ClimateGate Professor Calls G-Warming Skeptic 'A**hole' on Live TV (Video)

Via Newsbusters:

A professor at the university in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal called global warming skeptic Marc Morano "an a**hole" on live television Friday.

This marvelously came moments after Andrew Watson, a professor at the University of East Anglia, told the BBC host moderating the discussion that the controversy surrounding e-mail messages obtained from his school's computers is "a real setback not because there's anything wrong with the science, but because the character assassination and the temperature of the debate which you can just see from our colleague in America is just obsuring the important issue."

Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters (Video)

Oh the irony...Climate Change. The joke that keeps giving.

Priceless.

The Daily Mail reports:

The Met Office has caused a storm of controversy after it was revealed their £30million supercomputer designed to predict climate change is one of Britain's worst polluters.

The massive machine - the UK's most powerful computer with a whopping 15 million megabytes of memory - was installed in the Met Office's headquarters in Exeter, Devon.

It is capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second to feed data to 400 scientists and uses 1.2 megawatts of energy to run - enough to power more than 1,000 homes.

The machine was hailed as the 'future of weather prediction' with the ability to produce more accurate forecasts and produce climate change modelling.

However the Met Office's HQ has now been named as one of the worst buildings in Britain for pollution - responsible for more than 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

It says 75 per cent of its carbon footprint is produced by the super computer meaning the machine is officially one of the country's least green machines.

President Obama On Americas Efforts To Stop Climate Change (Video)

Obama says United States must lead the way to reduce our "carbon footprint". This dangerous rhetoric and hype over climate change led to the House of Representatives passing "cap and trade"; a new energy tax that will, in Obama's own wordes, "necessarily" cause energy prices to skyrocket!

And of course, the America-hating President did not waste another opportunity to blast the US on foreign soil.

"In the past the United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities. So let me be clear. Those days are over," he said at the G8 Summit in L'Aquila, Italy.

Republican Rep.: Climate Change Cap and Trade Bill Will Create "Global Warming Gestapo" (Video)

“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.” --Barack Obama, January, 2008

Rep. Steve Scalise gets medieval on "Cap and Trade". The White House recently lied about the economic impact of so-called "green jobs". Read more on the legislation here.




Rep. Michele Bachmann recently pointed out Obama's "cap and trade" is really a tax on everyone for the use of energy. She said it will boost unemployment and drive businesses and jobs overseas to countries like China and India that don't have such a tax. In addition, she correctly points out that energy costs will double under the "cap and trade" energy tax.

Team "O" is getting ready to join the international "climate change" fleecing of tax dollars and jobs in America.

Recently, Fox News obtained a UN document which details how a "climate change" plan will use fake science to induce a massive worldwide redistribution of wealth in an attempt to control the global economy.

A new study from Spain illustrates the economic detriment of the country's "green jobs" plan. For every so-called "Green Job" created, at least 2.2 jobs from related industries are lost. Net result: thousands of job losses at the expense of appeasing radical environmentalists.

A recent Heritage study suggests that Obama's "Cap and trade" energy plan may cost upwards of $7 Trillion. "

Cap and trade" programs have killed jobs in California and the European Union.

The CBO estimates that "cap and trade" generally decreases revenue to the Federal Government, leading to an increased deficit.

Obama's "cap and trade" energy plan -- which he said last month he would sign -- may cost over $2 Trillion and up to 4 million jobs.

Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. With its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, it would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.

Not to mention, science has yet to show that "cap and trade" will actually do anything for so-called "climate change".

Obama's New CAFE Standards: Pandering to Environmentalists Puts Strain On Already Struggling Auto Industy, Zero Impact On Emissions, Less Safe Autos

For starters, automobile emissions account for a mere 17% of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. These new CAFE standards will have a minimal impact on the environment.

The new standards will cause auto prices to rise $1300 more per vehicle. What is the cost benefit here? It's ridiculous.

In a nutshell, CAFE standards require any given auto maker to have an average Fuel Economy of a fixed number. So, an SUV which may get 15 -20 MPG must be offset by a "green" putt-putt car or hybrid which nobody wants -- one of the reasons why the auto makers are currently struggling.



"Partial Commen Sense"



The original Cafe Standards legislation was enacted to counter an OPEC oil embargo by making an effort to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

Over 30 years later, we are still dependant upon foreign oil, if not moreso. So in that sense, CAFE has failed.

