Global Warming? Nevermind . . .

In an interview with the BBC, British climate scientist Phil Jones, the man at the center of the University of East Anglia e-mail kerfuffle (also known as "Climategate"), made some startling admissions that run opposite of the "settled" conclusion that global warming exists and is the result of human activity.  The statements made by the professor include:

• There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
• The so-called "Medieval Warming Period" may have been just as significant as the current warming period.
• The issue of whether global warming currently exists is NOT settled according to the professor, who said, "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view."

I wonder if the High Priest of Global Warming, Al Gore, will now retract the statement he made to Congress in 2007 that the science of global warming is settled and that carbon emissions from human activity is the cause.  I doubt he will.  After all, he is making too much money from this enormous bamboozle.

Admittedly, Professor Jones spends a good part of the interview in academic double-speak as he attempts to salvage what is left of his reputation.  But other sources can be mined to support the implosion of the global warming thesis.  Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (aside:  UAH was the location of last week's shooting by deranged Professor Amy Bishop) is now stating that “temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change.”  Why should Professor Chisty's opinion matter?  Because he is a former lead author of the reports issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC").  And what does the IPCC have to do with Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia?  The Climactic Research Unit at the UEA, which serves as the data repository for the IPCC, was formerly headed by Professor Jones until he was forced to resign in the wake of the Climategate e-mail scandal.  You may recall the IPCC from the recent revelation that it deliberately overstated the evidence to support a conclusion that Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035.  According to the lead author of that IPCC report, the inaccurate statement was made because, "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."  In other words, the report's authors lied in an attempt to exert political pressure.  Wow.

I have only scratched the surface of all the revelations that are now coming out as the global warming house-of-cards comes tumbling down.  Yet at a time when the Federal budget is totally out-of-control, the Obama Administration continues to push for action to address the climate change phantom menace, action that will cost the taxpayers of America trillions of dollars.  It is time to bury this issue and get to work on putting Americans back to work and bringing the budget under control.

Shifting Opinions About Climate Change

The site for the climate change documentary "Not Evil Just Wrong" linked today to results of a new Pew Research Center poll about "global warming."  From April 2008 to October 2009, the percentage of people polled who believe that solid evidence of "global warming" exists has dropped 14%.  The poll also finds that only 36% of respondents who DO believe in "global warming" think that human activity is to blame.  Even among Democrats, the percentage who believe that "global warming" is a serious problem is only 49%.  As for cap and trade legislation, the poll found, disturbingly, that 55% of those polled knew nothing about the legislation and another 30% knew only a little.

Source:  Pew Research Center for People & the Press, October 22, 2009.

It is distressing that Congress likely will pass some form of legislation this year limiting greenhouse gas emissions and imposing a cap and trade system when so few people know anything about it.  If the legislation becomes law, the American people will start paying attention when the price they pay for everything increases due to the increased cost of energy.

Continuing the Theme

As world leaders prepare to gather in Copenhagen in December to sign yet another accord on CO2 emissions, The New York Times reports that world leaders are actually beginning to think about what it will cost.  According to the article, the cost to reach the CO2 goals to be set in Copenhagen may reach $1 Trillion per year by 2020.  Think about that number for a moment:  $1,000,000,000,000 per year.  And who is going to pay for it?  If you guessed "we will", then you would be correct.  The dollars reaped from huge tax increases and massive increases in energy costs that will result from the so-called "cap and trade" legislation that is pending in Congress will be shipped overseas to pay for the cost to produce "green" energy in the developing world.  And what of the other developed nations?  Won't they be paying too?  Not according to The New York Times:

Xie Zhenhua, the lead Chinese climate negotiator, speaking at a news conference in New York last month, said the United Nations should not expect China to pay.  “Global warming is a result of CO2 from developed countries during their industrialization,” Mr. Xie said. “China is one of the countries that has borne the brunt of that.”

Well, if China won't help with the cost, how about Europe?

