of pollution emitted into the atmosphere. Entities that emit less than 25,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalent are not covered by this program. The program reduces the number of available allowances issued each year to ensure that aggregate emissions from the covered entities are reduced by 3% below 2005 levels in 2012, 20% below 2005 levels in 2020, 42% below 2005 levels in 2030, and 83% below 2005 levels in 2050.

According to the Waxman-Markey draft, the bill "will create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance America's energy independence, and cut global warming pollution." None of this is true. This bill orders electric utilities to substitute expensive solar and wind power for inexpensive coal, oil, and natural gas. It would cause a loss of jobs in coal mining, oil drilling, and natural gas drilling. It would cost consumers higher prices for not only energy but for almost everything else they buy. As for enhancing America's energy independence, a bigger and faster contribution would be made by permitting offshore oil drilling, by encouraging drilling in Alaska, or by overriding Senator Harry Reid's opposition to developing a nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada.

Environmentalists are willing to let the BRIC countries (Brazil, India and China) postpone for decades meeting environmental standards because doing so would stifle their growth, but they want us unilaterally to immediately cut back on using carbon fuels, falsely claiming this will help our economy.

The worst effects of the bill would be upon United States competitiveness in international trade, thus chasing American manufacturing jobs to Brazil, India and China. In a new book just published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the authors pointed out that any climate bill would drive up the cost of American products, making them less competitive in U.S. and world markets, unless it includes border provisions, such as export subsidies and import duties.

The draft does contain weak provisions to keep American jobs from moving overseas, but those provisions entirely depend upon bureaucratic discretion. Here is the relevant part of the summary:

Ensuring Domestic Competitiveness. To ensure that U.S. manufacturers are not put at a disadvantage relative to overseas competitors, the draft authorizes companies in certain industrial sectors to receive "rebates" to compensate for additional costs incurred under the program. Sectors that use large amounts of energy, and produce commodities that are traded globally, would be eligible for the rebates. If the President finds that the rebate provisions do not sufficiently correct competitive imbalances, the President is directed to establish a "border adjustment" program. Under that program, foreign manufacturers and importers would be required to pay for and hold special allowances to "cover" the carbon contained in U.S.-bound products.

Don't expect much help for U.S. manufacturers from this provision. Rebates and border adjustments would violate WTO rules. Our leaders have complied, even while those WTO rules produced huge trade deficits, costing us about seven million good paying manufacturing jobs. Foreign governments continue to exploit huge holes in the WTO rules, as through currency manipulations, while the United States government does nothing. The chances of the United States government violating WTO rules in order to stand up for American industry are very low.

The bill clearly imposes huge costs upon the American economy in a rush to combat global warming, but the earth is actually cooling at present. The bill's supporters are ignoring an alternative to the carbon dioxide theory, cosmoclimatology, which holds that changes in cosmic ray influx cause global temperature changes. Cosmic rays cause ionization that forms low level clouds which reflect the sun's heat back into space, resulting in lower temperatures. Sunspots fit into this theory because solar activity blocks out cosmic rays, leading to temporary periods of warming. For a recent summary of the sound evidence behind this theory, see Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark's 2007 paper.

Cosmoclimatology theory explains the extreme warmth of the second half of the 20th Century as resulting from unusually high solar activity, and the cooling period since 1998 as a result of reduced solar activity. Unlike the carbon dioxide theory, it explains the close correspondence between the earth's greenhouse ages and ice ages with the movements of the solar system through the spiral arms of the galaxy. It even explains the fact that Antarctic temperatures show temperature trends opposite from those observed in the northern hemisphere. (The white Antarctic ice reflects more light back into space when there is no cloud cover, while the Northern hemisphere reflects more light back into space when there is cloud cover.)

Cosmoclimatology is a fairly new branch of science. As scientists continue to gather data, they should be able to determine the amount of global warming that is left over for the carbon dioxide theory to explain. Meanwhile, with global temperatures declining as a result of lower sunspot activity, we may even be heading into a mini-ice age, like the one that occurred from 1645-1715, when sunspots were extremely scarce.

With the earth cooling at present, the pressing question is not whether Washington saves the planet from global warming. The pressing question is whether Washington destroys the American economy. Thirty-one Democratic senators just voted to do so. The fact that 26 Democratic Senators crossed party lines to vote against quick passage of cap-and-tax is a very good sign for America's economic future.

Antarctic Sea Ice Up Over 43% Since 1980, Where Is The Media?

By GlobalWarmingHoax.com

Sea ice at Antarctica is up over 43% since 1980 and we hear nothing in the news, yet Arctic ice is down less than 7% and they're all over it! We've been waiting for the main stream media to pick up on the increase of Antarctic ice but so far they're been totally absent. Guess its doesn't fit the plan.


From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado


Still no sign of the national media on the extraordinary growth of sea ice at the antarctic. They sure haven't missed a chance to point out the relatively small loss of ice at the arctic. Did did it ever occur to them that perhaps there is a natural process at work that has shifted ice growth from one pole to the other? Do they not want to admit that there are things man doesn't yet understand about how this planet works?

Remember that some of the “models” predicted increased antarctic ice, but they predicted increased “interior ice” due to increased snow fall. None of the models predicted increased sea ice around the antarctic. Yet that is what we have, and not just a little increase but a 43% increase since 1980!. This is highly significant yet hardly anyone in the main stream media (MSM) is talking about it.

Sea ice is much different than interior ice. Some of the models predicted increased ice over the interior of antarctic. If you've ever lived in the extreme cold temperature regions you already understand this. When it gets very cold the air become drier and it snows less, as the temperature warms towards freezing it actually snows more. Since the antarctic rarely even gets close to freezing its understandable that warming would cause more snow fall. Over time compacted snow would lead to more ice. But that is not what is happening here. We're seeing a dramatic increase in “sea ice”, this ice is over the ocean. Sea ice is caused by colder temperatures, not by increased snow fall. An increase of 43% is highly significant, but we hear nothing from either the MSM or the scientific community. Especially compared to the out 6%-7% decrease at the arctic (this isn't year over year, this is a 6% decline since 1980!).

Antarctic Sea Ice for March

              Extent                    Concentration
2009     5.0 million sq km            2.9 million sq km
1997     3.8 million sq km            2.2 million sq km
1980  3.5 million sq km            2.0 million sq km

This is an increase of 45% for ice concentration since 1980. This continues a long trend that has been noted here for several months..

Interior ice is also increasing but not due to warming as the models have predicted. According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the main stream media has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions. They regularly show Antarctic sea ice shelves breaking apart, which is an entirely normal process (though they never tell you that part). The main stream media and certain segments of the scientific community truly must have no shame.

If you have doubts about the increase in ice you can run the numbers yourself at the National Snow and Ice Data Center's website (part of the University of Colorado and funded by the National Science Foundation).

And if you want to read something really amusing take a gander at Michael Asher Blog about climate modelers trying to explain antarctic warming.... agh .. cooling....agh... warming it's delightful.