In addition, one major factor in producing more fuel-efficient cars is the cars become lighter and less safe. Auto fatalities in these types of cars have increased. So what is the benefit of "saving the planet" if people are not around to see it?

Finally, statistics show that the more fuel efficient a car becomes, the more the owner will drive! So any "per mile" savings in emissions will be offset with increased driving!

Obama's proposal has nothing to do with reducing energy Independence or protecting the environment and everything to do with pandering to a very powerful, very wealthy voting block -- the Environmental Wing of the Democratic party. Make no mistake -- while Obama continues to blast Wall Street and attack "greed" as wrong, he is helping out the industry of "climate-change".

Yet again, Democrats are placing politics over principle; garnering votes ahead of actually helping Americans.

History of CAFE Standards:

In 1975, the U.S. Congress assigned responsibility for setting automobile mileage standards to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is housed within the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In 2002, the State of California passed AB 1493, legislation which regulated auto carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel economy.

In 2004, the State of California finalized carbon dioxide regulations for automobiles. Automakers challenged the state action in federal court, saying only the federal government can set mileage standards to ensure a consistent fuel economy program across the country.

In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)should review possible dangers from CO2 emissions.

In December 2007, automakers supported Congress passing the Energy Independence and Security Act requiring automakers to increase fuel economy by at least 40% to 35 mpg -- thereby reducing CO2 by at least 30% -- by 2020.

In 2008, the Bush Administration denied California's request for a waiver from the federal Clean Air Act to implement its own CO2 program.

In January 2009, President Obama directed EPA to review the waiver decision.

In March, NHTSA raised Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars in model year 2011 to 30.2 mpg, and a combined standard for cars and light trucks (minivans, SUVs, pickups) to 27.3 mpg. (The standard is based on what consumers purchase. That is, the standard represents the average mileage achieved by all vehicles sold by a manufacturer.)

In April, EPA issued a proposed finding that CO2 poses a danger to health and welfare, opening the door to federal regulation of CO2 from all sources. The U.S. House of Representatives also began hearings on climate change legislation during April.

More Lies From Team Obama: White House Green Jobs Adviser Van Jones On Conservative Attacks On Green Job Initiatives (Video)

Special Adviser for Green Jobs to the White House Council on Environmental Quality Van Jones talks about the Spanish study being used by conservatives to attack green job initiatives.

It's amazing that Jones claims the Wall Street Journal is pro-Green Jobs. Check out this WSJ article: "California's 'Green Jobs' Experiment Isn't Going Well"

The Spanish study he refers to illustrates the economic detriment of the country's "green jobs" plan. For every so-called "Green Job" created, at least 2.2 jobs from related industries are lost. Net result: thousands of job losses at the expense of appeasing radical environmentalists.



Bloomberg reported in March:

Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one createdif Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.” --Barack Obama, January, 2008

Rep. Michele Bachmann recently pointed out Obama's "cap and trade" is really a tax on everyone for the use of energy. She said it will boost unemployment and drive businesses and jobs overseas to countries like China and India that don't have such a tax. In addition, she correctly points out that energy costs will double under the "cap and trade" energy tax.

Team "O" is getting ready to join the international "climate change" fleecing of tax dollars and jobs in America.

Recently, Fox News obtained a UN document which details how a "climate change" plan will use fake science to induce a massive worldwide redistribution of wealth in an attempt to control the global economy.

A new study from Spain illustrates the economic detriment of the country's "green jobs" plan. For every so-called "Green Job" created, at least 2.2 jobs from related industries are lost. Net result: thousands of job losses at the expense of appeasing radical environmentalists.

A recent Heritage study suggests that Obama's "Cap and trade" energy plan may cost upwards of $7 Trillion. "

Cap and trade" programs have killed jobs in California and the European Union.

The CBO estimates that "cap and trade" generally decreases revenue to the Federal Government, leading to an increased deficit.

Obama's "cap and trade" energy plan -- which he said last month he would sign -- may cost over $2 Trillion and up to 4 million jobs.

Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. With its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, it would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.

Not to mention, science has yet to show that "cap and trade" will actually do anything for so-called "climate change".

CNSNews reports:

The congressional Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan to tax carbon emissions could cost every American family as much as $3,100 a year and is equivalent to a “declaration of war on the Midwest,” Republican lawmakers told CNSNews.com this week.