Germany and France suggested at a recent Group of 20 meeting in London that they would contribute to the fund by reducing other types of aid.

In other words, if India and Africa expect to receive any aid from Europe to implement "green" energy, then they should also expect that other types of aid, such as infrastructure grants and food shipments, will be cut.

So here we are, debating over how we are going to come up with the trillions and trillions and trillions of Dollars it will take to reduce CO2 emissions, when we don't even know if CO2 causes "global warming"!! 

Somewhere, Al Gore is laughing as he watches the value of his portfolio grow.

Updates on the Big Chill

Following up on yesterday's post:

The Daily Mail of London asks "Whatever happened to global warming?"

From the United States Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works:  "More than 650 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims."

The science reporter for the Houston Chronicle muses:  "The problem is that some climate scientists and environmentalists have been so determined to see something done about carbon dioxide emissions -- now -- that they have glossed over the uncertainties.  Uncertainties like: maybe there isn't a linear relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature, and maybe the planet will cool for a couple of decades even as carbon dioxide emissions accelerate."

Reporter Andrew Bolt, writing in the Herald-Sun of Australia about the turnabout in reporting at the BBC (see my post from yesterday for the BBC article):  "This is like the moment in the Emperor’s New Clothes, in which the boy calls out:  'But he’s naked.'"

Even The New York Times weighs in with an article questioning the relevence of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:  "Specialists in climate modeling warn that governments may have overinflated expectations that science can reliably forecast how global warming will play out locally."

The question now is whether any of the growing skepticism will lead to the death of the disastrous cap and trade bill now under consideration in the United States Senate.

I Feel a Chill in the Air

The concept of "global warming" has become a religion to its followers, with all of the elements required to qualify as a religion.  The god of global warmism?  Mother Earth.  The prophet? Al Gore.  The sacred text?  The proceedings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a creation of--what else?--the United Nations.  And of course, the central tenent:  that the Earth's climate is warming and that mankind is responsible.  The Global Warmists have been such successful evangelists of their religion that their central tenet (see above) is now taught in schools as irrefutable fact.  The mainstream media breathlessly reports every pronouncement from the Prophet and presents those who question the central tenet as mouth-breathing, imbecilic heretics.  The Prophet even received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, which, when combined with President Obama's 2009 award, proves that the prize panel has little interest in peace and a lot of interest in liberal political causes.

But in a jaw-dropping development, the BBC has published an article that dares to question the central tenet of Global Warmism.   The article points out that the warmest year on record--1998--was more than ten years ago and that since then, global temperatures have moderated "even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise." Oh my goodness!  And from the BBC no less, which is hardly a bastion of conservative thought.  The article goes on to quote scientists with differing viewpoints about future climate issues, and it concludes that, "it seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over."

Nevertheless, American liberals and their allies in Congress are trying to push a "cap and trade" carbon emission bill that would result in massive tax increases on American businesses and massive increases in the prices that every American must pay for energy and other goods.  Among other things, the cap and trade bill could signal the end of the American coal industry, putting an end to the source of more than half of all electricity generated in the United States today.  And closer to home, the end of the coal industry would mean incredible hardship for the State of West Virginia and its citizens, where tax revenue generated by the coal industry provides the bulk of state revenue and where wages and benefits paid by the coal industry provide the highest-paying blue collar jobs available.

A new documentary film will be released on October 18 titled, "Not Evil, Just Wrong" that dares to ask the questions that have been ignored by the mainstream media.  The film also addresses the hardships that will be imposed upon the world's poorest people if the Global Warmists have their way.  But you ask:  how could this be?  Liberals are all about the poor!  In truth, liberal policies have been harming the poor and keeping them down for decades.  By working to eliminate cheap and plentiful carbon-based fuel sources, the Global Warmists will guarantee massive increases in the cost of energy around the world, costs that will fall the hardest upon those peoples who would benefit the most from new development and new jobs created by cheap energy.