Why Obama’s ‘Green Jobs’ Plan Won’t Work

Unfortunately, the idea of government “job creation” is a classic example of the broken window fallacy, which was explained by French economist Frédéric Bastiat way back in 1850. It is discouraging to think that, nearly 160 years later, politicians still do not understand Bastiat’s basic economic insight.

The idea of government ‘job creation’ is a classic example of the broken window fallacy, which was explained by French economist Frédéric Bastiat way back in 1850.He explained the fallacy as follows: Imagine some shopkeepers get their windows broken by a rock-throwing child. At first, people sympathize with the shopkeepers, until someone claims that the broken windows really aren’t that bad. After all, they “create work” for the glassmaker, who might then be able to buy more food, benefiting the grocer, or buy more clothes, benefiting the tailor. If enough windows are broken, the glassmaker might even hire an assistant, creating a job.

Did the child therefore do a public service by breaking the windows? No. We must also consider what the shopkeepers would have done with the money they used to fix their windows had those windows not been broken. Most likely, the shopkeepers would have ploughed that money into their store: perhaps they would have bought more stock from their suppliers, or maybe they would have hired new employees. Before the windows broke, the shopkeepers had intact windows and the money to purchase more goods or hire new workers. After the windows broke, they had to use that money to repair the windows, and thus were unable to expand their business.

Now consider Obama’s “green jobs” plan, which includes regulations, subsidies, and
renewable-power mandates. The “broken windows” in this case would be lost jobs and lost capital in the coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and automobile industries. These industries currently employ more than one million people directly. Conventional power plants would be closed and massive amounts of energy infrastructure would be dismantled. After breaking these windows, the Obama plan would then create new jobs in the renewable energy sector. The costs of replacing those windows would ultimately be passed on to taxpayers and energy consumers.

In short, the Obama plan reflects fallacious thinking of the first order. There may be sound reasons to switch from existing energy sources to renewables, including the need to slash greenhouse gas emissions, the need to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and the need to meet growing energy demand. If Americans wish to pay for a wholesale transformation of the energy industry, that is their choice. But let’s not lie about the costs, and let’s not espouse an economic fallacy that is nearly 160 years old. Obama’s “green jobs” plan would indeed create jobs, but it would do so by killing other jobs. Is that really the type of energy policy Americans want?

Bill Maher: Republicans Are "Morons" and "Don't Get Science" Of Global Warming Despite Warnings Of "Any Scientist That Matters" (Video)

Bill, I got news for you. Not every environmental scientist believes in your so-called "global warming".

MSNBC: "Republicans Don't Know The Difference Between A Cow Farting Out In A Field And Climate Change" (Video)

MS NBC's Ed Shultz gives House Minority Leader John Boehner a lesson in flatulence chemistry!

Despite his misquote about cow farts, I agree with Boehner about CO2; how exactly can the EPA consider carbon dioxide a "greenhouse gas"? It's the foundation of life on this planet. Plants are the foundation of the global food chain and plants use CO2 as the building block of photosynthesis.

Perhaps by "greenhouse gas", the EPA is referring to an actual greenhouse where plants are grown and not the made-up climate change hype of the "global greenhouse".

That said, farts are funny.

A Convenient Lie; Obama Invokes Goreacle At French Town Hall (Video)

"The pollution from cars in Boston or from factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the arctic. And that will disrupt weather patterns everywhere."

Fear-mongering? Nah, he's just making up shit now to pass his "cap and trade" energy plan.





Team "O" is getting ready to join the international "climate change" fleecing of tax dollars and jobs in America.

Last week, Fox News obtained a UN document which details how a "climate change" plan will use fake science to induce a massive worldwide redistribution of wealth in an attempt to control the global economy.

A new study from Spain illustrates the economic detriment of the country's "green jobs" plan. For every so-called "Green Job" created, at least 2.2 jobs from related industries are lost. Net result: thousands of job losses at the expense of appeasing radical environmentalists.

A recent Heritage study suggests that Obama's "Cap and trade" energy plan may cost upwards of $7 Trillion.

"Cap and trade" programs have killed jobs in California and the European Union.

The CBO estimates that "cap and trade" generally decreases revenue to the Federal Government, leading to an increased deficit.

Obama's "cap and trade" energy plan -- which he said last week he would sign -- may cost over $2 Trillion and up to 4 million jobs.

Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. With its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, it would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.

Not to mention, science has yet to show that "cap and trade" will actually do anything for so-called "climate change".

Daniel Hannan Asks G20 Protestor 'I Know What You Are Against. What Are You For?' (Video)

This is the guy who scolded British PM Gordon Brown, saying "you have run out of our money!"

This guy is the best! An international star for fiscal conservatism.

He appeared on Glenn Beck today to discuss the violent protests in London at the G20 summit.

Study: "Green Jobs" Destroy 2.2 Jobs For Every "Green Job" Created

Team "O" is getting ready to join the international "climate change" fleecing of tax dollars and jobs in America. Last week, Fox News obtained a UN document which details how a "climate change" plan will use fake science to induce a massive worldwide redistribution of wealth in an attempt to control the global economy.

A new study from Spain illustrates the economic detriment of the country's "green jobs" plan. For every so-called "Green Job" created, at least 2.2 jobs from related industries are lost. Net result: thousands of job losses at the expense of appeasing radical environmentalists.

A recent Heritage study suggests that Obama's "Cap and trade" energy plan may cost upwards of $7 Trillion.

"Cap and trade" programs have killed jobs in California and the European Union.

The CBO estimates that "cap and trade" generally decreases revenue to the Federal Government, leading to an increased deficit.

Obama's "cap and trade" energy plan -- which he said last week he would sign -- may cost over $2 Trillion and up to 4 million jobs.

Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. With its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, it would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.

Not to mention, science has yet to show that "cap and trade" will actually do anything for so-called "climate change".

March 27 (Bloomberg)

Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he
said in an interview.

Climate change: "Saving" the planet, screwing the citizens of the world. In the midst of a world-wide economic recession, let's kill jobs and drive energy costs through the roof.

Sounds about right for the Totalitarian-In-Chief.

"Cap and Trade" Update: Will Cost Up To $7 Trillion and 800,000 American Jobs Over Next 20 Years!

Team "O" is getting ready to join the international "climate change" fleecing of tax dollars and jobs in America. Yesterday, Fox News obtained a UN document which details how a "climate change" plan will use fake science to induce a massive worldwide redistribution of wealth in an attempt to conrol the global economy.

At its first negotiations on climate change, the Obama administration is trying to convince other countries that the U.S. does care about global warming and wants to shape an international accord.

After eight years on the sidelines, the U.S. says it is ready for a central role in developing a new agreement to slash greenhouse gases. But whether the U.S, which is the second largest source of heat-trapping pollution, is ready to sign onto a deal by year's end could depend on Congress.

"Cap and trade" programs have killed jobs in California and the European Union.

The CBO estimates that "cap and trade" generally decreases revenue to the Federal Government, leading to an increased deficit.

Obama's "cap and trade" energy plan -- which he said this week he would sign -- may cost over $2 Trillion and up to 4 million jobs.

Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. With its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, it would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.

Not to mention, science has yet to show that "cap and trade" will actually do anything for so-called "climate change".

From Heritage:

Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much.

Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. (For more, check out this Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis.)

Perhaps the most alarming part is the price tag associated with attempting to reduce such a small part of the atmosphere and something we really cannot control. Our analysis shows the cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per house¬hold. Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026. It is important to note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations–so-called green jobs–are taken into account. In total, the “climate revenue” (read: energy tax) could approach two trillion over eight years. Keep in mind, this is all for negligible environmental benefits.

***

Nevertheless, it’s easy to pretend the science on global warming is conclusive when environmentalist extremists suppress dissenting opinions. Economist Walter Williams provides a few examples and draws an interesting parallel:

There’s a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That’s the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view.

According to a March 11 article in London’s Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges.”

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.”

That was 1592. After 400 and some odd years, one would think it’d be a little different.

(H/T: Gateway Pundit)

VIDEO: California Considers Banning Black Cars To Fight Global Warming. Huh?

Okay, now those radical environmentalists are taking this way too far.

Banning black cars? Gimme a freaking break! Who the hell do these people think they are?

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan: Wealth Redistribution Of $$ Trillions to Form New World Economy

Cap and trade: the UN world power-grab version.

When do we get to kick these A-holes at the UN out of our country? Seriously. Let Europe have them; they serve European socialism much better than our interests.

At least those of us not named Obama, Pelosi or Reid.

"Cap and trade" programs have killed jobs in California and the European Union.

The CBO estimates that "cap and trade" generally decreases revenue to the Federal Government, leading to an increased deficit.

Obama's "cap and trade" energy plan may cost over $2 Trillion and up to 4 million jobs.

Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. With its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, it would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.

Not to mention, science has yet to show that "cap and trade" will actually do anything for so-called "climate change".

Fox News reports:

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations "information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.

The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.

In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the "Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol." Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.

Getting that deal done has become the United Nations' highest priority, and the Bonn meeting is seen as a critical step along the path to what the U.N. calls an "ambitious and effective international response to climate change," which is intended to culminate at the later gathering in Copenhagen.

Just how ambitious the U.N.'s goals are can be seen, but only dimly, in the note obtained by FOX News, which offers in sparse detail both positive and negative consequences of the tools that industrial nations will most likely use to enforce the greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The paper makes no effort to calculate the magnitude of the costs and disruption involved, but despite the discreet presentation, makes clear that they will reverberate across the entire global economic system.

Global Warming 2.0: Evidence Suggests Fossil Fuels NOT The Cause; Natural Phenomenon Explained

FYI...From Watts Up With That:

The Available Evidence Does Not Support Fossil Fuels as the Source of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (Part 1)

Because the increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has correlated with an increase in the use of fossil fuels, causation has been assumed.

Tom Quirk has tested this assumption including through an analysis of the time delay between northern and southern hemisphere variations in carbon dioxide. In a new paper in the journal Energy and Environment he writes:

“Over the last 20 years substantial amounts of CO2 derived from fossil fuel have been released into the atmosphere. This has moved from 5.0 gigatonnes of carbon in 1980 to 6.2 gigatonnes in 1990 to 7.0 gigatonnes in 2000… Over 95% of this CO2 has been released in the Northern Hemisphere…

“A tracer for CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere was provided by 14C created by nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2 showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…

“If 75% of CO2 from fossil fuel is emitted north of latitude 30 then some time lag might be expected due to the sharp year-to-year variations in the estimated amounts left in the atmosphere. A simple model, following the example of the 14Cdata with a one year mixing time, would suggest a delay of 6 months for CO2 changes in concentration in the Northern Hemisphere to appear in the Southern Hemisphere.

“A correlation plot of …year on year differences of monthly measurements at Mauna Loa against those at the South Pole [shows]… the time difference is positive when the South Pole data leads the Mauna Loa data. Any negative bias (asymmetry in the plot) would indicate a delayed arrival of CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere.

“There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases [in atmospheric carbon dioxide] may be coming from a global or equatorial source.”

Record-High 41% of Americans Think Global Warming Hype Is Over-Exaggerated

Gallup reports:

Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.

As recently as 2006, significantly more Americans thought the news underestimated the seriousness of global warming than said it exaggerated it, 38% vs. 30%. Now, according to Gallup's 2009 Environment survey, more Americans say the problem is exaggerated rather than underestimated, 41% vs. 28%.

The trend in the "exaggerated" response has been somewhat volatile since 2001, and the previous high point, 38%, came in 2004. Over the next two years, "exaggerated" sentiment fell to 31% and 30%. Still, as noted, the current 41% is the highest since Gallup's trend on this measure began in 1997.

$273 Million "Global Warming" Satellite Crashes Near Antarctica

The Climate Change Global Warming cynic in me is thrilled! Oh, the irony!

Did the crash harm any penguins or polar bears? Was any "sea ice" melted from the heat?

Does anyone find this to be hilarious? Too bad, so sad for the Radical Environmentalist Moonbats.

From Bloomberg:

Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- A satellite launched from California failed to reach orbit today, crashing into the sea near Antarctica and dooming a $273 million mission to study global- warming gases.

“The mission is lost,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration spokesman Steve Cole said in a telephone interview from the launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

The NASA satellite was to orbit 438 miles (705 kilometers) above Earth and observe how carbon dioxide enters and leaves the atmosphere, helping scientists predict future increases in the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming. Instead, the satellite fell into the ocean near Antarctica. The mission manager said at no point did the craft pass over land.

“It’s a huge disappointment for the entire team who have worked very hard for years and years and years,” NASA Launch Director Chuck Dovale said in a briefing from California. “Even when you do your very best, you can still fail.” The Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite didn’t reach orbit after a 1:55 a.m. launch because the “payload fairing” failed to separate, NASA said. The fairing covers the top of the satellite during launch and needs to come off so the satellite can detach from the rocket and enter orbit.

I'm sorry but this kind of disastrous failure just makes me crack up!

Former Astronaut, Sen. Harrison Schmitt: "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives."

"It’s one of the few times you’ve seen a sizable portion of scientists who ought to be objective take a political position and it’s coloring their objectivity." -- Former astronaut and U.S. Senator Harrison Schmitt

From The Boston Herald:

SANTA FE, N.M. - Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.

"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.

"They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.

Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.

Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."

Pretty much sums it up for me!

Radical Climate Czar Profits From Global Warming Myths

Environmentalism Energy Corruption Comes To Light In California

Left Wing Environmentalists: Use Global Warming Fear to Aid Redistribution of Wealth

Proof That Obama's "Green Jobs" Plan Is A Joke That Will Hurt The Economy, Hurt The Environment

From WhiteHouse.gov On Green Jobs

• Create Millions of New Green Jobs
  
• Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
  
• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
  
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
  
• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
  
• Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

From WhiteHouse.gov:

Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

From The Wall Street Journal:

The study(on cap-and-trade) concludes that the plan "will not only significantly reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions, but will also have a net positive effect on California's economic growth through 2020."

Press Secretary Roberts Gibbs On Green Jobs

QUESTION: The president again promised today that he could create a million new green jobs. Could you define in simple terms what is a green job? He keeps using that term, but nobody -- it doesn't seem like anyone really understands that that is. Right now people just keep reading, as you mentioned, jobs being lost. He keeps talking about creating...

GIBBS: Sure.

QUESTION: ... up to 4 million jobs, but 1 million that are green jobs.

GIBBS: Sure. Well...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Could you define that that is?

GIBBS: Sure. The president visited in this campaign a windmill manufacturer that produces -- it wouldn't even fit in this room -- turbine blades for windmills. Those are green jobs.
We went to...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... jobs already -- how is he going to create a million of them? The question is, a million...

GIBBS: Well, hopefully, we're going to build more windmills.

(LAUGHTER)

Hopefully, the tax credit that -- hopefully, the tax credit that goes through Congress -- you know, I don't want to get too deep into the weeds here -- no pun intended...

(LAUGHTER)
... but each year -- at least at the end of last year -- you had tax credits for -- for wind-energy jobs.

GIBBS: There's a one-year tax credit, right? And so the -- every year in August or September, there's a huge scurry to make sure that next year's tax credit is available.

Well, if you're going to build a windmill, the size of which is going to produce energy to lower the power costs of millions of Americans, there's some lead time that's involved.

So in instituting a renewed tax credit in this economic stimulus bill to give the producers of wind energy some understanding of what's available for them to use in creating these jobs, to give them some economic certainty is important.
That's just one example. I mean, we went to Ohio -- it all -- like I said, it all blurs together -- it was probably only a couple weeks ago, a week and a half ago -- where we went to a manufacturer for the -- the turbine itself, not the blade.
You've got biofuel jobs, you've got solar projects. I think there's any number of clean energy jobs that can drive not only our path toward energy independence, but also a path toward creating jobs.

The Media On Green Jobs

Obama forms green task force

California's 'Green Jobs' Experiment Isn't Going Well

Surprisingly, Huffington Post supports "Green Jobs"

Why Obama’s ‘Green Jobs’ Plan Won’t Work It would indeed create jobs, but it would do so by killing other jobs. Is that really what Americans want?

Abortion and Contraception Will Fight Global Warming? Climate "Expert" Says More Then Two Kids Is "Irresponsible"

Socialism Gone Wild!

Just last week we learned that Nancy Pelosi supports infanticide as an economic "stimulus".

Now we know her radical, environment, European socialist comrades think in similar Malthusian terms.

From London's Times, via Drudge:

Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.


Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.


A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.


“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.


“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”

Good Grief! The government already has its hands fully inside our pockets. Can't they at least stay out of the bedroom?

Green GP refuses to help women have large families

Go easy on the guilt trip, Jonathon

American Thinker